Science, Technologies, Innovations №2(26) 2023, 26-39 p

 PDF

http://doi.org/10.35668/2520-6524-2023-2-04

Reva O. M. — D. Sc. in Engineering, Professor, Principal Researcher of Ukrainian Institute for Scientific Tecnical Expertise and Information, Antonovycha Str., 180, Kyiv, Ukraine, 03150; +38 (044) 521-00-10; ran54@meta.ua; ORCID: 0000-0002-5954-290X

Kamyshyn V. V. — D. Sc. in Pedagogy, Corresponding Member of the NAES of Ukraine, Director of Ukrainian Institute of Scientific and Technical Expertise and Information, Antonovycha Str., 180, Kyiv, Ukraine, 03150; +38 (044) 521-00-10; kvv@ukrintei.ua; ORCID: 0000-0002-8832-9470

Kyrychenko K. V. — PhD in Engineering, Senior Lecturer at the Department of the Kherson State Maritime Academy, Ushakova Ave. 20, Kherson, Ukraine, 73000; +38 (0552) 49-54-73; kvklecturer@gmail.com; ORCID: 0000-0002-0974-6904

Yarotskyi S. V. — Head of Department of the National Aviation University, Lubomir Guzar Avenue, 1, Kyiv, Ukraine, 03058; +38 (067) 238-31-77; stas_gas@ua.fm; ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-4647

Saganovska L. A. — Senior Lecturer of the Department of Physical and Mathematical Disciplines and Information Technologies in Aviation Systems of the Flight Academy of the National Aviation University, Stepan Choban Str., 1, Kropyvnytskyi, Kirovohrad region, Ukraine, 25005; lora-sag@ukr.net; ORCID: 0000-0002-2560-
4383

FORMATION OF A SPECTRUM OF SYSTEM-INFORMATION CRITERIA FOR THE CONSISTENCY OF EXPERT OPINIONS

Abstract. The article is devoted to the development of a system-information methodology for establishing the consistency of generalized expert opinions. After all, in the process of conducting any research in which expert information is revealed, a paradoxical situation may arise when the indicator of a generalized group opinion, usually obtained based on the “group normalization effect”, is actually determined, but there is no individual opinion that would coincide with it. Moreover, in the context of this publication, we are talking about the consistency of group systems of specialists’ advantages. Under the system of benefits, we mean an ordered series of indicators, characteristics of professional activity or objects of expertise: from more acceptable (important, significant, etc.) to less acceptable. And it is clear that the inconsistency of opinions arises precisely when individual preference systems are aggregated into a group one. It is determined that the consistency of group opinions should be checked in the following areas: 1) for each individual alternative, which is ordered. It is advisable to implement the direction after the introduction into practice of expert research — the methodology and the differential method for establishing a part of the total significance of the compared alternatives; 2) coincidence/non-coincidence of individual systems of preferences of group members; 3) integrally — using the Kendall concordance coefficient; 4) complex. Based on the experience of using a multi-step technology for identifying and screening out marginal thoughts, eliminating the “systematic error of the survivor”, as well as building a “reference” group system of advantages, a set of known and new system-information criteria for the consistency of expert opinions is formulated. We are talking about the requirements for: the probability of the Kendall concordance coefficient, tested using the statistical criterion for testing hypotheses “хі-square”, and its minimum acceptable value, which should be equal to W≥0,7; the need for statistically probable matching of all individual preference systems with group thought in the final group preference system; the need to match the individual system of preferences with the majority opinions of group members etc. Moreover, the last two criteria are implemented based on the Spearman rank correlation coefficient, and their reliability is checked using Student’s t-test. Information about the effectiveness of these criteria is provided.

Keywords: expert technologies, systems of preferences, generalization of opinions, system-information criteria.

REFERENCES

  1. Peregudov, F. I., & Tarasenko, F. P. (1989). Vvedenie v sistemnyj analiz [Introduction to system analysis]. Moscow, 367 p. [in Russ.].
  2. Khodakov, V. Ye., Pylypenko, N. V., & Soko-lova, N. A. (2005). Vstup do kompiuternykh nauk [Introduction to computer science]. Kyiv,496 p. [in Ukr.].
  3. Reva, O. M. (2007). Rishennia na kozhnomu krotsi i … z posmishkoiu [Solutions at every step and … with a smile: A guide for the curious].  Kirovohrad, 308 p. [in Ukr.].
  4. Kamyshyn, V. V., & Reva, O. M. (2012). Metody systemnoho analizu u kvalimetrii navchalno-vykhovnoho protsesu [Methods of system analysis in the quality measurement of the educational process]. Kyiv, 270 p. [in Ukr.].
  5. Kushlyk-Dyvulska, O. I., & Kushlyk, B.R. (2014). Osnovy teorii pryiniattia rishen [Basics of decision-making theory]. Kyiv, 94 p. [in Ukr.].
  6. Edvards, U. (1991). Prinyatie reshenij. CHelovecheskij faktor [Making decisions. The human factor]. Moscow. Vol. 3, Part. I. P. 5–89. [in Russ.].
  7. Mushik, E., & Myuller, P. (1990). Metody prinyatiya tekhnicheskih reshenij [Methods of making technical decisions]. Moscow, 208 p. [in Russ.].
  8. Eddous, M., & Stєnsfild, R. (1997). Metody prinyatiya reshenij [Decision-making methods]. Moscow, 590 p. [in Russ.].
  9. Voloshyn, O. F., & Mashchenko, S. O. (2010). Modeli ta metody pryiniattia rishen [Decision-making models and methods]. Kyiv, 336 p. [in Ukr.].
  10. Hevko, I. B., Liashuk, O. L., Lutsykiv, I.V., Plekan, U. M., & Klendii, V. M. (2021). Tekhniko-ekonomichne obgruntuvannia inzhenernykh rishen na STO ta ATP [Technical and economic substantia-tion of engineering solutions at service stations and ATP]. Ternopil, 276 p. [in Ukr.].
  11. Kozeleckij, Y.; Biryukov, B. V. (Eds.), Minc, G. E., Porus, V. N. (Trans.) (1979). Psihologicheskaya teoriya reshenij [Psychological decision theory]. Moscow, 504 p. [in Russ.].
  12. Kornilova, T. V. (2023). Psihologiya riska i prinyatiya reshenij [Psychology of risk and decision making]. Moscow, 288 p. [in Russ.].
  13. Kaneman, D., Slovik, P., & Tverski, A. (2005). Prinyatie reshenij v neoprede-lennosti: Pravila i predubezhdeniya [Decision Making under Uncertainty: Rules and Bias]. Kharkiv, 632 p. [in Russ.].
  14. Reva, O. M., Borsuk, S. P., &  Shulhin, V. A. (2018). Suchasni problemy liudskoho chynnyka v aviatsii [Modern problems of the human factor in aviation]. Kyiv, 124 p. [in Ukr.].
  15. Reva, O. M., Borsuk, S. P., Kamyshyn, V. V., Shulhin, V. A., Parkhomenko, V. D., & Lypchanskyi V. O. (2019). Systemno-informatsiina metodolohiia proaktyvnoi kvalimetrii vplyvu liudskoho chynnyka na pryiniattia rishen v aeronavihatsiinykh systemakh [System-informational methodology of proactive qualitative measurement of the influence of the human factor on decision-making in aeronautical systems]. Kyiv, 166 p. [in Ukr.].
  16. Reva, O. M., Borsuk, S. P., Zasanska, S. V., & Yarotskyi, S. V. (2021). Obgruntuvannia napriamiv vdoskonalennia ekspertnykh tekhnolohii v doslidzhenniakh liudskoho chynnyka [Justification of directions for improvement of expert technologies in human factor research]. Suchasni informatsiini ta innovatsiini tekhnolohii na transporti (MINNT – 2021) [Modern information and innovative technologies in transport (MINNT – 2021)]. Kherson, P. 49–54. [in Ukr.].
  17. Mirkin, B. G. (1974). Problema gruppovogo vybora [Group choice problem]. Moscow, 256 p. [in Russ.].
  18. Kovalchuk, O. S. (2011). Osoblyvosti pryiniattia upravlinskykh rishen v umo-vakh orhanizatsiinoho rozvytku [Peculiarities of managerial decision-making in the conditions of organizational development]. Aktualni problemy psykholohii [Actual problems of psychology]. Vol. 1. 30, P. 168–174. [in Ukr.].
  19. Safonov, Yu. M., Shandova, N. V., & Maslennikov, S. I. (2015). Metody pryiniattia upravlinskykh rishen [Methods of making managerial decisions]. Odesa, 172 p. [in Ukr.].
  20. Utkin, V. F., & Kryuchkov, Y. V. (Eds.). (1988). Nadezhnost i effektivnost v tekhnike [Reliability and efficiency in technology]. Vol. 3. Moscow, 328 p. [in Russ.].
  21. Samokhvalov, Yu. Ya., & Naumenko, Ye. M. (2007). Ekspertnoe otsenivanie: Metodicheskiy aspekt [Expert assessment: methodological aspect]. Kyiv, 362 p. [in Russ.].
  22. Reva, O. M., Kamyshyn, V. V,. Borsuk, S. P., Nevynitsyn, A. M., & Shulhin, V. A. (2020). Liudskyi chynnyk: Metodolohiia proaktyvnoi kvalymetrii zahroz pomylok aviadyspetcheriv [Human factor: Methodology of proactive risk assessment of air traffic controllers error threats]. Kyiv, 126 p. [in Ukr.].
  23. Reva, O. M., Nevynitsyn, A. M., Kamyshyn, V. V., Shulhin, V. A., & Borsuk, S. P. (2020). Rozvytok tekhnolohii proaktyvnoho vstanovlennia system perevah aviady-spetcheriv na mnozhyni kharakternykh po-mylok [Development of the technology of proactive installation of air traffic control system advantages on a set of characteristic errors]. Intelektualni systemy pryiniattia rishen i problemy obchysliuvalnoho intelektu (ISDMCI2020) [Intelligent decision-making systems and problems of computational intelligence (ISDMCI2020)]. Kherson, P. 140–142. [in Ukr.].
  24. Iarotskyi, S. V. (2021). Pilotna otsinka stavlennia ekspertiv do znachushchosti kha-rakternykh rys innovatsiinoi pryvablyvo-sti obiektiv intelektualnoi vlasnosti [Pilot assessment of the attitude of experts to the significance of the characteristic features of the innovative attractiveness of intellectual property objects]. Aviatsiino-kosmichna tekhnika ta tekhnolohiia [Aerospace engineering and technology]. 4, P. 112–121. https://doi.org/10.32620/aktt.2021.4sup2.15 [in Ukr.].
  25. Biriukov, Yu. Yu. (2011). Klasychni kryterii pryiniattia rishen u vyznachenni hrupovykh perevah aviadyspetcheriv na chynnykakh bezpeky profesiinoi diialnosti [Classic criteria for decision-making in determining group preferences of air traffic controllers on factors of safety of professional activity]. Aviatsiino-kosmichna tekhnika ta tekhnolohiia [Aerospace engineering and technology]. 9, P. 189–194. [in Ukr.].
  26. Reva, A. N., Mirzoev, B. M., Nasirov, Sh. Sh., & Nedbay, S. V. (2012). Empiricheskie modeli otsenki riska-neopredelennosti gruppovykh sistem predpochteniy aviadispetcherov [Empiical models for risk-uncertainty assessment of group preference systems for air traffic controllers]. Elmi məcmuələr : Jurnal Milli Aviasiya Akademiyasinin, 14 (3), P. 46–60. [in Russ.].
  27. Reva, O. M., Kamyshyn, V. V., Nevynitsyn, A. M., Borsuk, S P., & Shulhin, V. A. (2020). Zastosuvannia klasychnykh kryteriiv pryiniattia rishen dlia vyznachennia ryzykiv-nevyz-nachenosti hrupovykh system perevah aviadyspetcheriv na nebezpekakh kharakternykh pomylok [The application of classical decision-making criteria for determining the risks-uncertainty of group systems of the advantages of air traffic controllers on the dangers of characteristic errors]. Nauka, tekhnolohii, innovatsii [Science, technology, innovation]. 2 (14), P. 57–64. [in Ukr.].
  28. Gerasimov, B. M., Divizinyuk, M. M., & Subach, I. Yu. (2004). Sistemy podderzhki prinyatiya resheniy: proektirovanie, primenenie, otsenka effektivnosti [Decision support systems: design, application, performance evaluation]. Sevastopol, 320 p. [in Russ.].
  29. Venttsel, Ye. S. (1969) Teoriya veroyatno-stey [Probability theory]. Moscow, 576 p. [in Russ.].
  30. Myullep, P., Noyman, P., & Shtopm, R. (1982). Tablitsy po matematicheskoy statistike [Mathematical statistics tables]. Moscow, 278 p. [in Russ.].
  31. Bronshteyn, I. N., & Semendyaev, K. A.; Groshe G., Tsigler V. (Eds.) (1981). Spravochnik po matematike (dlya inzhenerov i uchashchikhsya vuzov) [Hand-book of Mathematics (for engineers and university students)]. Moscow, 719 p. [in Russ.].
  32. Supes, P., & Zines, R. (1967). Osnovy teorii izmereniy [Fundamentals of the theory of measurements]. Psikhologicheskie izmereniya [Psychological measurements]. Moscow, P. 9–110. [in Russ.].
  33. Tsyba, V. T. (1997). Osnovy teorii kvalimetrii [Fundamentals of the theory of qualimetry]. Kyiv, 160 p.
  34. Hevorkian, E. S. (2022). Osnovy kvalimetrii [Fundamentals of qualimetry]. Kharkiv, 84 p. [in Ukr.].
  35. Reva, O. M., & Pavliv, O. B. (2010). Za-stosuvannia koefitsiientiv vazhlyvosti al-ternatyv dlia vstanovlennia marhynalnosti dumok ekspertiv [Application of coefficients of importance of alternatives to establish the marginality of experts opinions]. Formuvannia rynkovoi ekonomiky [Formation of market economy]. 24, P. 531–535. [in Ukr.].
  36. Reva, O. M., Kamyshyn, V. V., & Timets, O. V. (2010). Kilkisna i linhvistychna vidpovidnist rivniv sformovanosti kompetentnosti studentiv [Quantitative and linguistic correspondence of the levels of formation of students competence]. Navchannia i vykhovannia obdarovanoi dytyny: teoriia i praktyka [Education and upbringing of a gifted child: theory and practice]. 14, P. 88–101. [in Ukr.].
  37. Reva, O. M., Makarenko, L. M., & Bidnenko R. P. (2010). Linhvistychno-statystychnyi pidkhid do formuvannia vid-povidei respondentiv na testovi zavdannia [A linguistic-statistical approach to the formation of respondents answers to test tasks]. Liudskyi chynnyk u transportnykh systemakh [The human factor in transport systems]. Kyiv, P. 51–52. [in Ukr.].
  38. Kamyshyn, V. V., Reva, O. M., Makarenko, L. M., & Medvedenko, O. M. (2012). Protsedura fazyfikatsii / defazyfikatsii baliv shkal otsiniuvannia [The procedure of fuzzification / defuzzification of scores of rating scales]. Elektronika ta systemy upravlinnia [Electronics and control systems]. 3, P. 53–62. [in Ukr.].
  39. Reva, A. N., Nasirov, Sh. Sh., Mirzoev, B. M., & Nedbay, S. V. (2018). Defazzi-fikatsiya lingvisticheskikh pokazateley nezhelatelnykh sobytiy dlya polucheniya ikh integrativnoy otsenki (na primere kharakternykh oshibok aviadispetcherov) [Defuzzification of linguistic indicators of undesirable events to obtain their integrative assessment (on the example of characteristic errors of air traffic controllers)]. KhKhІІІ Mіzhnar. kongres dviguno-budіvnikіv [XXIII International congress of engine builders]. Kharkiv, P. 74. [in Russ.].
  40. Nasyrov, Sh. Sh. (2011). Vyznachennia koe-fitsiientiv vazhlyvosti kharakternykh pomy-lok aviadyspetcheriv v protsesi upravlin-nia povitrianym rukhom [Determination of coefficients of importance of characteristic errors of air traffic controllers in the process of air traffic control]. Aviatsiino-kosmichna tekhnika i tekhnolohiia [Aviation and space engineering and technology]. 9, P. 195–201. [in Ukr.].
  41. Reva, O. M., Borsuk, S. P., Zasanska, S. V., & Yarotskyi, S. V. (2021). Aprobatsiia α-metodu porivniannia system perevah (na prykladi porivniannia system perevah aviadyspetcheriv na nebezpekakh kharakternykh pomylok) [Approbation of the α-method of comparing advantage systems (on the example of comparing the advantage systems of air traffic controllers on the dangers of characteristic errors)]. Intelektualni systemy pryiniattia rishen i problemy obchysliuvalnoho intelektu [Intelligent decision-making systems and problems of computational intelligence]. Kherson, P. 63–64. [in Ukr.].
  42. Reva, O., Kamyshyn, V., Borsuk, S., & Nevynitsyn, A. (2022). α-Method of Air Traffic Controllers’ Preference System Specification Over Typical Mistakes Severities. ICT with Intelligent Applications. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, Vol 248. doi https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4177-0_68.
  43. Berzh, K. (1962). Teoriya grafov i ee primenenie [Graph Theory and Its Appli-cations]. Moscow, 320 p. [in Russ.].
  44. Blyumberg, V. A., & Glushchenko, V. F. (1982). Kakoe reshenie luchshe? Metod rasstanovki prioritetov [What is the best solution? Prioritization Method]. Leningrad, 160 p. [in Russ.].
  45. Tarasov, V. A., Gerasimov, B. M., Levin, I. A., & Korneychuk, V. A. (2007). Intellektualnye sistemy podderzhki prinyatiya resheniy: Teoriya, sintez, effektivnost [Intelligent Decision Support Systems: Theory, Synthesis, Efficiency]. Kyiv, 336 p. [in Russ.].
  46. Medykovskyi, M. O., & Shunevych, O. B. (2011). Doslidzhennia efektyvnosti metodiv vyznachennia vahovykh koefitsiientiv va-zhlyvosti [Research on the effectiveness of methods for determining weighting co-efficients of importance]. Visnyk Khmel-nytskoho natsionalnoho universytetu [Bulletin of the Khmelnytskyi National University]. 5, P. 176–182. [in Ukr.].
  47. Devid, G. (1978). Metod parnykh sravneniy [Pairwise Comparison Method]. Moscow, 144 p. [in Russ.].
  48. Saati, T. (1993). Prinyatie resheniy. Me-tod analiza ierarkhiy [Making decisions. Hierarchy Analysis Method]. Moscow, 314 p. [in Russ.].
  49. Reva, O. M. (1997). Pryiniattia rishen shliakhom vyiavlennia systemy priorytetiv (perevah) aviaspetsialista : metodychni vkazivky z kursu «Osnovy teorii pryiniat-tia rishen» [Making decisions by identifying the system of priorities (advantages) of an aviation specialist: methodological instructions from the course “Fundamentals of decision-making theory”]. Kirovohrad, 18 p. [in Ukr.].
  50. Reva, O. M., Kamyshyn, V. V., Nevynitsyn, A. M., & Shulhin, V. A. (2019). Aprobatsiia dyferentsialnoho pidkhodu do vyznachen-nia nebezpek pomylok aviadyspetcheriv u profesiinii diialnosti [Approbation of the differential approach to determining the dangers of air traffic controllers errors in their professional activities]. Suchasni enerhetychni ustanovky na transporti, tekhnolohii ta obladnannia dlia yikh obsluhovuvannia SEUTTOO-2019 [Modern energy installations on transport, technologies and equipment for their maintenance SEUTTOO-2019]. Kherson, P. 304-307. [in Ukr.].
  51. Reva, O. M., Kamyshyn, V. V., Nevynitsyn, A. M., & Shulhin, V. A. (2019). Dyferentsialnyi metod vstanovlennia porivnialnoi nebezpeky pomylok aviadyspetcheriv [Differential method of establishing the comparative risk of air traffic controllers errors]. Nauka, tekhnolohii, innovatsii [Science, technology, innovation]. 3 (11), P. 70–82. Doi http://doi.org/10.35668/2520-6524-2019-3-08 [in Ukr.].
  52. Reva, O. M., Borsuk, S. P., Kamyshyn, V. V., Nevynitsyn, A. M., & Shulhin, V. A. (2021). Zastosuvannia dyferentsiinoho pidkhodu do vdoskonalennia tekhnolohii otsiniuvannia nebezpek pomylok aviadyspetcheriv [The application of a differential approach to the improvement of the technology of evaluating the air traffic controllers errors]. Materialy III Mizhnar. nauk.-prakt. konf. kafedry SEU i TE Odeskoho natsionalnoho morskoho universytetu [Materials of the III International science and practice conf. Department of SEU and TE of Odessa National Maritime University]. Kharkiv, P. 401–411. [in Ukr.].
  53. Reva, O., & Kamyshyn, V. (2022). Systemno-informatsiine obgruntuvannia kryteriiv uzghodzhenosti system perevah uchasnykiv osvitno-vykhovnoho protsesu [System and information substantiation of the criteria of consistency of preference systems of participants in the educational process]. Pedahohichni innovatsii: idei, realii, perspektyvy [Pedagogical innovations: ideas, realities, perspectives]. 1, P. 70–78. doi https://doi.org/10.32405/2413-4139-2020-1(28)-70-78 [in Ukr.].
  54. Reva, O. M., Kamyshyn, V. V., Nevynitsyn, A. M., &  Radetska, S. V. (2019). Bahatokrokova protsedura pryiniattia rishen shchodo uzghodzhenosti hrupovykh system perevah aviadyspetcheriv [A multistep decisionmaking procedure regarding the consistency of group systems of air traffic controllers preferences]. Tekhnichne rehuliuvannia, metrolohiia, informatsiini ta transportni tekhnolohii [Technical regulation, metrology, information and transport technologies]. Odesa, P. 147–152. [in Ukr.].
  55. Reva, O. M., Borsuk, S. P., Zavhorodnii, S. O., Sahanovska, L. A., Zasanska, S. V., & Nasirov, Sh. Sh. (2021). Vstanovlennia «etalonnoi» systemy perevah aviadyspetcheriv na spektri kharakternykh pomylok [Establishing a “reference” system of preferences of air traffic controllers on the spectrum of characteristic errors]. Problemy staloho rozvytku morskoho transportu PSDMI-21 [Problems of sustainable development of maritime transport PSDMI-21]. Kherson, P. 75-80. [in Ukr.].
  56. Reva, O. M., Borsuk, S. P., & Kamyshyn, V.V. (2021). Tekhnolohiia usunennia statystychnoi pokhybky «toho, khto vyzhyv», vyznachenni u stavlenni aviadyspetcheriv do nebezpek po-mylok [The technology for eliminating the statistical error of the “survivor” in determining the attitude of air traffic controllers to the dangers of errors]. Aktualni problemy bezpeky na transporti, v enerhetytsi, infrastrukturi [Actual problems of safety in transport, energy, infrastructure]. Kherson, P. 112–116. [in Ukr.].