Federal Agency for Education

State educational institution

higher professional education

"CHELYABINSK STATE UNIVERSITY"

Management department

Course work

In the discipline "Theory of Management"

On the topic: "System approach to management"

Completed:

Checked:

Chelyabinsk 2006

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………. . 3

Part I. Systems approach …………………………………………………… .6

§one. System approach to management and its luminaries …………………………. 6

§2. The modern idea of ​​a systematic approach ………………………. thirteen

2.1. The concept of a systematic approach, its main features and principles ....13

2.2. Differences between traditional and systemic approaches to management … 15

§3. The value of a systematic approach to management.

Part II. System analysis..………………………………………………….19

§one. From the history of the emergence of system analysis…………………………… 19

§2. Definition of the concept of "system analysis"…………………………...……21

§3. The concept of a system……………………………………………………………...27

§4. Rules for applying a systematic approach …………………………………37

Conclusion......…………………………………………………………………………45

List of used literature……………………………………………….47

Introduction

In the early 1920s, the young biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy began to study organisms as certain systems, summarizing his view in the book Modern Theory of Development (1929). In this book, he developed a systematic approach to the study of biological organisms. In the book "Robots, people and consciousness" (1967), he transferred the general theory of systems to the analysis of the processes and phenomena of social life. 1969 - "General Systems Theory". Bertalanffy turns his systems theory into a general disciplinary science.

Subsequently, thanks to the works of such scientists as N. Wiener, W. Ashby, W. McCulloch, G. Bateson, St. Beer, G. Haken, R. Ackoff, J. Forrester, M. Mesarovich, S. Nikanorov, I.Prigozhin, V.Turchin, a number of areas related to the general theory of systems emerged - cybernetics, synergetics, self-organization theory, chaos theory, systems engineering, etc.

The concept of business originated along with the concept of commodity-money relations, i.e. at the communal stage of human development. When the main form of "trade" between communities was barter, nomadic money changers appeared, roaming from one community to another and bartering various goods for their own benefit. This can be considered one of the first manifestations of the spirit of entrepreneurship.

Gradually, with the development of commodity-money relations, business also developed. During slavery, trade flourished; later, during the times of feudalism and the prosperity of subsistence farming, the importance of trade in the countryside slightly decreased, but with the development of cities and handicrafts, it again acquired its original significance. During the formation of capitalism and the initial accumulation of capital, financial entrepreneurship flourished, and later industrial. In the middle of the 19th century, business took on new forms. If before that the sole manager was the owner, then during the times of rapid industrial growth, the structure changed significantly.

It was at this stage that management began to develop in the form in which we are accustomed to perceive this word. It cannot be said that it appeared suddenly precisely with the development of capitalism, it existed before. During the days of slavery, there were plantation managers who monitored the correct execution of work, but it would be more correct to call supervision than management. In times of feudalism and the prosperity of subsistence farming, there were also managers, assistants to the owner, this can probably be considered one of the first manifestations of management, and not just supervision of the workers, since the manager had the opportunity to maneuver: he could replace the type of work in the form of incentives or punishing the peasants, could reduce the tax (though only by raising the tax for others). It was shabby, but still a display of control. But management really began to develop only with the development of capitalism, it was then that there was a need for talented managers who could develop their own strategy for managing the company and developing the business and lead the company to success, or at least save it from bankruptcy.

It was at this time that the scientific theories of management began to be applied with direct reliance on various scientific schools, one of which was the school of management. The School of Management includes a systemic, process and situational approach to management. Complementing each other, these approaches form modern science and management practice. However, it should be borne in mind that there are no universally applicable techniques or principles that would guarantee effective management in all cases. However, already developed approaches and methods can help managers increase the likelihood of effective achievement of the goals of the organization. In my work, I will dwell on a systematic approach in more detail.

At present, the management process is increasingly systemic in nature, the management of any organization is carried out as an impact on a single whole. Managers must clearly understand the interconnection of all systems in their company. Thus, the Modern leader must have systems thinking, because:

 the manager must perceive, process and systematize a huge amount of information and knowledge that are necessary for making managerial decisions;

 the manager needs a systematic methodology, with the help of which he could correlate one direction of his organization's activity with another, and prevent quasi-optimization of managerial decisions;

 the manager must see the forest behind the trees, the general behind the private, rise above everyday life and realize what place his organization occupies in the external environment, how it interacts with another, larger system, of which it is a part;

 a systematic approach to management allows the manager to more productively implement his main functions: forecasting, planning, organization, leadership, control.

In conclusion, I would like to note that the systematic approach includes a large number of issues, each of which is multifaceted, interesting and worthy of separate study. But as part of my work, I will try to most fully highlight the basic principles and provisions of this scientific direction.

Part I. Systems approach

§ 1. System approach to management and its luminaries

Strengthening the interconnectedness of all aspects of the organization's activities (production, financial, marketing, social, environmental, etc.), as well as the expansion, complication and intensification of both internal and external relations, led to the formation of the so-called system approach to management in the middle of the 20th century.

He considers the organization as an integral set of various activities and elements that are in contradictory unity and in interconnection with the external environment, involves taking into account the influence of all factors affecting it, and focuses on the relationships between its elements.

In accordance with it, managerial actions do not just functionally follow from each other (the process approach emphasized this), but all, without exception, have both direct and indirect effects on each other. By virtue of this change in one link of the organization inevitably cause changes in the rest, and ultimately in it as a whole.

Therefore, each manager, when making his own decisions, must take into account their impact on the overall results, and the main goal of management is to integrate the elements of the organization, to find mechanisms for maintaining its integrity.

One of the representatives of the systems approach, who first considered the enterprise as a social system, was the American researcher C. Barnard (1887-1961), who for two decades served as president of the New York Bell Telephone Company. He outlined his ideas in the books "Functions of the Administrator" (1938), "Organization and Management" (1948), etc.

According to Barnard, the physical and biological limitations inherent in people force them to unite in order to achieve goals in concerted groups (social systems). Any such system, he believed, can be divided into two parts: an organization (a system of consciously coordinated activities of two or more persons), which includes only the interaction of people, and other elements.

Any organization, according to Barnard, is hierarchical (this is its main feature), unites individuals who have a conscious common goal, who are ready to cooperate with each other, contribute to a common cause, and obey a single authority. All organizations (with the exception of the state and the Church) Barnard considered as private.

Organizations can be formal or informal. Each formal organization includes: a) a system of functioning; b) a system of incentives that encourage people to contribute to group activities; c) a system of power (authority), which inclines the members of the group to agree with the decisions of the administration; d) a system of logical decision making.

The head of a formal organization must ensure the activity of its most important links, take full responsibility for the actions of subordinates, maintain internal communications, formulate goals, find a balance between opposing forces and events, the contribution of people and the satisfaction of their needs.

People will cooperate effectively with an organization if they benefit from it. Therefore, the first duty of the leader is to manage incentives for activity, because orders are perceived only within certain limits.

Barnard believed that the emergence of informal organizations that make the formal more viable is inevitable.

The purpose of the informal organization, according to Barnard, is to disseminate informal information; maintaining the stability of the formal organization; ensuring the personal safety of employees, self-respect, independence from formal organization.

He spoke about the need for careful consideration in management of moral factors, because many failures of administrators are associated with the inability to do this.

Based on a systematic approach, Barnard put forward the concept of corporate social responsibility, according to which management must take into account the consequences of decisions made and be responsible for them to society and the individual.

Another representative of the systemic approach can be considered P. Drucker (often referred to as the followers of the classical school), who made a significant contribution to the creation of a holistic concept of management and the definition of the role of a professional manager in an organization.

In the book The Practice of Management, Drucker noted the exceptional role of management and the managerial elite, considering them the basis of entrepreneurship and human society.

The term "system" in Greek means "a whole made up of parts." In the world around us, everything is systemic, which each of us feels intuitively - from the hydrogen atom to the Universe. Human society, acting as part of nature, also forms a system. Systems theory defines this category as a set of interacting elements that are in relationships and connections that make up a holistic formation that has new properties that its elements do not have. We emphasize that a system is a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Consider the components of the system and its main properties. The system consists of separate elements, representing concrete objects, indecomposable parts, system components. These elements have certain properties, which express their qualitative specificity. The specific properties of the elements find their expression in their functions, which are certain actions that can manifest themselves only in the presence of another element that, by virtue of compatibility with it, can perceive and transform this effect. The properties of the elements determine their place in the internal organization of the system. Elements function and develop within the system, so their properties are subordinate to the properties of the system as a whole. The functioning of the system is normal only in the case of organic and harmonious interaction of all its elements, despite the fact that each of them plays an independent role in the implementation of the goals of the system.

Elements and properties of the system are combined into a whole using connections. The connection between the elements is carried out not only directly, but also indirectly. Most often, systems may not know the exact number of elements, such as the number of minor planets in the solar system. All element properties may be unknown (for example, side effect many medicines, the beneficial effect of the introduction of some social technology), may be unknown and many connections in the systems.

Everything that is not included in the system and affects it, or that the system itself affects, is called its external environment, which differs significantly from its internal environment. The relative independence of the system from the environment and other systems is described using the category integrity.

In the analysis of systems, the study of their structure is of considerable interest. Structure reflects the most significant, stable links between the elements of the system and their groups, which provide the basic properties of the system. In other words, the structure is a form of organization of the system, its skeleton, backbone. But it must be taken into account that the structure of the system may undergo certain changes depending on internal or external factors, from time to time.

State The system is revealed on the basis of its study, for example, when analyzing input actions and results at the output of the system.

Equilibrium system is its ability in the absence of external influences to maintain an arbitrarily predetermined state.

Sustainability It is characterized as the ability of a system to return to a state of equilibrium after it has been brought out of it under the influence of an external influence.

concept "development" characterizes the improvement of the structure and functions of the system under the influence mainly internal factors, in connection with which the behavior of the system becomes more ordered and predictable. Many systems have the property of development.

The diversity of systems requires their classification. Systems analysts distinguish three types of systems: organic (living organisms), mechanical, socio-economic. There are others ways to classify systems:

By origin(natural and artificial);

By content specifics(technical, organizational, informational, economic, political, social, etc.);

By way of being(material, ideal, virtual);

By degree of connection with the environment(open and closed);

By depending on time(static, dynamic);

By conditionality of action(deterministic, probabilistic);

by place in the hierarchy of systems(supersystems, large systems, subsystems, elements, etc.).

Let us turn to the analysis of the general properties of systems. General properties of systems are some standard qualities of elements and ways of interaction between them. Large systems have a number of common properties that must be taken into account when analyzing them. :

non-additivity(a large system is not equal to the sum of its subsystems);

synergy(unidirectionality of actions in the system, which leads to an increase in the final result);

multiplicativity(effects both negative and positive in large systems have the property of multiplication);

integrity(no need to add or eliminate individual structural elements of the system to improve the efficiency and sustainability of operation);

isolation(relative isolation, autonomy of certain systems);

adaptability(the ability of the system to adapt to changes in internal and external conditions in such a way that its stability and efficiency are not violated);

compatibility(all elements of the system must have the property of mutual adaptability);

Feedback(use of information about the results of the influence of the control system on the controlled system by comparing the actual state with the given one).

It must be borne in mind that all these properties are always manifested in a complex, simultaneously. Depending on the goals of the analysis, certain properties may come to the fore.

The formation of a systematic approach made it possible to consider organizations in the unity of all constituent elements and subsystems. In the first works on general systems theory, the main attention was paid to the consideration of internal elements and the relationships between them, structures and processes that ensure the achievement of goals and obtaining results. From the standpoint of a systematic approach, an organization was considered as any socio-economic entity that has a certain freedom to choose forms of activity and is a single organizational structure, the elements of which are interconnected and function together to achieve common goals. And management was interpreted as a property of a system seeking to preserve its structure and strengthen its internal ties. This approach contributed to the formation of an organization model as a closed system that does not exchange energy, information, system product with the external environment (Taylorism, administrative school, school of human relations).

As the connections of organizations with the external environment become more complex, the emphasis in works on the systemic representation of organizations is shifted to identifying and describing its inseparable connection with the external world. As a result, features of the organization model as an open system (quantitative approach, situational approach, theories of strategies, etc.) were formed. This model describes a social organization as a dynamic system that closely interacts with the external environment (it consumes material and social resources, information and gives the external environment - society - a certain system product) and responds to the dynamics of its changes.

Considering the organization as a system, it is necessary to take into account all its constituent subsystems, their interaction with each other and relationships with the external environment.

Internal environment each organization is formed under the influence of variables that have a direct impact on the processes carried out here. It is they who determine the structure of the organization, the necessary resources and culture, which reflect the state and main features of the internal environment. The internal environment of the organization includes such factors as the goal, objectives, personnel, structure, technology.

External environment characterized as a set of variables that are outside the boundaries of the organization and are not directly affected by its management. The external environment is usually treated as more complex than the internal environment subsystem of the organization. The most important characteristics of the external environment of the organization are its dynamism, the degree of predictability of changes (uncertainty), the complexity of the structure and heterogeneity.

Distinguish broad and narrow interpretation of the external environment of the organization. Wide interpretation involves consideration of the external environment in the form of a macro- and microenvironment. The macro environment includes the characteristics of culture (values, norms, law, technology), the language environment, etc. The microsystem includes their carriers - communities, groups, social institutions, organizations. In the classification given by M. Albert, M. Meskon, F. Hedouri, factors of indirect and direct impact are also distinguished. The former include: the state of the economy, scientific and technological progress, socio-cultural factors, the political environment, the latter - labor resources, consumer markets, other firms with which this organization either competes or is in a state of cooperation, as well as government or higher institutions.

In the practice of modern management, the most commonly used narrow interpretation of the external environment of the organization, within which only a certain part of the microenvironment stands out. These are organizations, social groups with which this organization is in direct interaction and on which its effectiveness and survival directly depend. In this case, the external environment is called the organization's target environment.

The importance of environmental factors for the development of the organization increases due to the complexity of the entire system of public relations and relations. Their influence on the organization can manifest itself, firstly, in the form of opportunities, the use of which can have a positive impact on the organization's activities, and secondly, in the form of threats that characterize such factors that, when implemented, pose a danger to the organization.

Internal environment each organization is formed under the influence of variables that have a direct impact on the processes carried out here. It is they who determine the structure of the organization, the necessary resources and culture, which reflect the state and main features of the internal environment.

social system, the elemental composition of which - people, as well as the relations that arise between them, differs significantly from all systems of both living and inanimate nature. Each social system consists of two independent, but interconnected subsystems: managed and managing (object and subject of management). TO managed subsystem include all the elements that ensure the direct process of creating material and spiritual wealth or providing services. TO control subsystem include all elements that ensure the process of targeted impact on people and resources of the managed system.

Communication between the control and managed systems is carried out with the help of information, which serves as the basis for the development of management actions and decisions coming from the control system to the controlled one for execution.

We emphasize the main requirements for using a systematic approach:

Isolation of a particular system from the surrounding world and determination of the relationship between it and the environment;

Definition of the constituent elements of the system;

Consideration of the relationship between the elements and the specific structure of the system;

Analysis of the functions of elements in relation to the system;

Identification of backbone links;

Determination of the mechanism of functioning of the system.

Great opportunities in the study of social systems opens up synergy - a general theory of self-organization of complex systems based on the fundamental properties of irreversibility and nonequilibrium inherent in developing systems of any nature. That is, in synergetics, we are not talking about stable linear systems, but about systems where, due to the influx of energy and matter from the external environment, a disequilibrium is created and maintained. In this case, the systems acquire a non-linear (polyvariant) character of development and new stable structures and self-organization appear in them.

The main ideas of synergetics, forming non-linear, integrative thinking are as follows:

Systems should be considered not in a static, but in a dynamic state (a state of pulsation). The development of complex open systems can be represented in two models:

evolutionary(where there are various determinations - functional, target, system, correlation, aimed at maintaining the existing quality and patterns);

bifurcation(where the weakening of internal ties leads to a state of disequilibrium, the disappearance of the old quality, the search for ways of development in conditions of unpredictability);

All systems have relative plasticity to the process of transformation, since their existence is conditioned by internal, objective tendencies. Naturally, these internal regularities must be taken into account in the process of managing complex systems;

Any complex system has not one, but several ways of possible development, which is determined by a complex combination of internal factors and the dynamics of the external environment;

Chaos has a dual, ambivalent meaning. Thus, under the conditions of the evolutionary model of the development of the system, the growth of chaos is negative character, because it leads to the destruction of internal patterns and homeostasis. And in the conditions of the bifurcation model of the development of the system, chaos is of a creative nature, since it acts as a mechanism for self-organization and self-completion of structures, removal of everything superfluous, exit into relatively simple macrostructures - attractors of evolution;

In any complex system, there are special "resonance" points, the impact on which causes the excitation of the entire system as a whole. The effectiveness of the impact on the system will depend not on the magnitude of the impact, but on the ability to cause resonance in the mechanisms of a non-linear positive connection.

15. Organization as an object of management. The term "organization" has a very broad meaning. In cybernetics, economics, biology, and technical sciences, it is synonymous with the concept of “orderliness”. A.I. Prigogine gives the three most common meanings of the concept of "organization" in relation to social objects:

How artificial association of people of an institutional nature, (organization as a phenomenon) occupying a certain place in society and performing specific functions. In this sense, the organization acts as a social institution with a certain status and is considered as an autonomous entity. These are enterprises, authorities, unions, cooperatives, etc.;

How certain organization activity (organization as a process) the distribution of functions, the establishment of stable relationships, coordination, etc. That is, it acts as a process of purposeful influence on the object. In this sense, the concept of "organization" coincides with the concept of "management";

as a characteristic degree of order some object (as a structure). Here, organization is understood as a certain structure, structure and type of connections as a way of connecting parts into a whole, specific for each kind of objects. The organization acts as a property, an attribute of an object. This content of the term is used, for example, when it comes to organized and unorganized systems, effective and inefficient organization, etc. It is this meaning that is implied in the concepts formal and informal organization.

Consider the first meaning of the organization and note its most important characteristics. Social organizations most often arise when the achievement of any common goals is recognized as possible only through the achievement of individual goals (1) or when the achievement of individual goals is possible only through the promotion and achievement of common goals (2). In the first case, business (administrative) organizations are created, in the second, joint-stock companies and the so-called mass union organizations arise. Considered in this way, the organization enters as a system of exchange between the whole and its elements.

The defining feature of social organization is the target community. But the need for the implementation of the collective goal by the members of the organization causes the need for hierarchy and management which are two production signs of goal achievement. Signs of the hierarchical structure of the organization are two vertical subsystems: the subject and the object of organizational influence, as well as the horizontal division of areas of activity and competence, role distribution of functions.

In an organization, the following dimensions of its social properties can be traced:

An organization is, first of all, a collective social subject of activity, a social system that unites, coordinates and directs the behavior of people in the process of joint activity. Their activities are integrated, and the actions of members of the organization are conscious and purposeful. From this point of view, in the activities of the organization, the problem of the effectiveness of results, motivation and stimulation of personnel comes to the fore;

The organization develops as a set of social groups, statuses; specific relationships are formed in it: leadership, partnership, cooperation - conflict;

The organization exists as a formal, impersonal structure of relationships and norms, determined by administrative and cultural factors. In a formal organization, people's relationships are formed on the basis of precisely defined job relationships.

Numerous parameters that are used to describe organizations as objects of management predetermine their great diversity, and, consequently, the need to group uniform organizations. To do this, in the theory and practice of management, various criteria and signs are used, on the basis of which the classification is made. There are different approaches to the selection of criteria. Most often, in theoretical works, it is proposed to use such criteria as the degree of formalization, forms of ownership, attitude to profit, organizational and legal forms, size, assignment to sectors of the economy, etc.

Based formalization criterion stand out formal and informal organizations. Formal organization is an impersonal structure of relationships and norms, determined by administrative and cultural factors. In a formal organization, people's relationships are formed on the basis of precisely defined job relationships.

Social formalization - this is the purposeful formation of standard, impersonal patterns of behavior and rules, standards, regulations, programs that regulate the behavior of employees and the activities of the organization. It is fixed in normative documents that fix the relationship of formal (official and professional) positions.

The phenomenon of formalization of managerial and business relations as the most important feature of modern administrative organizations was first analyzed by M. Weber in his concept of bureaucracy. The classical school of management identified the following principles for the functioning of an administrative organization:

A clear division of labor;

Limiting specialization of activity; unity of command and hierarchy;

Standardization of activities and formalization of relations;

Delineation of areas of competence;

Distribution of power at all levels of the hierarchy;

Centralization of management and regulation of power.

According to most modern Western management concepts, the logic of creating a formal organization is universal and is due to the fact that it is necessary to overcome the excessive complexity and diversity of managerial relations by simplifying, standardizing, formalizing and reducing them to relationships between job positions. The formalization of relations is considered as rational in nature, international and universal phenomenon, which covers both the system of power relations and the content of the activities performed.

Formalization can never cover all organizational relationships. Therefore, along with the formal part, there is always another type of organization - a socio-psychological organization as a spontaneously developing system of interpersonal relations that inevitably arise as a result of more or less long-term communication based on the interaction of workers as individuals. We are talking about an informal organization, the signs of which were first identified by representatives of the school of human relations (E. Mayo, F. Roethlisberger, V. Dixon) in the process of comprehending the results of the Hawthorne experiment. E. Mayo considered an informal organization as a system of relations that inevitably and spontaneously arises when an official formal organization is created. It is implemented at the level of a small contact group.

The informal organization is thus as much a reality as the formal one. It appears always and everywhere where the team consists of at least three people. Its peculiarity is that it is not created, as a formal one, by order of top management, but in accordance with the personal inclinations of employees, and the communication process here takes place not from top to bottom, as in a formal one, but in all directions, regardless of the position held. An informal organization is not managed by officials, but by its own informal leaders, it has its own assessments and group opinion about everything that happens inside and around this organization.

In an informal organization, therefore, mechanisms of self-organization are used. The main source of regulation of people's behavior in it are the norms and values ​​that regulate the system of relations at the level of interpersonal interactions and direct contacts. The normative system of an informal organization is more flexible and dynamic than a formal organization and is not initially focused on achieving common organizational goals. We also note that group sanctions are characteristic of an informal organization as a reaction to deviations from informal norms, behavioral labor standards, as well as the mobility and spontaneity of goals and norms.

In addition to distinguishing between formal and informal organizations, there are other typologies of them. So, for example, Ch. Barnard subdivided organizations according to the scale of coverage into: societal (state, church) and private, to which he attributed all the rest, and according to the degree of rigidity and formalization of hierarchically built power structures - into scalar and lateral. In the classification of A.I. Prigozhin, the degree of formalization of relations and the ability of employees to influence the goals of the organization are taken as a basis. He distinguishes the following organizational forms:

administrative (business) organizations- firms and institutions that either arise on their own for commercial purposes, or are created by broader organizational systems to solve individual problems. The goals of employees are not always related to the goals of the owners or the state. Membership of workers provides a livelihood. The basis of internal regulation is the administrative procedure, the principles of unity of command, appointment, commercial expediency;

public unions, mass organizations, the goals of which are developed "from the inside" and represent a generalization of the individual goals of the participants. Regulation is ensured by a jointly adopted charter, the principle of election, i.e., the dependence of the leadership on the led. Membership in them gives the satisfaction of political, social, economic, amateur needs;

association organizations– family, scientific school, informal group. Some autonomy from the environment, relative stability of the composition, hierarchy (headship, leadership), a relatively stable distribution of participants (by roles, prestige), acceptance common solutions. Regulatory functions are carried out by the collective norms and values ​​spontaneously formed in them. However, the degree of their formalization is insignificant. But their more important difference from organizations of the first two types is in the features of the target properties: they are built on mutual satisfaction of interests, when not a common goal is a factor of unification, but the goals of each other, i.e. the goal of one participant serves as a means to achieve the goal of another. The finite, the whole, and here is not identical with its components, but the general goals are coinciding individual ones.

So far, we have considered the organization from a functional point of view. However, there are a number of types of organizational structures, which are based on the distribution of powers and production responsibilities between departments. Organizational management structure - it is a set of all elements and links of the management system and permanent links established between them. There are organizational management systems at the level of organization, industry, region, etc. These structures have qualitative differences at each level depending on industry specifics, the level of concentration and specialization of production, market needs, conditions for including the organization into the system of regional and national economy.

16. Organizational structures in management: their essence, types. The search for the most adequate, effective organizational management structures is associated, first of all, with the fullest use of the capabilities of existing, traditional management structures, as well as with the generalization of the experience of the most talented leaders. Management practices are known The five main types of formal organizational structures in administrative systems are: linear; linear-functional; linear staff, divisional, matrix.

Linear organization of management. Job responsibilities here are distributed in such a way that each employee is maximally focused on fulfilling the production tasks of the organization. All powers are direct (linear), they go from the highest level of management to the lowest. Among the advantages of a linear organization are responsibility, established obligations, a clear distribution of duties and powers; operational decision-making process; ease of understanding and use; the ability to maintain the necessary discipline. This type of managerial structure was the traditional form of social organization until the early 20th century. At present, the linear structure of the organization is not used in its pure form anywhere, except in the army, where such a structure exists at the lower levels of army organizations, or organizations of the simplest types. At the same time, it is present as an element of the formal structure in all administrative organizations in which relations between the heads of production units are built on the basis of the principle of unity of command. The heads of such services are called line managers. The main disadvantage of the linear structure of the organization is the inability to use the labor of narrow functional specialists, which is the main obstacle to its use in modern multidisciplinary organizations.

The most common type of formal organizational structure is linear functional. It is built on the principles of attracting highly qualified professionals with a narrow specialization to management. The concept and principles of building a linear-functional organizational structure of management were proposed by F. Taylor, who developed a model for the widespread use of functional specialists in the management system of a production organization. A distinctive feature of this structure is that management here is carried out both by linear (for example, the head of the organization, the site foreman) and functional managers (for example, a technologist, an accountant, etc.). The main disadvantages of the linear-functional management structure are: violation of the principle of unity of command; difficulties in making and implementing agreed management decisions, ensuring their complexity; Difficulty in recruiting senior managers.

In the West until the 1950s, and in Russia until the early 1990s. prevailed line-staff management structure, which is optimal for large manufacturing organizations operating in closed systems with a stable environment and technology. The principles of building a linear staff structure in an organization were formulated by H. Emerson and A. Fayol. In Russia, the propagandists of such a structure in the 1920s–30s. were N.A. Vitka and P.M. Kerzhentsev. This structure acts as a combination of linear and functional structures: the distribution of power and formal relations in units created for the production of products and services are based on the principle of a linear structure, and in support services - functional. At the same time, in the higher echelons of the functional services, a special advisory body is formed under the first head, and sometimes under the line managers of a lower rank - the headquarters. Representatives of the headquarters participate in the development of the strategy, making managerial decisions and monitoring their implementation. The main drawback of this structure is its inability to work in a dynamic market. In addition, it is characterized by "blockage of information channels" and "information overload of key figures in the leadership of the organization."

The desire to increase flexibility (adaptability to changes in the external environment) has led to the emergence divisional structures, created in large organizations. The divisional structure is often combined with a program-targeted approach. In this case, the solution of the tasks facing the organization is entrusted to departments specially formed for this purpose - project (working) groups or divisions. They are separated from the parent organization, they are given independence sufficient for the implementation of operational management. The performance of the functions that are most important for the long-term development of the organization as a whole remains the responsibility of the central management apparatus, where strategies for the development of the organization, investment in research and development are developed.

The structuring of the organization by departments is carried out according to one of three criteria: by types of products or services provided (product specialization), by orientation to certain consumer groups (consumer specialization), by territories served (regional specialization). As a result, the organization's response to changes in the external environment is accelerated, its connection with consumers becomes closer. The department is managed by specially appointed managers, and not by the heads of functional services.

The structures of the type under consideration are highly flexible, quite simple and economical, and allow the organization to develop several projects in parallel without changing the usual management structure. The main disadvantage of such a structure is the problem of allocating resources (including personnel) between projects, since project managers are required not only to skillfully manage all stages life cycle development, but also taking into account the role they play in the organization's network of projects.

The matrix structure of the organization - a substructure of a formal organization established on a permanent-temporary basis for project management. in our country since the 1970s. certain experience has been accumulated in creating such a structure, primarily in the defense industry. The matrix structure of the organization corresponds to the matrix form: one side of the “matrix” is a set of people and resources allocated to carry out innovative activities on an ongoing basis, and the other side is people and resources temporarily allocated by stably functioning units within the divisional structure (marketing, production, scientific - research and design development) for the implementation of a specific project. Upon completion of the project, the structure created on a temporary basis is dissolved and the allocated staff returns to their units.

As a disadvantage of this structure, they note the complication of formal relations, the emergence of double subordination of the employee, which violates the trajectory of his career. In addition, the introduction of a matrix structure has a negative impact on the accepted system of formal communications and subordination.

Currently, the world is beginning to dominate management systems that rely on the principles of development and use of the internal potential of the organization that meet the modern needs of the market. This type, in particular, includes network management systems that form a new culture of relations within the organization by abandoning the traditional administrative hierarchy.

Control Features network structures consist in the rejection of the principle of a rigidly vertical hierarchy and in the transition to the principle of project management. At the same time, the same manager can simultaneously be the head of one project, an expert of another, and one of the executors of the third, which mobilizes his internal potential to the maximum, and the rotation of managers within the network is one of the strongest incentives for their development.

Main principle here - the maximum correspondence of the qualifications, abilities and knowledge of each manager to the tasks of solving the problems of the corporation's business development. Network types of organizational management structures, in contrast to hierarchical ones, are practically not subject to the danger of bureaucratization; they are extremely flexible and receptive to innovations, capable of self-development.

The attractiveness of network structures is explained by very high economic indicators, which are due to two factors - the competence and efficiency of the organizational network. Network structures are an ideal school for improving the competence of company employees, since the best performers are involved in solving certain problems. Such an elitist principle of cooperation inherent in the network company excludes the use of "second-rate" performers, although the latter work in the same company.

At the same time, the shortcomings of the network management structure include, firstly, the excessive dependence of the results on the staff, the growth of risks associated with staff turnover; secondly, the lack of material and social support for network participants due to the rejection of classic long-term contractual forms and conventional labor relations.

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………2

1. The concept of a systematic approach, its main features and principles……………….2

2. Organizational system : main elements and types…………………………3

3. Systems theory………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

• Basic concepts and characteristics of general systems theory

Example: a bank from a systems theory point of view

4. The value of a systematic approach to management …………………………………………...7
Introduction

As the Industrial Revolution unfolded, the rise of large organizational forms of business spurred new ideas about how businesses function and how they should be managed. Today there is a developed theory that gives directions for achieving effective management. The first emerging theory is usually called the classical school of management, there are also the school of social relations, the theory of a systematic approach to organizations, the theory of probability, etc.

In my report, I want to talk about the theory of a systematic approach to organizations as ideas for achieving effective management.

1. The concept of a systematic approach, its main features and principles

In our time, an unprecedented progress in knowledge is taking place, which, on the one hand, has led to the discovery and accumulation of many new facts, information from various areas of life, and thus confronted humanity with the need to systematize them, to find the general in the particular, the constant in the changing. There is no unambiguous concept of a system. In the most general form, a system is understood as a set of interrelated elements that form a certain integrity, a certain unity.

The study of objects and phenomena as systems caused the formation of a new approach in science - a systematic approach.

The system approach as a general methodological principle is used in various branches of science and human activity. The epistemological basis (epistemology is a branch of philosophy, studying forms and methods scientific knowledge) is a general systems theory, the beginning of the cat. put by the Australian biologist L. Bertalanffy. In the early 1920s, the young biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy began to study organisms as certain systems, summarizing his view in the book Modern Theory of Development (1929). In this book, he developed a systematic approach to the study of biological organisms. In the book "Robots, people and consciousness" (1967), he transferred the general theory of systems to the analysis of the processes and phenomena of social life. 1969 - "General Systems Theory". Bertalanffy turns his systems theory into a general disciplinary science. He saw the purpose of this science in the search for the structural similarity of the laws established in various disciplines, based on the cat. system-wide patterns can be deduced.

Let's define traits systems approach :

1. Syst. approach - a form of methodological knowledge, connected. with the study and creation of objects as systems, and applies only to systems.

2. Hierarchy of knowledge, requiring a multi-level study of the subject: the study of the subject itself - "own" level; the study of the same subject as an element of a wider system - a "superior" level; the study of this subject in relation to the elements that make up this subject is a “subordinate” level.

3. The system approach requires considering the problem not in isolation, but in the unity of relations with the environment, to comprehend the essence of each connection and individual element, to make associations between general and particular goals.

In view of what has been said, we define the concept of a systematic approach :

Syst. an approach- this is an approach to the study of an object (problem, phenomenon, process) as a system, in a cat. the elements, internal and external relations, which most significantly affect the results of its functioning under study, and the goals of each of the elements, based on the general purpose of the object, are highlighted.

It can also be said that the systems approach - this is such a direction of the methodology of scientific knowledge and practical activity, which is based on the study of any object as a complex integral socio-economic system.

Let's turn to history.

Before becoming at the beginning of the XX century. management science rulers, ministers, commanders, builders, making decisions were guided by intuition, experience, traditions. Acting in specific situations, they sought to find the best solutions. Depending on experience and talent, a manager could expand the spatial and temporal boundaries of the situation and spontaneously comprehend his object of management more or less systematically. However, until the 20th century management was dominated by a situational approach, or management by circumstances. The defining principle of this approach is the adequacy of the managerial decision regarding a particular situation. Adequate in this situation is the decision that is the best from the point of view of changing the situation, immediately after the appropriate managerial impact has been exerted on it.

Thus, a situational approach is an orientation towards the nearest positive result ("and then we'll see..."). It is thought that "next" will again be the search for the best solution in the situation that arises. But the solution at the moment is the best, it may turn out to be completely different as soon as the situation changes or unaccounted for circumstances are revealed in it.

The desire to respond to each new turn or turn (change in vision) of the situation in an adequate way leads to the fact that the manager is forced to make more and more new decisions that run counter to the previous ones. He actually ceases to control events, but swims with their flow.

This does not mean that ad hoc management is ineffective in principle. A situational approach to decision-making is necessary and justified when the situation itself is extraordinary and the use of previous experience is obviously risky, when the situation changes quickly and in an unpredictable way, when there is no time to take into account all the circumstances. So, for example, rescuers of the Ministry of Emergency Situations often have to look for the best solution precisely within the framework of a particular situation. Nevertheless, in the general case, the situational approach is not effective enough and must be overcome, replaced or supplemented by a systematic approach.

1. Integrity, allowing to consider both the system as a whole and at the same time as a subsystem for higher levels.

2. hierarchical structure, those. the presence of a plurality (at least two) of elements located on the basis of the subordination of elements of a lower level to elements of a higher level. The implementation of this principle is clearly visible in the example of any particular organization. As you know, any organization is an interaction of two subsystems: managing and managed. One is subordinate to the other.

3. Structurization, allowing to analyze the elements of the system and their interrelationships within a specific organizational structure. As a rule, the process of functioning of the system is determined not so much by the properties of its individual elements, but by the properties of the structure itself.

4. multiplicity, allowing the use of many cybernetic, economic and mathematical models to describe individual elements and the system as a whole.

2. Organizational system: main elements and types

Any organization is considered as an organizational and economic system that has inputs and outputs and a certain number of external links. The term "organization" should be defined. There have been various attempts throughout history to identify this concept.

1. The first attempt was based on the idea of ​​expediency. Organization is an expedient arrangement of parts of the whole, which has a specific purpose.

2. Organization - a social mechanism for the implementation of goals (organizational, group, individual).

3. Organization - harmony, or correspondence, of parts between themselves and the whole. Any system develops on the basis of the struggle of opposites.

4. An organization is a whole that cannot be reduced to a simple arithmetic sum of its constituent elements. This is a whole that is always greater or less than the sum of its parts (it all depends on the effectiveness of the connections).

5. Chester Bernard (in the West is considered one of the founders of modern management theory): when people get together and officially decide to join their efforts to achieve common goals, they create an organization.

It was a retrospective. Today, an organization can be defined as a social community that brings together a number of individuals to achieve a common goal, which (individuals) act on the basis of certain procedures and rules.

Based on the previously given definition of the system, we define the organizational system.

Organizational system- this is a certain set of internally interconnected parts of the organization, forming a certain integrity.

The main elements of the organizational system (and hence the objects of organizational management) are:

·production

marketing and sales

·finance

·information

Personnel, human resources - have a system-forming quality, the efficiency of the use of all other resources depends on them.

These elements are the main objects of organizational management. But the organizational system has another side:

People. The task of the manager is to promote the coordination and integration of human activities.

Goals and tasks. The organizational goal is an ideal blueprint for the future state of the organization. This goal contributes to the unification of the efforts of people and their resources. Goals are formed on the basis of common interests, so the organization is a tool for achieving goals.

Organizational structure. A structure is a way of organizing the elements of a system. Organizational structure is a way of connecting various parts of an organization into a certain integrity (the main types of organizational structure are hierarchical, matrix, entrepreneurial, mixed, etc.). When we design and maintain these structures, we manage.

Specialization and separation labor. It is also a control object. The fragmentation of complex production processes, operations and tasks into components that require the specialization of human labor.

Organizational power- this is the right, ability (knowledge + skills) and willingness (will) of the leader to pursue his own line in the preparation, adoption and implementation of managerial decisions. Each of these components is necessary for the exercise of power. Power is interaction. A powerless and inefficient manager cannot organize the function of coordinating and integrating people's activities. Organizational power is not only a subject, but also an object of management.

Organizational culture- the system of traditions, beliefs, values, symbols, rituals, myths, norms of communication between people inherent in the organization. Organizational culture gives an organization its own identity. Most importantly, it brings people together, creates organizational integrity.

Organizational borders- these are material and non-material constraints that fix the isolation of this organization from other objects located in the external environment of the organization. The manager must have the ability to expand (in moderation) the boundaries of his own organization. In moderation means taking only what you can keep. To manage boundaries means to delineate them in time.

Organizational systems can be divided into closed and open:

Closed an organizational system is a system that has no connection with its external environment (i.e., it does not exchange products, services, goods, etc. with the external environment). An example is subsistence farming.

open the organizational system has connections with the external environment, i.e., other organizations, institutions that have connections with the external environment.

Thus, an organization as a system is a set of interrelated elements that form integrity (ie, internal unity, continuity, interconnection). Any organization is an open system, because interacts with the external environment. It receives resources from the environment in the form of capital, raw materials, energy, information, people, equipment, etc., which become elements of its internal environment. Part of the resources with the help of certain technologies is processed, converted into products and services, which are then transferred to the external environment.

3. Systems theory

Let me remind you that systems theory was developed by Ludwig von Bertalanffy in the 20th century. Systems theory deals with the analysis, design and operation of systems - independent business units that are formed by interacting, interconnected and interdependent parts. It is clear that any organizational form of business meets these criteria and can be studied using the concepts and tools of systems theory.

Any enterprise is a system that turns a set of resources invested in production - costs (raw materials, machines, people) - into goods and services. It functions within a larger system - a foreign policy, economic, social and technical environment in which it constantly enters into complex interactions. It includes a series of subsystems that are also interconnected and interact. Disruption of functioning in one part of the system causes difficulties in other parts of it. For example, a large bank is a system that operates within a wider environment, interacts with and is associated with it, and is also affected by it. Departments and branches of the bank are subsystems that must interact without conflict in order for the bank as a whole to work effectively. If something breaks in a subsystem, it will eventually (if left unchecked) affect the efficiency of the bank as a whole.

Basic concepts and characteristics of general systems theory:

1. System Components(elements, subsystems). Any system, regardless of openness, is defined through its composition. These components and the connections between them create the properties of the system, its essential characteristics.

2. System boundaries- these are various kinds of material and non-material constraints that distance the system from the external environment. From the point of view of the general theory of systems, each system acts as a part of a larger system (which is called a supersystem, supersystem, supersystem). In turn, each system consists of two or more subsystems.

3. Synergy(from the Greek - acting together). This concept is used to describe phenomena in which the whole is always greater or less than the sum of the parts that make up this whole. The system functions until the relations between the components of the system become antagonistic.

4. Input - Transform - Output. The organizational system in dynamics is represented as three processes. Their interaction gives a cycle of events. Any open system has an event loop. With a systematic approach, it is important to study the characteristics of an organization as a system, i.e. characteristics of "input", "process" ("transformation") and characteristics of "output". With a systematic approach based on marketing research, first the "exit" options , those. goods or services, namely what to produce, with what quality indicators, at what cost, for whom, in what time frame to sell and at what price. The answers to these questions should be clear and timely. At the “output”, as a result, there should be competitive products or services. Then determine "login" options , those. the need for resources (material, financial, labor and information) is investigated, which is determined after a detailed study of the organizational and technical level of the system under consideration (the level of technology, technology, features of the organization of production, labor and management) and the parameters of the external environment (economic, geopolitical, social, environmental and etc.). Last but not least, research "process" parameters that transforms resources into finished products. At this stage, depending on the object of study, production technology or management technology is considered, as well as factors and ways to improve it.

5. Life cycle. Any open system has a life cycle:

occurrence Þ becoming Þ operation Þ crisis Þ collapse

6. Backbone element- an element of the system, on which the functioning of all other elements and the viability of the system as a whole depend to a decisive extent.

Characteristics of open organizational systems

1. Having an event loop .

2. Negative entropy(negoentropy, antientropy)

a) entropy in general systems theory refers to the general tendency of an organization to die;

b) an open organizational system, due to the ability to borrow the necessary resources from the external environment, can counteract this trend. This ability is called negative entropy;

c) an open organizational system exhibits a capacity for negative entropy, and due to this, some of them live for centuries;

d) for a commercial organization, the main criterion for negative entropy is its sustainable profitability over a significant time interval.

3. Feedback. Feedback is understood as information that is generated, collected, used by an open system for monitoring, evaluating, controlling and correcting one's own activities. Feedback allows the organization to receive information about possible or real deviations from the intended goal and make timely changes in the process of its development. Lack of feedback leads to pathology, crisis and the collapse of the organization. The people in the organization who collect and analyze information, interpret it, and systematize the flow of information have tremendous power.

4. Open organizational systems are inherent dynamic homeostasis. All living organisms show a tendency towards internal balance and balance. The process of maintaining a balanced state by the organization itself is called dynamic homeostasis.

5. Open organizational systems are characterized by differentiation- a trend towards growth, specialization and division of functions between the various components that form a given system. Differentiation is the system's response to a change in the external environment.

6. equifinality. Open organizational systems are capable, unlike closed systems, of achieving their goals in different ways, moving towards these goals from different starting conditions. There is not and cannot be a single and best method of achieving the goal. The goal can always be reached in different ways, and you can move towards it at different speeds.

Let me give you an example: consider a bank from the point of view of systems theory.

An examination of the bank from a systems theory perspective would begin by refining the goals to help understand the nature of the decisions that need to be made in order to achieve those goals. It would be necessary to examine the external environment in order to understand the ways in which the bank interacts with its wider environment.

The researcher would then turn to the internal environment. In order to try to understand the main subsystems of the bank, interaction and connections with the system as a whole, the analyst would analyze the decision-making pathways, the most important information necessary for their acceptance, as well as the communication channels through which this information is transmitted.

Decision making, information system, communication channels are especially important for the systems analyst, because if they function poorly, the bank will be in a difficult position. In each area, a systematic approach has led to the emergence of new useful concepts and techniques.

Making decisions

Information systems

Communication channels

Fig. 1 Systems theory - basic elements

Making decisions

In the field of decision making, systems thinking has contributed to the classification of different types of decisions. The concepts of certainty, risk and uncertainty have been developed. Logical approaches to making complex decisions (many of which had a mathematical basis) were introduced, which was of great help to managers in improving the process and quality of decision making.

Information systems

The nature of the information at the disposal of the decision maker has an important influence on the quality of the decision itself, and it is not surprising that much attention has been paid to this issue. Those who develop management information systems try to give the right information to the right person at the right time. To do this, they need to know what decision will be made, when information will be provided, and how soon this information will arrive (if speed is an important decision-making element). Providing relevant information that improves the quality of decisions (and eliminates unnecessary information that simply increases costs) is a very significant circumstance.

Communication channels

Channels of communication in an organization are important elements in the decision-making process as they convey the required information. Systems analysts have provided many useful examples of deep understanding of the process of interconnection between organizations. Significant progress has been made in studying and solving the problems of "noise" and interference in communications, the problems of transition from one system or subsystem to another.

4. The value of a systematic approach to management

The value of a systems approach is that managers can more easily align their specific work with that of the organization as a whole if they understand the system and their role in it. This is especially important for the CEO, because the systems approach encourages him to maintain the necessary balance between the needs of individual departments and the goals of the entire organization. It makes him think about the flow of information going through the whole system and also emphasizes the importance of communications. A systems approach helps to identify the reasons for making ineffective decisions, it also provides tools and techniques for improving planning and control.

A modern leader must have systems thinking, because:

a manager must perceive, process and systematize a huge amount of information and knowledge that are necessary for making managerial decisions;

The manager needs a systematic methodology with the help of which he could correlate one direction of his organization's activity with another, and prevent quasi-optimization of managerial decisions;

The manager must see the forest behind the trees, the general behind the private, rise above everyday life and realize what place his organization occupies in the external environment, how it interacts with another, larger system, of which it is a part;

A systematic approach to management allows the manager to more productively implement his main functions: forecasting, planning, organization, leadership, control.

Systems thinking not only contributed to the development of new ideas about the organization (in particular, special attention was paid to the integrated nature of the enterprise, as well as the paramount importance and importance of information systems), but also provided the development of useful mathematical tools and techniques that greatly facilitate managerial decision-making, the use of more advanced planning and control systems. Thus, a systematic approach allows us to comprehensively evaluate any production and economic activity and the activity of the management system at the level of specific characteristics. This will help to analyze any situation within a single system, to identify the nature of the input, process and output problems. The application of a systematic approach allows the best way to organize the decision-making process at all levels in the management system.

Despite all the positive results, systems thinking has still not fulfilled its most important purpose. The claim that it will allow the application of modern scientific methods to management has not yet been realized. This is partly because large-scale systems are very complex. It is not easy to grasp the many ways in which the external environment influences the internal organization. The interaction of many subsystems within the enterprise is not fully understood. The boundaries of systems are very difficult to establish, too broad a definition will lead to the accumulation of costly and unusable data, and too narrow - to a partial solution of problems. It will not be easy to formulate the questions that will arise before the enterprise, to determine with accuracy the information needed in the future. Even if the best and most logical solution is found, it may not be feasible. Nevertheless, a systematic approach provides an opportunity to better understand how the enterprise works.

Introduction………………...…………………………………………………………3

1. The concept and essence of a systematic approach in management …..……...……5

2. An enterprise as a system consisting of subsystems………………..……14

3. Approaches used in system management……………………….19

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….25

References…………………………………………………………..27

Introduction

The relevance of the course work. The modern business world is based on the principles of a market economy. With the development of information technologies, marketing technologies and business activities, new prospects are opening up for organizations of various forms of ownership. Commercial organizations are the main tool for achieving the goals set by the owners, management and staff of the organization. The purpose of establishing a commercial enterprise, as a rule, is to generate profit in the form of products, goods, property and / or financial income. A significant increase in the focus and efficiency of commercial activities can be achieved by using a systems approach, which has found wide application in the organization and management of systems. Commercial activity has all the properties and features that are inherent in systems.

A systematic approach to business management is to build a management structure that will achieve the goals of the enterprise; in determining the composition of the complex and the functions of the subdivisions included in the overall system.

The activity of any organization consists of many interrelated business processes, the composition of which is determined by the specifics of its activity. To apply process-oriented management, an organization needs to understand what business processes it has, how they flow and how to evaluate their effectiveness. Therefore, the organization must formalize the processes, establish indicators of their effectiveness, and define the procedures for managing processes.

aim course work is the study of a systematic approach to management.

The set goal necessitated the following tasks:

1. define the concept and identify the essence of a systematic approach in management;
2. characterize the enterprise as a system consisting of subsystems;
3. consider the positive and negative aspects of the approaches used in system management.

Many researchers paid attention to the study of a systematic approach to enterprise management, among which I would like to mention such scientists as: Vikhansky O.S., Gaponenko A.L., Daft R.L., Zharikov O.N., Ignatieva A.V., Korotkov E.M., Korenchenko R.A., Mineeva N.V., Maksimtsova M.M., Nikanorov S.P., Rogozhin S.V. and etc.

The object of the course work is the essence of a systematic approach to management.

The subject of the study is the theoretical, methodological and applied problems of a systematic approach to management.

1. The concept and essence of a systematic approach in management

The systems approach is based on general systems theory (Ludwig von Bertalanffy) and cybernetics, that is, control theory (Norbert Wiener, W. Ross Ashby, Stafford Beer). The theory of systems was founded by them in the 40-60s of the twentieth century.

Currently, the active direction of the systems approach in management is systems-oriented management, developed in St. Gallen (Switzerland) by the school of management of the local university under the leadership of Malik Fredmund. Unfortunately, there are no translations of the works of this scientist in Russian yet. The origins of this school lie in the research of its founder, Hans Ulrich. Further development of this area due to the fact that F. Malik, who is one of the followers of Ulrich, used the idea of ​​the British cybernetics S. Beer.

Stafford Beer created his own systematic approach to management, taking into account the social organization, similar to a living organism. He called it the "viable system model" in his book The Brain of the Firm (1981). This approach is relevant and can be considered as promising in management science.

Another direction in the systems approach to management is presented in the book of the co-founder of the Interactive Management Institute (USA) Jamshid Garedaga “Systems Thinking. How to manage chaos and complex processes. Business Modeling Architecture Platform” (2007). It presents a comprehensive interactive system modeling methodology that combines an iterative approach, Jay Forrester's system dynamics, and the idea of ​​self-organization of sociocultural systems. The concept of modeling a goal-oriented system, developed in the 70s of the twentieth century, is based on scientific works Russell L. Ackoff.

Another well-known direction of the systems approach is developed by Peter Senge. In his book The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization” (1990), he made systems thinking a tool for analyzing management and leadership problems, and also suggested using the archetype system to solve business problems. In accordance with his ideas and tools for system modeling, a book was written by consultant psychologists Joseph O "Connor and Ian McDermott "The Art of Systems Thinking: the necessary knowledge about systems and a creative approach to problem solving" (1997, in Russian - 2006). From earlier Works in this area are highlighted by the work of L. Stanford Optner "System Analysis for Solving Business and Industry Problems" (1965).

The “Goldratt theory of constraints” is recognized as an effective method of management using a systematic approach. It is described by the author in his business novels Goal: A Continuous Improvement Process and Goal 2: It's Not About Luck, and methodically revealed in William Detmer's book Goldratt's Theory of Constraints. A systematic approach to continuous improvement” (2007).

In modern practice, quite often they operate with the concept of a management system, moreover, there is an active formation and implementation of such systems in the economic activity of individual subjects of economic relations. Nevertheless, there is no consensus regarding the concept of "management system", and many of the existing definitions are quite general. Most modern authors define a management system as a certain "construction" of an organizational system that characterizes the composition and structure of management links, and functional relationships, united by a certain control action.

V modern conditions it would be more adequate not only to consider the management system as a structure, but also to take into account all its possible relationships, both external and internal, in dynamics, which ensures the flexibility of the system, the ability to adapt to changing conditions.

In view of the fact that, as a rule, there is a double impact on the subject of management - from external and internal factors, the enterprise management system must be formed in accordance with their requirements, which will ensure its validity and effectiveness. The credit risk management system of a leasing company is influenced by internal factors related to the characteristics of the project under consideration. At the same time, this system is being adjusted, taking into account the influence of external investment indicators and the restrictions of the leasing company. Thus, the definition of an enterprise management system that takes into account the external environment and internal structure, makes it possible to more effectively organize management, adapt to changing environmental conditions.

Since the second half of the 20th century, control theories have been strongly influenced by the intensively developing general scientific direction of the “general systems theory”, that is, the general scientific system approach. At the intersection of management theory and systems theory, a simple but fundamental conclusion was formulated that any organization is a system in the most complete and rigorous sense of this concept.

According to this approach, the system should be understood as a set of interdependent parts, each of which contributes to the functioning of the whole. At the same time, it is not the parts, but the whole that is primary, and its parts are derivatives of it. Thus, the main task of the manager in accordance with the system approach is the need to see the organization subordinate to him as a whole, in the unity of its parts that directly or indirectly interact with each other and with the outside world. He must know that even a particular case of administrative influence on the components of the organization inevitably leads to numerous and often unpredictable consequences. They are unpredictable in the event that the principle of organization as a single interconnected system is not taken into account, and for this it is necessary to know what are the basic laws by which systems are built.

Any organization as a system has its own internal logic, lives by its own rules. Understanding this internal logic is the most important condition for organizing effective management. But at the same time, this is also the main difficulty of practice. The complexity is exacerbated by the fact that modern organizations are internally heterogeneous and include qualitatively different components (equipment and people), being the so-called socio-technical systems. Any sociotechnical system, according to the systems approach, consists of a number of subsystems that must be coordinated hierarchically (by the type of subordination) and “horizontally” (by the type of coordination). In addition, in the organizational system, not only can, but must be created in the process of work the subsystems necessary for its functioning - the so-called functional controls.

So, a systematic approach to management interprets the understanding of an organization as a socio-technical system in a new way. It is a way of thinking in relation to practical and theoretical problems of management. The systems approach has strengthened the interdisciplinary links between control theory and other sciences and research areas.

System approach - an approach in which any system (object) is considered as a set of interrelated elements (components), which has an output (goal), input (resources), connection with the environment, feedback. This is the most difficult approach to management. The system approach is based on the main properties of the system:

1. Integrity - not the elements make up the whole, but the whole creates in itself the elements of the system. System integrity is characterized by three main aspects:

Each part of the system interacts with others, adding the result of its action to the overall result of the system as a whole.

The joint work of heterogeneous interconnected components generates qualitatively new functional properties of the whole, which has no analogues with the properties of its components. This means that the fundamental properties of a system cannot be reduced to the sum of the properties of its components and properties. In other words, the system as a whole cannot be reduced to the simple additivity of its components.

The properties of the integrity of the system lie in the unity of the variety of forms, aspects, organizational structures, etc. in the material and spiritual life of society as a whole.

2. The second property of the system is the interdependence and interaction between the system and the environment.

The system generates and displays its properties only in the process of interaction with the environment. The system reacts to the external environment, feels its influence, but retains the qualitative definition and properties that ensure the relative stability and adaptability of the system. Without interaction with the environment, the firm as an open system cannot function. However, the less disturbances in the environment, the more stable the company will work. The manager's task is to predict the situation and measures to adapt the system parameters to environmental factors.

3. Structure is a set of system components and their relationships that determine the internal structure and organization of an object as an integral system. In the study of the system, the structure plays the role of a way to display the organization. In the study and design of the system, its decomposition into components is carried out, their functions and relationships are established. The optimal structure of the system should have a minimum number of components, but at the same time they should fully perform the specified functions. The structure must be mobile, i.e. adapting to changing needs and goals. The evolution of the structure in space and time reflects the process of its development.

4. Hierarchy - each component of the system can be considered as a system (subsystem) of a wider global system. For example, a firm is a subsystem of a higher level system - corporate, partner, association, industry, region, etc. In turn, the latter is part of a wider association, region or country. The country is a subsystem of the global system - the world community. If we consider a department (department) as a system, then this will be the global system of the firm, and the department will be a subsystem of the bureau (group). The technological equipment available in the store is a technical component of the system and at the same time complements it as a whole. This property of the system should be taken into account when studying the effectiveness of any departments of the company and the company as a whole.

5. Continuity and evolution. The system exists, but its existence is functional. All processes in any system (socio-economic, technological, biological, etc.) are continuous and interdependent. The functioning of the components determines the character of the whole system, and vice versa. At the same time, the system must be able to learn and evolve.

The sources of evolution of socio-economic systems are:

Contradictions in various fields of activity;

Competition;

Variety of forms and methods of work;

The dialectic of the unity and struggle of opposites, etc.

Each company, if it wants to compete in the market, must study the options for the sources of its development and take them into account in its work. Firms that are unable to analyze and predict internal and external sources of self-development are at risk of becoming insolvent.

6. Focus, expressed in the form of building a tree of goals for the socio-economic system, a tree of subsystems, etc. For example, the global goal of a firm at goal level zero is to maximize profits, in accordance with legislation, environmental and social norms and regulations. Further, using the methods of analysis and synthesis, ranking and optimization, this company can be decomposed to 4-5 levels.

7. The desire of the system to a state of stable equilibrium, which involves adaptation to changes in the parameters of the system according to the parameters of the environment, in specific situations, providing a high level of dynamics in the organization of the control system. Indicators of the organization of the control system include the aspect ratio (the ratio of the minimum set of basic parameters).

8. Alternative ways of functioning and development. Depending on the parameters of the situation (taxes, customs duties, competitiveness of competitors, market infrastructure, reliability, suppliers, etc.), there may be several alternative ways to achieve a specific goal. Alternative ways of functioning and development of the system can be objective or subjective. For example, the alternative development of biological systems is more objective. The development of biological systems is largely determined by genetics and environmental factors. The development of technical systems is determined by subjective factors, and their performance is determined by the reliability of the system. Alternative ways of functioning and development of socio-economic systems are determined by both objective and subjective factors.

9. Heredity, which characterizes the transfer of dominant and recessive traits to the structure at different stages of development from the old system to the new generation. Isolation of dominant features can increase the validity of the directions of its development. Dominant and recessive traits are inherently biased. The subjectivity of the control of these features should be taken into account in their study, highlighting the dominant features of innovation and investment in their development.

10. Quality priority. Practice shows that those biological, technical, socio-economic systems that take into account all the factors of functioning and give priority to the development of quality survive: the quality of the ecosystem, the quality of goods and services, the quality of infrastructure, the quality of life, etc. consumer prices, the cost of goods, time and other resources. Quality permeates everything from the first components of production cycles to the lower levels of the goal tree.

11. Priority of interests of a broader (global) level over the interests of system components. The individuality of the average worker and the great socio-economic system cannot be compared. Smaller systems may have exceptions.

12. Reliability. The reliability of the system (company) is characterized by:

Uninterrupted operation of the system in case of failure of one of its components;

Preservation of the design parameters of the system during the planning period;

The stability of the financial condition of the company;

Obviously, the measures taken to improve the control system should improve its reliability.

2. Enterprise as a system consisting of subsystems

An analysis of development trends in the general theory of management of organizational systems, to which any enterprise belongs, shows that its modern stage characterized by a steady transition to a new management principle, the essence of which consists in two main complementary provisions.

The first provision is connected with the recognition of the need for a certain departure from the traditional principle of management, that is, the assumption that the success of an enterprise depends on the optimality of its internal structure.

In the traditional approach, the enterprise was considered as a "closed" system, its goals, objectives and conditions of activity were considered known, given and not changing over a long period of time. In the new management system, the enterprise should be considered as an “open” system, capable of constantly adjusting its relationship with the external environment and purposefully interacting with it. This assumes not only internal self-organization, but also a purposeful transformation of the external sphere in order to create favorable conditions for one's development growth. In fact, this means that the task of rationalizing the internal environment of the enterprise, for all their importance, fades into the background, i.e. become less important.

The central problem of the sustainable survival of a modern enterprise and, accordingly, its subsystems is the development of its conceptual foundations for construction and development, which go beyond the internal area of ​​its interests. The second position of management is a fundamentally new view of the subsystem as a subject of activity and its role in ensuring the viability of the system.

The old mechanistic principle of control proceeded from the fact that

The subsystems were the main source of perturbation in the system. The transfer of the center of gravity from operational management to the tasks of strategic planning and development of the enterprise raised the urgent question of the need to expand the operator (executive) function of its subsystems.

Thus, the essence of a new approach to the problem of a subsystem in an enterprise requires a departure from the recognition of total rationalism in behavior patterns and the recognition of the right of creative irrationality for it.

Hence the fundamental principle of model representation

subsystem of a timber industry enterprise is the principle of its compliance, which requires a comprehensive description, taking into account the effective solution of current and future tasks.

In view of the foregoing, it seems possible to decompose the quality of the functional activity of the subsystems of a timber industry enterprise into the following main properties and manifestations: to excite and plan activity; take responsibility and show individuality.

The ability to excite activity is conditioned by a system of needs that exist either in the form of “stimulus-response” processes or in the form of conscious norms and values ​​(“stimulus-response”).

The ability to plan activities is manifested in the following properties:

Be aware of your needs, understand the trends in their change and influence their nature;

Form a system of potential interests;

Analyze resource opportunities and form relevant interests;

Develop coordinated in terms of goals, objectives, place and time ways to translate their current interests into reality;

Be persistent in achieving the goal;

The ability to self-learning, which consists in expanding the forms of possible behavioral strategies that provide flexibility in developing a plan of practical actions.

The ability of the system to plan its activity is based on the fundamental principle, on the basis of which it is possible to predict the consequences of various actions, and then choose from among them the actions that ensure maximum efficiency of their behavior at minimum cost in specific conditions.

The property of responsibility assumes that each subsystem has an urgent need to solve regulatory and legal problems in relation to each other subsystem that is part of its environment. Subsystem responsibilities include:

Acceptance of requests from any other subsystem;

Ability to perform operational analysis of requests;

Formation of the actions taken in accordance with the change in the state of other subsystems;

The ability to respond to the state of its surrounding subsystems and

strive for such actions that lead them to the removal of negative states.

In this case, management is carried out in accordance with the principle of a harmonious combination of the features of all subsystems, which predetermines the fulfillment of the unique tasks of each of them and corporate processes as part of the overall system within the specified time frame and taking into account established standards.

Thus, the concept of a normative-value system lies in the conceptual basis of enterprise management. In this case, in addition to the descriptive model of reality, which is a model of the "possible", it must also contain a normative component, called the "should" model. The “proper” model is set as a significant (for the enterprise as a whole and subsystems separately) set of norms and values ​​(utilities) formed in the entire space of the information-subject environment. Therefore, we can assume that, as a normative value system, it organizes the entire set of processes (economic, technological, etc.) occurring in the information area and manages this set.

In accordance with the principle described above, a two-level structural management model can be applied to manage an enterprise based on a systematic approach.

Its lower level describes the physical processes occurring in it, and the upper level describes the information processes of managing the subject area of ​​an enterprise from the side of individual subsystems that are part of its structure.

The structural model of the enterprise can be represented as:

MOD 0 = [MOD 0 P, MOD 0 I, MOD 0 V] (1)

MOD 0 P - domain model;

MOD 0 I - information area model;

MOD 0 V - model of mutual relations between subsystems;

enterprises.

MOD 0 P, MOD 0 I, MOD 0 V for each individual enterprise and take into account its technical, resource and informational components.

The need to predict the consequences associated with the adoption of system management decisions, from the standpoint of their contribution to the level of the current individual behavior of individual subsystems and the impact of these decisions on the level of strategic stability of enterprises as a whole, requires linking all ongoing physical processes with the possibility of their control and technological management.

Therefore, all private models that are part of model (1) must be represented as control objects associated with the corresponding information area through resource drives, which are an implemented control solution.

The subsystem information area model includes, as a rule, two interconnected verticals. The first vertical is a set of subsystems that manage independent technologies, but connected by inputs and outputs, the processes of material production occurring in the subject area of ​​the enterprise.

The second vertical ensures the integrity of the system (the vertical can be called administrative) through the creation of conditions for the so-called "organic unity", which is expressed in the ability of all subsystems to carry out such a union of labor that harmoniously combines the interests of the part and the whole in relation to the goals, objectives and methods of group actions.

This vertical should also solve problematic issues aimed at protecting the interests of the system from the goals of its individual subsystems.

4. Approaches used in system management

The principal feature of the concept of a systematic approach to management is the consideration of the multidimensionality of the organization and its management. Therefore, the need to take into account management activities the influence and interaction of many factors, both inside and outside the organization and having a direct and indirect impact on its functioning. At the same time, the achievement of a systemic (synergistic) effect is emphasized, which is expressed in the fact that the whole is always qualitatively different from the simple sum of its constituent parts.

Behavioral approach to management as a process, which has been developed since the 1960s, considers activities aimed at achieving the goals of the organization, not as an emergency process that must be used when the situation is already out of control, but as a series of sequential, cyclically repeated, interrelated actions - functions management (planning, organization, management, motivation, leadership, coordination, control, communication, research, evaluation, decision-making, recruitment, representation and negotiation, transactions, etc.), forming the management process as a certain line of conduct.

Situational approach to management, which became widespread in the 1970s, suggests that the suitability of various management methods is determined by the situation - a specific set of circumstances that affect the functioning of the organization at a given time. The abundance of time-varying factors in the firm itself and in the environment leads to the fact that there is no single and unchanged optimal way to manage the firm.

The most effective at the current moment is the method that is most appropriate for this situation. Using a situational approach, they find methods and means that best contribute to the achievement of the organization's goals in a particular situation. The concept of the situational approach to management reflects the problems of interaction with the external environment and the orientation of firms to take into account changes in the external environment in the current conditions.

The business process system (BPS) is a subsystem of the organization's process system. The main motive for separating the SBP from the totality of the organization's processes is to reduce the size and complexity of the control object at the stage of business process management. The choice of SBP is largely based on subjective assessments, although there are certain rules that it is desirable to adhere to.

It is difficult to say who is the author of the phrase "business process", but it has been actively used since the beginning of the 90s of the last century by the founders of business process reengineering Davenport, Hammer, Champi, etc. Before that, the term "process" was used for the same purposes ( mainly in quality management systems).

There are a huge number of definitions of the terms "process" and "business process".

Firstly, specialists in the field of process / business process management, as a rule, do not limit themselves to a literal (dictionary) interpretation of the term “process”, but creatively rework it in accordance with their own ideas, putting a significant subjective component into the definition.

Secondly, there are objective reasons for constructing complex and intricate definitions, in particular:

Sometimes they want to emphasize that the set of sequential actions actually has a complex logical and temporal structure (logical transitions, loops, exception handling, etc.);

Since the distribution of the systems approach in management, there has been a tendency to consider processes as elements of systems that transform the input of the system into its output;

With the advent of reengineering and the term "business process", specialists began to analyze processes from a business point of view more often.

v contemporary literature the terms “process” and “business process” mean roughly the same thing. In this regard, there are at least two options for their joint use:

In the first case, the terms "process" and "business process" are considered equivalent and interchangeable (as many business process specialists do);

In the second case, a criterion is proposed by which the differentiation of "processes" and "business processes" is carried out.

There are several rules that can be followed when isolating the SBP from the system of processes (SP):

It is desirable to limit the SBP to two levels of the vertical structure of the JV, naming them, for example, "business processes" and "activities";

The choice of levels is desirable to carry out taking into account the authority of the owner of the SBP. For example, a Business Process Management System (BMS) (BMS) for a bank manager and an SMS for a bank department head will have significantly different SBPs;

It is desirable to limit the SBP to no more than 20 business processes. The optimal number, according to the author, is from 7 to 15 business processes;

It is desirable to limit the size of each business process within the SBP to no more than 50 types of activities. Optimal, according to the author of the course work, is the number of 15 to 30 activities.

SMS is a subsystem of the management system of the organization as a whole. As a rule, when separating SMS into a separate management area, two main goals are set for SMS:

1) ensure the competitiveness of business processes;

2) ensure the smooth operation of business processes.

To achieve the first objective, the SMS must address the challenges of forward-looking business process improvement and the development of business process improvement tools.

To achieve the second goal, the SMS should be aimed at maintaining the current functioning of business processes and adapting business processes to changes in the external and internal environment of the organization. Naturally, in this case it is also necessary to solve the problem of developing means of maintenance and adaptation.

To understand how the SMS solves the tasks, we recall that the control object - the SBP - has two faces: the SBP template and the SBP instance. The FBS template is, as usual, the model of the FBS in use, and the FBS instance is the actual FBS managed by the owner of the FBS.

The presence of two faces of the control object - a template and an instance - enables the owner of the SBP to control the object in two directions: in order to make changes to the SBP template and in order to change the parameters of the SBP instance. The owner of the SBP can use the first direction for prospective improvement of business processes and adaptation of business processes to changes in the external and internal environment, and the second - for the current management of business processes in the normal mode.

It should be noted that the FBS template usually changes many times during the life cycle of the FBS instance. In this regard, the SBP template must additionally contain an algorithm for transferring the SBP instance from one template to another.

As for the development of means for improving, maintaining and adapting the SBP, in fact, we are talking about improving the processes of improving, maintaining and adapting. This is the next, higher level of improvement management, the tools of which are primarily business process automation, as well as automation of design tools, deployment, monitoring, analysis and evaluation of business processes.

Note that the management of the SBP instance also includes two areas:

1) management of each business process separately;

2) managing links between individual business processes.

The first direction will be discussed in detail in the next section. As for the management of links between individual business processes, as has been repeatedly mentioned, these links are connections between the outputs of some business processes and the inputs of others. Usually they are reviewed much less frequently than the business processes themselves.

In conclusion, we give a definition of the term "business process system management" (more precisely, "business process management system", or SMS), corresponding to the above reasoning:

The SMS is a purposeful system with feedback, the control object of which is the SBP, and the control process is a set of interrelated actions of the owner of the SBP, which ensures such a change in the parameters of the control object that is necessary to achieve the goals of the organization.

A shorter definition can be given: SMS is a management system within which the owner of the SPS ensures the operation and improvement of the SPS to achieve the goals of the organization.

The value of a systems approach is that managers can more easily align their specific work with that of the organization as a whole if they understand the system and their role in it. This is especially important for the CEO, because the systems approach encourages him to maintain the necessary balance between the needs of individual departments and the goals of the entire organization. It makes him think about the flow of information going through the whole system and also emphasizes the importance of communications. A systems approach helps to identify the reasons for making ineffective decisions, it also provides tools and techniques for improving planning and control.

Undoubtedly, a modern leader must have systems thinking. Systems thinking not only contributed to the development of new ideas about the organization (in particular, special attention was paid to the integrated nature of the enterprise, as well as the paramount importance and importance of information systems), but also provided the development of useful mathematical tools and techniques that greatly facilitate managerial decision-making, the use of more advanced planning and control systems. Thus, a systematic approach allows us to comprehensively evaluate any production and economic activity and the activity of the management system at the level of specific characteristics. This will help to analyze any situation within a single system, to identify the nature of the input, process and output problems. The application of a systematic approach allows the best way to organize the decision-making process at all levels in the management system.

Despite all the positive results, systems thinking has still not fulfilled its most important purpose. The assertion that it will allow the use of modern scientific method to management, still not implemented. This is partly because large-scale systems are very complex. It is not easy to grasp the many ways in which the external environment influences the internal organization. The interaction of many subsystems within an organization is not fully understood. The boundaries of systems are very difficult to establish, too broad a definition will lead to the accumulation of costly and unusable data, and too narrow - to a partial solution of problems. It will not be easy to formulate the questions that will arise before the enterprise, to determine with accuracy the information needed in the future. Even if the best and most logical solution is found, it may not be feasible. However, a systems approach provides an opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of how an organization works.

The concept of a system

In system analysis, studies are based on the use of the system category, which is understood as the unity of interrelated and mutually influencing elements located in a certain pattern in space and time, acting together to achieve a common goal. The system must meet two requirements:

1. The behavior of each element of the system affects the behavior of the system as a whole; the essential properties of a system are lost when it is dissected.

2. The behavior of the elements of the system and their impact on the whole are interdependent; the essential properties of the elements of the system are also lost when they are separated from the system. Hegel wrote that the hand, separated from the body, ceases to be a hand, because it is not alive.

Thus, the properties, behavior, or state that a system possesses differ from the properties, behavior, or state of its constituent elements (subsystems). A system is a whole that cannot be understood by analysis. A system is a set of elements that cannot be divided into independent parts.

The set of properties of the elements of the system is not a general property of the system, but gives some new property. Any system is characterized by the presence of its own, specific laws of action, which cannot be derived directly from the modes of action of its constituent elements alone. Any system is a developing system, it has its beginning in the past and continuation in the future.

The concept of a system is a way of finding the simple in the complex in order to simplify the analysis.

Its main parts are the input, the process or operation, and the output.

For any system, the input consists of elements classified according to their role in the processes occurring in the system. The first entry element is the one on which some process or operation is performed. This input is or will be the "load" of the system (raw materials, materials, energy, information, etc.). The second element of the system input is the external (environment) environment, which is understood as a set of factors and phenomena that affect the processes of the system and are not amenable to direct control by its leaders.

External factors not controlled by systems can usually be divided into two categories: random, characterized by distribution laws, unknown laws, or acting without any laws (for example, natural conditions); factors at the disposal of the system, which is external and actively, reasonably acting in relation to the system under consideration (for example, legal documents, targets).

The goals of the external system may be known, not known exactly, not known at all.

The third element of the input provides the placement and movement of system components, for example, various instructions, regulations, orders, that is, it sets the laws of its organization and functioning, goals, restrictive conditions, etc. Inputs are also classified by content: material, energy, information, or any combination of them.

The second part of the system is the operations, processes, or channels through which the entry elements pass. The system must be designed in such a way that the necessary processes (production, training, logistics, etc.) act according to a certain law on each input, at the appropriate time, to achieve the desired output.

The third part of the system is the output, which is the product or result of its activities. The system at its output must satisfy a number of criteria, the most important of which are stability and reliability. According to the output, the degree of achievement of the goals set for the system is judged.

There are physical and abstract systems. Physical systems are made up of people, products, equipment, machines, and other real or artificial objects. They are opposed to abstract systems. In the latter, the properties of objects whose existence may be unknown, except for their existence in the mind of the researcher, represent symbols. Ideas, plans, hypotheses and concepts that are in the field of view of the researcher can be described as abstract systems.

Depending on their origin, natural systems (for example, climate, soil) and man-made systems are distinguished.

According to the degree of connection with the external environment, systems are classified into open and closed.

Open systems are systems that exchange material and informational resources or energy with the environment in a regular and understandable way.

Closed systems are the opposite of open systems.

Closed systems operate with relatively little exchange of energy or materials with the environment, such as a chemical reaction taking place in a hermetically sealed vessel. In the business world, closed systems are virtually non-existent and the environment is considered to be the main factor in the success and failure of various organizations. However, representatives of various schools of management in the first 60 years of the last century, as a rule, did not care about the problems of the external environment, competition, and everything else that is external to the organization. The closed system approach suggested what should be done to optimize the use of resources, taking into account only what is happening inside the organization.

The realities of the surrounding world forced researchers and practitioners to come to the conclusion that any attempt to understand the socio-economic system, considering it closed, is doomed to failure. Moreover, reality is by no means an arena dominated by order, stability and balance: the dominant role in the world around us is played by instability and imbalance. From this point of view, systems can be classified into equilibrium, weakly equilibrium, and strongly nonequilibrium. For socio-economic systems, the state of equilibrium can be observed for a relatively short period of time. For weakly equilibrium systems, small changes in the external environment enable the system under new conditions to reach a state of new equilibrium. Strongly nonequilibrium systems, which are very sensitive to external influences, under the influence of external signals, even small ones, can be rebuilt in an unpredictable way.

According to the type of components included in the system, the latter can be classified into machine parts (car, machine), according to the type of "man - machine" (aircraft - pilot) and according to the type "man - person" (team of the organization).

According to the target characteristics, they are distinguished: single-purpose systems, that is, designed to solve one single target task and multi-purpose ones. In addition, functional systems can be distinguished that provide a solution or consideration of a particular side or aspect of the problem (planning, supply, etc.).

Although the main provisions of system analysis are common to all classes of systems, the specificity of their individual classes requires a special approach in their analysis. The pronounced specificity of socio-economic systems in relation to biological, and even more technical, is due primarily to the fact that an integral part of the former is a person. Therefore, in relation to this class of systems, the analysis should be carried out taking into account the needs, interests and behavior of a person.

With a systematic approach, the country's economy, individual organizations are considered as systems consisting of functionally and structurally separate subsystems that form a number of stable hierarchical levels of management to achieve the ultimate goal.

A consequence of the hierarchical organization is the presence of vertical and horizontal links. Vertical connections mediate the interaction of subsystems of different levels of organization, horizontal - one level. The principle of hierarchical organization is associated with the concept of relative isolation of subsystems of different levels. Relative isolation means that such subsystems have some independence (autonomy) in relation to the higher and lower subsystems of the hierarchical series, and their interaction is carried out by inputs and outputs. Higher systems act by giving a signal to the input of the lower ones and monitor their state by output, in turn, the lower subsystems act on the higher ones, reacting to their signals.

The same object can have many different systems. If we consider a manufacturing enterprise as a set of machines, technological processes, materials and products that are processed on machines, then the enterprise is presented as a technological system. You can consider the enterprise from the other side: what kind of people work on it, what is their attitude to production, to each other, etc. Then the same enterprise is presented as a social system. Or you can study the enterprise from a different point of view: find out the attitude of the managers and employees of the enterprise to the means of production, their participation in the labor process and the distribution of its results, the place of this enterprise in the system of the national economy, etc. Here the enterprise is considered as an economic system.

The scientific and technological revolution caused the emergence of a new object of research in the field of management, called "large systems".

The most important characteristic features big systems are:

1. purposefulness and controllability of the system, the presence of a common goal and purpose for the entire system, set and adjusted in systems of higher levels;

2. a complex hierarchical structure of the organization of the system, providing for a combination of centralized control with the autonomy of parts;

3. large system size, that is big number parts and elements, inputs and outputs, a variety of functions performed, etc.;

4. integrity and complexity of behavior. Complex, intertwining relationships among variables, including feedback loops, cause a change in one to change many other variables.

Large systems include large production and economic systems (for example, holdings), cities, construction and research complexes.

The vast majority of economic and managerial tasks are of such a nature that one can already certainly say that we are dealing with large systems. System analysis provides special techniques by which a large system, difficult for the researcher to consider, could be divided into a number of small interacting systems or subsystems. Thus, it is advisable to call a large system one that cannot be studied otherwise than by subsystems.

In addition to large systems, complex systems are distinguished in the problems of economic management. It is expedient to call complex such a system that is built to solve a multi-purpose, multi-aspect problem. An immediate implication from the concept of a complex system for the analysis and design of control systems is the requirement to take into account the following factors:

1. The presence of a complex, composite goal, the parallel existence of different goals or a consistent change of goals.

2. The presence of many structures at the same time in one system (for example, technological, administrative, functional, etc.).

3. The impossibility of describing the system in one language, the need to use a range of languages ​​for the analysis and design of its individual subsystems, for example, a technological scheme for manufacturing products; regulatory legal acts establishing the distribution of duties and rights; workflow scheme and meeting program; the order of interaction between services and departments in the development of a draft plan. It is possible to cope with the tasks of analyzing large complex systems only when we have at our disposal a properly organized system of research, the elements of which are subordinated to a common goal. This is the main content of Ashby's law of necessary variety,7 from which follows an important practical recommendation. In order to comprehensively study the economic system and be able to manage it, it is necessary to create a research system comparable in its complexity to the economic one; It is impossible to effectively control a large system with a simple control system, it requires a complex control mechanism. As the complexity of the tasks being solved increases, the ability of the control system to solve these problems should increase. Large organizations require complex, multilateral plans. For a comprehensive study of the brain and the construction of equivalent models, a research system is needed that is comparable in complexity to the brain.

Among the concepts on which important principles of systems management are based is the concept of feedback. It was precisely this that contributed to the establishment of fundamental analogies between the organization of management in such qualitatively different systems as machines, living organisms, and groups of people.

Feedback means a connection between the outputs and the input of the system, carried out either directly or through other elements of the system (we do not take into account the classification of feedbacks into positive and negative).

With the help of feedback, the signal (information) from the output of the system (control object) is transmitted to the control body. Here, this signal, containing information about the work performed by the control object, is compared with a signal that specifies the content and amount of work (for example, a plan). In the event of a discrepancy between the actual and planned state of work, measures are taken to eliminate it.

The main feedback functions are:

1. Counteracting what the system itself does when it goes beyond the established limits (for example, responding to quality degradation);

2. Compensation of perturbations and maintenance of a state of stable equilibrium of the system (for example, equipment malfunctions);

3. Synthesizing external and internal perturbations that seek to bring the system out of a state of stable equilibrium, reducing these perturbations to deviations of one or more controlled variables (for example, developing control commands for the simultaneous emergence of a new competitor and a decrease in the quality of products);

4. Development of control actions on the control object according to a poorly formalized law. For example, the establishment of a higher price for energy carriers causes complex changes in the activities of various organizations, changes the final results of their functioning, requires changes in the production and economic process through impacts that cannot be described using analytical expressions.

Violation of feedback in socio-economic systems for various reasons leads to serious consequences. Separate local systems lose the ability to evolve and perceive emerging new trends, long-term development and scientifically based forecasting of their activities for a long period of time, effective adaptation to constantly changing environmental conditions.

A feature of socio-economic systems is the fact that it is not always possible to clearly express feedback, which are usually long in them, pass through a number of intermediate links, and it is difficult to see them clearly. The controlled variables themselves often do not lend themselves to a clear definition, and it is difficult to establish many restrictions on the parameters of the controlled variables. The real reasons for the controlled variables to go beyond the established limits are also not always known.

The system can be stable and unstable. The stability of a system is a state that means the invariance of its essential variables. Instability is expressed in the fact that the system, organized to perform certain functions, ceases to perform them under the influence of any reasons (for example, the state of the Russian economy during the financial crisis of August 1998).

In a changing environment or under the influence of various "perturbations" that reach the threshold of stability, the system can cease to exist, turn into another system, or break up into constituent elements. For example, bankruptcy of enterprises.

The ability of a system to remain stable through changes in its structure and behavior is called ultrastability. So, many modern, especially large companies provide a high level of their stability due to high adaptability to the external and internal conditions of their functioning. Such companies timely stop some areas of their activities and start others, enter new markets in time and leave unpromising ones.