Moscow, Russian Federation
Moscow, Russian Federation
BISAC MAT040000 Complex Analysis
Attempts to improve the quality of managerial decisions by introducing modern advances in information technology in various areas of public administration (socio-humanitarian, strategic, foreign policy, etc.) do not give the desired effect, comparable to the effect of their implementation in the manufacturing sector. The solution to this problem requires qualitatively new approaches to the issues of information and analytical support for decision-making in conditions of significant uncertainty. This article highlights the difficulties of predictive management of social processes based on direct computer modeling of social systems, considers the disadvantages of expert decision support methods used in practice, and proposes new technologies for applying expert knowledge and competencies based on the use of computer modeling and research. Current approaches to working with experts can be described as methods of coordinating the opinions of a group of experts based on their personal views (models) on the issue under discussion. Our experience has shown that creating a common integrated model by a group of experts gives a much better result. While the traditional approach can be called "group" intelligence, the new approach is called "collective" intelligence. In addition, methods of decision support using artificial intelligence systems are currently being intensively developed. We propose to begin work on the creation of "hybrid" intelligence with the integration of these approaches to obtain a synergistic effect.
public administration, decision support, computer modeling, expert judgement, artificial intelligence, group intelligence, collective intelligence, hybrid intelligence
1. Bischoff, I., and L.-H. Siemers. (2011). Biased Beliefs and Retrospective Voting: Why Democracies Choose Mediocre Policies. Public Choice 156: 163-180.
2. Young, J. 2005. Research, Policy and Practice: Why Developing Countries Are Different. Journal of International Development 17: 727-734.
3. Rausser, G.C., J. Swinnen, and P. Zusman. (2011). Political Power and Economic Policy: Theory, Analysis, and Empirical Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Allen, T. T. (2011). Introduction to discrete event simulation and agent-based modeling: voting systems, health care, military, and manufacturing. London, UK: Springer
5. Blais, A., Erisen, C., & Rheault, L. (2014). Strategic voting and coordination problems in proportional systems: An experimental study. Political Research Quarterly, 67(2), 386-397
6. Fieldhouse, E., Lessard-Phillips, L., & Edmonds, B. (2016). Cascade or echo chamber? A complex agent-based simulation of voter turnout. Party Politics, 22(2), 241-256
7. Fisunoğlu, A. (2019). System Dynamics Modeling in International Relations. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 8 (2), 231-253. DOI: 10.20991/allazimuth.476884
8. Abdollahian, Mark A., et al. “Dynamics of Cultural Change: The Human Development Perspective.” International Studies Quarterly 56, no. 4 (2012): 827-42.
9. Akgul, Oner. “A Bibliographical Study on the Academic Research of Peace and Conflict in Turkey.” Paper presented at the 7th Eurasian Peace Science Meeting, İstanbul, 2018.
10. Chamberlain, Todd. “Systems Dynamics Model of Al-Qa’ida and United States ‘Competition’.” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 4, no. 3 (2007): 1-23.
11. Chen, Yu-Che, and Michael J. Ahn. Routledge Handbook on Information Technology in Government. New York: Routledge, 2017.
12. Demir, Cenker Korhan, and Engin Avci. “Turkish Terrorism Studies: A Preliminary Assessment.” All Azimuth 7, no.1 (2018): 21-44.
13. Forrester, Jay W. Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press, 1961.
14. Ghaffarzadegan, Navid, John Lyneis, and George P. Richardson. “How Small System Dynamics Models Can Help the Public Policy Process.” System Dynamics Review 27, no. 1 (2011): 22-44.
15. Goertz, Gary, and James Mahoney. A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. 253 System Dynamics.
16. Hjorth, Peder, and Ali Bagheri. “Navigating Towards Sustainable Development: A System Dynamics Approach.” Futures 38, no. 1 (2006): 74-92.
17. Jervis, Robert. System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.
18. Kirkwood, Craig W. System Dynamics Methods: A Quick Introduction. College of Business, Arizona State University, 1998.
19. Morey, David S. “When War Brings Peace: A Dynamic Model of the Rivalry Process.” American Journal of Political Science 55, no. 2 (2011): 263-75.
20. Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (2011). Computational modeling for what-is, what-might-be, and what-should-be studies-and triangulation. Organization Science, 22(5), 1195-1202.
21. Chiu, C.-Y., & Qiu, L. (2014). Communication and culture: A complexity theory approach. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 108-111
22. Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2017). Introduction to computational social science: Principles and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
23. Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2015). Big data, causal inference, and formal theory: Contradictory trends in political science? PS: Political Science & Politics, 48(1), 65-70
24. Saaty T. Theory and Aplications of the Analytic Network Process: Decision Making with Benefits, Opportunities, Cost and Risk. - Pittsburgh, RWS Publications, 2009.
25. Casey K.L. Defining Political Capital: A Reconsideration of Bourdieu’s Interconvertibility Theory // Paper University of Missouri. - St. Louis, 2007.
26. Petrovsky, A.B.: Decision Making Theory. Publishing Center Academiya, Moscow (2009). in Russian
27. Baluta V.I., Osipov V.P., Yakovenko O.Yu. The environment of modeling, forecasting and expertise as the intellectual core of support management complex systems. KIAM Preprint № 82, Moscow, 2015
28. M.A.Berberova, K.I.Chernyavskii, «Comparative assessment of the NPP risk (on the example of Rostov and Kalinin NPP). Development of risk indicators atlas for Russian NPPs», GraphiCon 2019 Computer Graphics and Vision. The 29th International Conference on Computer Graphics and Vision. Conference Proceedings (2019), Bryansk, Russia, September 23-26, 2019, Vol-2485, urn:nbn:de:0074-2485-1, ISSN 1613-0073, DOI: 10.30987/graphicon-2019-2-290-294, http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2485/paper67.pdf, p. 290-294.
29. Baluta V.I., Osipov V.P., Chetverushkin B.N., Yakovenko O.Y. Simulation of dynamics and adaptation in the space of conflict interaction of the intelligent agents. KIAM Preprint № 111, Moscow, 2019.
