TECHNICAL MECHANICS
ISSN (Print): 1561-9184, ISSN (Online): 2616-6380

English
Russian
Ukrainian
Home > Journal Issues > No 1 (2024) Technical mechanics > 9
___________________________________________________

UDC 621.002.56

Technical mechanics, 2024, 1, 93 - 104

METHODOLOGICAL FEATURES OF IN-GROUP EVALUATION OF EXPERTS COMPETENCE IN DETERMINING THE EFFICIENCY OF SPACE-ROCKET COMPLEXES

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/itm2024.01.093

Marchenko V. T., Sazina N. P.

      ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Marchenko V. T.
Institute of Technical Mechanics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and the State Space Agency of Ukraine

Sazina N. P.
Institute of Technical Mechanics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and the State Space Agency of Ukraine

      ABSTRACT

      Expert examination methods greatly facilitate the solution of difficult-to-formalize problems. However, in this case the solution is affected by a subjective factor. The decision-making theory has a number of methodological techniques that diminish its effect on the decision made. This paper presents a method of quantitative evaluation of experts competence from the results of an expert examination of the efficiency determination of unique, technically complex systems of special and dual purpose, in particular space-rocket complexes. In an expert examination of projects of such systems, it is suggested that the experts competence be quantitatively evaluated in two stages: a preliminary evaluation of the experts competence from their factual data and a refined evaluation of the experts competence just before the calculation of the expected indices of target efficiency using the results of expert examinations made by the procedure developed. The proposed method of quantitative evaluation of experts competence is based on evaluating the qualification of the experts involved in the target efficiency determination of a complex engineering system.
      A rank matrix constructed on the basis of partial criteria of technical efficiency and additional factors of indirect control is proposed as a tool to eliminate cases where at a high level of expert evaluation consistency the most accurate expert evaluations may be considered anomalous in the expert evaluation of the technical and target efficiency of space-rocket systems.
      The presented mathematical model of quantitative evaluation of experts competence includes parameters that adjust the mathematical model to specific conditions of the expert evaluation (expert evaluation methods employed, measurement scales, specific limitations, etc.). The mathematical model is constructed around the axiom that the true estimates of the significance of the objects under evaluation lie within the expert evaluation domain. The paper also presents an enlarged algorithm for adjustment parameter calculation from the results of expert estimate preprocessing. The presented mathematical model and algorithm make it possible to develop a computer program for determining experts competence from expert evaluation results.
      Pdf (English)







      KEYWORDS

expert evaluation, quantitative evaluation of experts competence, mathematical model, space-rocket complex, indirect control factor

      FULL TEXT:

Pdf (English)









      REFERENCES

1. Totsenko V. G. Methods and Systems of Decision-Making Support. Algorithmic Aspect. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 2002. 382 pp. (in Russian).

2. Voronin A. N. System analysis and multiple-criteria evaluation of space projects by expert methods. Problemy Upravleniya i Informatiki. 2004. No. 1. Pp. 121-135. (in Russian).

3. Arkhipov A. E., Arkhipova S. A. Evaluation of experts' competence from the results of a multiobjective examination. Ekonomika i Derzhava. 2015. 6. Pp. 29-33. (in Russian).

4. Alpatov . ., Marchenko V. ., Khorolsyi . P., Sazina N. . status and directions for improving the regulatory and procedural framework for the rocket and space technology development in Ukraine. Science and Innovation. 2022. V. 18. No. 1(103). Pp. 76-88.

5. Alpatov A. P., Marchenko V. T., Sazina N. P. Quantitative estimation of the risk of an increase in the cost of space hardware prototyping. Teh. Meh. 2022. No. 4. Pp. 51-66. (in Ukrainian). https://doi.org/10.15407/itm2022.04.051

6. Saati . Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Moscow: Radio i Svyaz', 1993. 278 pp. (in Russian).

7. Alpatov . ., Marchenko V. ., Khorolsyi . P., Sazina N. . Methodology for financial and economic feasibility of conceptual problems in rocket-space industry. Kosm. Nauka Tehnol. 2014. V. 20. No. 6 (91). Pp. 49-59. (in Ukrainian). https://doi.org/10.15407/knit2014.06.049

8. Pylypenko O. V. et al. Efficiency of Scientific and Technical Projects and Programs. Dnipropetrovsk: Porogi, 2008. 509 pp. (in Russian).

9. Adamov A. P., Gadzhiev U. A., Pirbudagov G. M., Sotskaya A. M. On experts' competence determination by mutual evaluation. Avtomatika i Tlemekhanika. 1989. No. 3. Pp. 185-189. (in Russian).

10. Pankova L. A., Petrovsky A. M., Shneiderman M. V. Expert Examination Organization and Expert Information Analysis. Moscow: Nauka, 1984. 120 pp. (in Russian).

11. Litvak V. G. Expert Information. Acquisition and Analysis Methods. Moscow: Radio i Svyaz', 1982. 184 pp. (in Russian).

12. Harker . N. Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathl Modelling. 1987. V. 9. No. 11. Pp. 837-848. https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90503-3

13. Keeney R. L., Raiffa H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Off. Moscow: Radio i Svyaz', 1981. 560 pp. (in Russian).

14. Malin A. S., Mukhin V. I. Study of Control Systems. Moscow: GU VShE Publishing House, 2004. 399 pp. (in Russian).

15. Hnatiienko H. M., Snytiuk V. Ye. Expert Technologies of Decision Making. Kyiv: Maklaut, 2008. 444 pp. (in Ukrainian).

16. Polehenko A. F., Kniazskyi O. V. In-group evaluation of experts' relative competence using comparison matrices. Ozbroiennia ta Viiskova Tekhnika 2014. No. 3. Pp. 49-55. (in Ukrainian).





Copyright () 2024 Marchenko V. T., Sazina N. P.

Copyright 2014-2024 Technical mechanics


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
GUIDE
FOR AUTHORS
Guide for Authors ==================== Open Access Policy
Open Access Policy ==================== REGULATIONS
on the ethics of publications
REGULATIONS on the ethics of publications ====================