It seems that I have managed to link totally different things, namely the theory of sets and the logic of management structure from the basic points of management up to the company’s structure. You can see it on the next diagram of Bobrovnikov. I should admit that here I also applied my idea of the rarified sets, the screw which finished up the whole picture. The latter can be regarded as one more point proving the existence of the theory of rarified sets. Now we can see the picture of our business affairs more complete.
 
I have already mentioned the interrelation of different sets and the essence of management in my article on the rarified sets. I suppose that the next step should be the interrelation of sets and the management systems. Actually when we make a decision at a consensus level, we usually operate unclear notions and factors. In fact we take part in the discussion in order to clear up the situation taking into consideration all the factors capable of influencing our success. That is why we need consensus, which is usually associated with risky decisions accepted by top management of the company at the level of business organization.
 
Technological management is supposed to be the next step. Imagine that we have set some aims (or just one aim – the solution of a problem), and we have to decide what to start with and how we are going to do that. Here we should admit that we are always running some risk of not getting the desired results. However, the associates, materially stimulated and involved into this technological process, will do their best to achieve the planned indexes. Here we speak of a compromise. The better results the company gets the higher is the income of the associates. However, we should not forget about human factor, namely the art of managing people, the art of proper understanding of aims set by top people in the company. The art of management implies proper setting of tasks in order to achieve the aims and to control the fulfillment.
 
Now we have come up to the executive level of business. It is autoritarizm where orders are not the discussion matter and the associates should carry out all the tasks set by the top management. You may suppose that some tasks remain uncompleted. In this case we will get one more problem, and the circle will get closed. The choice of management level where some problem will be solved depends on the competence of functional level of management, as well as on the seriousness of the problem and on the situation with reverse informational exchange all through the company’s hierarchy. Actually, this thesis proves the necessity of business transactions accounting. And we can estimate whether a certain transaction was successful (and how successful) or not, and later on top management level we can control the summary reports on the successful or non-successful functioning of certain divisions and the reasons for such results.
 
Now I am going to draw your attention to one more interesting fact. Let us see what decisions we make according to the logic and probability of each factor. In case of strict logic we will get either “yes” or “no”. For non-strict logic it can be “may be” as well. If we see it from the point of view of rarified sets we can get “yes” (if the probability of presence is high and the probability of non-presence is low) or “no” (if the probability of non-presence is high and the probability of presence of an element in the set is low). If both probabilities are high we make decision according to “may be” principle. So we take into consideration two variants of decision: given the presence or the absence of factor (if something happens we make a decision, however if nothing happens the decision we make will be quite different). Though I still do not know what happens in case when both possibilities are low, I suppose it will be “not existing”.
 
So, we face a funny thing again. If the management logic changes from down to up, there appears one more possible decision. So, in case of autoritarizm only “yes” and “no” are possible. In compromise case there can be three possibilities: “yes”, “no”, and “may be”. For consensus we have four possibilities: “yes”, “no”, “may be”, and “not existing” (“undefined”). I should admit that the fourth condition of consensus is widely represented in epos. For example, a hero had to go there nobody knew where and to bring that no one knew what; to fight the invincible hero and to carry out rather unclear tasks. Consequently, this condition should be able to describe weak interrelations with a high degree of accuracy. However, still it is just my supposition.

Used articles

• Rarefied sets
• Problems, aims and tasks in business
• Review and classification of management systems
• Consequent organization of management
• Roles in business
• Organization and Business Management Model
• Business transactions in automation of companies

Last modified: 15.06.2003
Translation by Elena Polyanskaya