METHODOLOGY AND PECULIARITIES OF EXPERTISE OF INVESTMENT PROJECTS IN THE REGIONS

The variety of goals and tasks facing heads of state or local government bodies, corporations, enterprises, organizations of all forms of ownership (hereinafter referred to as the “Head”), as well as the complexity of problems, the dilution of functional responsibility, the multiplicity of units and subordinates, dynamic and sometimes uncertain requirements and the conditions imposed by the environment – all this requires from the Head of Property adequate information necessary for making the necessary managerial decisions.

But time and resources, including cognitive, are limited, and he does not always manage to directly comprehend the situation, receive and process all the information that comes to him. It also happens that the manager himself does not understand how to explain his information needs to his subordinates, sometimes he can not fully disclose his goals to them, but the feeling of discomfort in the current situation disturbs him, and he needs someone’s irreplaceable and / or independent advice . Therefore, in management and decision-making for many centuries, if not millennia, an important role is played by the examination procedures based on the receipt and processing of expert opinions – qualified specialists in the relevant subject area [3].

Expertise has become both the subject of scientific research and the field of practical activity, in which thousands of expert organizations have been established throughout the world over the past half century. Since the beginning of the 21st century, a new phenomenon has emerged in this area – network expertise, which essentially uses modern information technologies, communication networks and data transmission. The head, due to the high complexity and responsibility of the decisions made, is increasingly forced to turn to the opinion of experts, expert communities, elite clubs, influential public organizations. This leads to the formation of such a phenomenon, which is sometimes referred to as a meticulous word, as an expertocracy [1].

Traditionally, from a theoretical point of view, the decision-making process is represented as a scheme for choosing a solution from several alternatives: from the available experience and resources, forward to the goals. It is only necessary to choose the criteria by which the alternatives will be evaluated, and then determine the necessary alternative according to these criteria.

Technologies for organizing network examinations are formed taking into account the fact that experts are in a networked environment, do not always see and know each other, but they possess techniques of intuitive and logical justification for such difficultly formalized skills as: anticipation, anticipation, prediction, prediction, prediction, etc. It is these skills and feelings that are especially important when conducting network expertise and decision making, in addition to, of course, the irreplaceable knowledge and expertise of experts [2].

Experts usually give out their thoughts, conclusions and suggestions in the form of a small free text, a conclusion, a review, a response. These answers must be correctly interpreted, understood, integrated. Identification of experts’ opinions (comments) is carried out in the following order:

- The leader is asked to the experts;

- the request is detailed by several questions in accordance with the chosen methodology;

- the moderator administers the expert procedure;

experts give their comments;

- analytical structures perform modeling and analytical processing of comments;

- Based on the results of the survey, a generalized expert-analytical comment is being prepared.

An important stage in conducting the examination is the search and selection of factors.

Many tasks related to the search for experts suggest finding answers to the following questions:

- Who has the required competencies to solve this task?

- Who has adjacent and additional competencies in relation to the solution of the problem?

- What competencies does the expert have?

- What are the competencies of this community of experts?

- what expert is similar to this expert?

- What is the emotional and creative potential of the expert?

- Which expert is the most significant in this expert community?

The search of experts, quite naturally, can be considered as a complex task, consisting of several stages [4]:

1) the formulation of the request (it determines which competencies are needed to solve the problem and the search strategy);

2) identification of experts, during which experts are allocated, ranking of experts;

3) selection of experts, during which experts are identified that best meet the needs. Those. from the list of potential experts are selected with a high rating, the availability of the expert, his location, role in the organization, and the current tasks he is solving are also taken into account. A possible tool for assessing the rating of experts is given in the Appendix.

The main objects of describing the activities of the expert in the social aspect (social connections – a way of maintaining knowledge and competence, information) are: information flows;

personal qualities of the expert (sociability, independence, willingness to help, reputation); issues of trust and reputation, recommendations; types of links: strong and weak, horizontal, vertical and diagonal, personal, workers (colleagues), thematic (professional, in different problem areas and subject areas); by interests (not necessarily an expert).

So, we examined the technology of selection and evaluation of experts for the subsequent organization and conduct of network expertise of investment projects.

Further we will construct models of an estimation of investment projects by various criteria which are offered as the most priority.

The evaluation will be carried out on three investment projects of OOO Rosugstroy: construction of hotel complexes:

1. “Caspian” in the city of Makhachkala (project 1);

2. “Moonlight” in the city of Kaspiisk (project 2);

3. “Southern Lights” in Derbent (project 3).

Evaluation of these projects is proposed to experts using the following criteria:

1. Profitability (criterion 1);

2. Profitability (criterion 2);

3. Recoupment (criterion 3);

4. Ecology (criterion 4).

At the first stage, a hierarchical model of project evaluation based on the selected criteria was constructed (Fig. 3.2.8).

At the next stage, the procedure for evaluating the criteria for the purpose – evaluation of investment projects

It was revealed that the first priority criterion is the one. Further, procedures for evaluating projects for each criterion separately

As a result, analyzing the results of the paired evaluation of all projects by all criteria, we have obtained the results, which indicate that the most preferable project is the second one.

As a result of expert evaluation, the most profitable from the point of view of experts was Project 2 – construction of a hotel complex

“Moonlight” in the city of Kaspiysk.

In the work we built a methodology for organizing and conducting a network expert appraisal of investment projects, in which the following stages are distinguished:

1) Decision-making on the need for an expert survey and formulation by the Head of his goal;

2) Selection and appointment of the Chief of the Working Group (WG, usually a scientific adviser and secretary, in the case of network expertise (in addition) – moderators and responsible for technological support);

3) Development of the WG (more precisely, its main staff, primarily the scientific adviser and the secretary) and the approval of the Technical Task Manager for an expert survey;

4) Development by the analytical group of the WG of a detailed scenario (ie regulations) for the collection and analysis of expert opinions (assessments);

5) Selection of experts in accordance with their competence;

6) Formation of an expert commission;

7) Conducting the collection of expert information;

8) Computer analysis of expert information using methods included in the scenario (when applied according to the scenario of the expert procedure from several rounds – the repetition of this and the previous stage);

9) Final analysis of expert opinions, interpretation of the results obtained and preparation of the final document for the Head;

10) The official end of the activities of the WG, including approval by the Head of the final document.

References

1. Breyer V.V. Teoretiko-igrovyye modeli konformnogo kollektivnogo povedeniya // Avtomatika i telemekhanika. 2014. – 436s.
2. Dzharratano G., Rayli G. Ekspertnyye sistemy. – M.: Vil’yams, 2013.-541s.
3. Dorofeyuk A.A. Metodologiya ekspertno-klassifikatsionnogo analiza v zadachakh upravleniya i obrabotki slozhnoorganizovannykh dannykh (istoriya i perspektivy razvitiya) // Problemy upravleniya. 2009. № 3.1. S. 19–28.
4. Raykov A.N. Normativnoye obespecheniye setevoy ekspertnoy deyatel’nosti // Informatsionnoye obshchestvo. 2012. № 5. S. 52 – 59.

---

Artice view count: Please wait

All articles of author «sabgieva1996»