| English
"Куда идет мир? Каково будущее науки? Как "объять необъятное", получая образование - высшее, среднее, начальное? Как преодолеть "пропасть двух культур" - естественнонаучной и гуманитарной? Как создать и вырастить научную школу? Какова структура нашего познания? Как управлять риском? Можно ли с единой точки зрения взглянуть на проблемы математики и экономики, физики и психологии, компьютерных наук и географии, техники и философии?"

«Introduction to the Theory of Intersubjective Management» 
Vladimir A. Vittikh

Nevertheless, it is far to mean that the problem is solved, since the decision-making, which is convenient for everybody, takes place under the conditions of multitude of resource restrictions (financial, technologic, power supply etc). Therefore, the OMS built by actors is a formulation of the problem but not a solution thereof. The above-stated position matches to a large degree with the views of Laurière ( 1991 ), who, speaking about solution of problems one meets in the every-day-life, had in mind rather “analysis and representation of specific situations” than the solution it-self. “To formulate a problem means first of all to understand conditions of the problem or, in other words, to find an appropriate representation”. In other words, the originally elaborated OMS reflects understanding of the problem by actors, but they haven’t yet attained mutual understanding as to the manner to regulate the problem situation that would be convenient for everyone.

Then, the actors begin to conduct experiences with OMS, defending their positions, on the one hand, and taking in account the interests of their colleagues and valuable benchmarks of groups, from the other hand. There is a step-by-step OMS transformation, in result of which OMS is elaborated and this OMS is shared by all the actors wherethe mutual understanding of heterogeneous actor is attained at last (Vittikh 2012b ). It is important to have in mind that the actors’ preferences depend on the context and character of interactions among them, and the preferences scales are being formed in the process on negotiations themselves, not being rigidly specified a priori (Sapir 2001 ). This circumstance, restricting the appliance of classical mathematical methods when experimenting with OMS, results in necessity to look for other methods and tools among which are multi-agent models and technologies (Skobelev 2010 ; Vittikh and Skobele 2003 ).

It should be noted that a general scheme of such ontological modeling was suggested and discussed in details in the work (Smirnov 2012 ).

3.6 Decision-Making

The decision-making to regulate a problem situation on the basis of the theory of intersubjective management is directly connected with attainment of actors’ mutual understanding and consensus, i.e. their common consent in the disputable issue, obtained by way of negotiations, due to convergence of the actors’ positions. More precisely, consensus is not a unanimity, it doesn’t mean that “everybody votes pro”, it means only that “nobody votes contra” (Ackoff 2009 ). Consensus is being formed gradually, in proportion as OMS under transformation comes nearer to the model shared by all the actors. And, if OMS doesn’t arrange even one of actors, the decision is not made.

Such an approach may be resulted in undesirable delays in decision-making under the conflict of interests’ conditions of the actors. However, if to stake on their solidarity, then the way out can be found; it is necessary, for this purpose,to arrange monitoring of the speed of the problem situation’s development. When actors will begin to understand that the time reserves of decision-making will have expired in the nearest future, it will stimulate them to go on mutual concessions, to look for compromises. And it means that the number of OMS transformations, necessary to attain consensus, will self-regulate, providing the ability to control in real time.

Alternative is the traditional “majority principle”: not to waste time for a long term negotiations and for convergence of positions, but to make decision by a simple voting. In this event, time could be saved indeed, but there will be no guaranty of decision’s quality, since a part of actors having weighty arguments will not agree with the chosen way to regulate the situation. “As is well known since the times of Condorcet, the majority rule does not guarantee the expression of preferences of society, i.e. it can lead to irrational results… It is noteworthy that the classical decision theory leads to a tense confrontation of rationality and irrationality, but leaves everything as is” (Luhmann 2000 ).

In fact, we are so accustomed, indeed, to do a choice according to the principle of “majority”, that, usually, we don’t think about “minority” and what this minority is expected to be in result of the decision made (not in the minority’s favor). At the same time, history brings us many lessons of negative consequences derived from the dictates by majority, resulting in infringement of rights and freedoms of a part of people. Therefore, the theory of intersubjective management is being built exactly consensus-based, presupposing a non-violent decision-making and, in this sense, meeting the principles of free society.

4 Conclusion

These last years, within the framework of the global idea to modernize our society, we see development of lines of activity and implementation of appropriate programs connected with organization and perfection of the process of management: electronic democracy, electronic government, private-state partnership, public-state partnership, information society development, etc. They are aimed to expand participation of citizen, business and social organizations in lawmaking, to make adopt socially significant decisions by authority, to perform the processes of State, municipal and corporative governance. And what’s more, following traditional conceptions, the solution of these problems is made on the basis of the principles of classical bureaucracy with its rigid hierarchy of power, functional specialization, procedures regulations, disregard of personal qualities of people, etc. This “mechanistic nature” and “depersonalization” of bureaucratic structures, which ensured their success in the industrial epoch, have begun to be nowadays a hindrance for social, economical and humanitarian development, since the world has become open and dynamic, the man started to realize him-self more and more free therein, communication has become a productive force, social self-organization has got development. In these conditions, any redecorating of bureaucratic machine which doesn’t touch its fundamentals cannot ensure any proper efficiency of management in the present-day society. A change of the very paradigm of management is required.

Exactly for this purpose, this work proposes the principles of construction of the theory of intersubjective management, based on postnonclassical scientific rationality and on concept of free society, wherein the stake is made on non-violent means of decision-making oriented towards attainment of mutual understanding and consensus. Yet it is only an introduction to the theory, and not the theory itself, but its publication is conditioned by a matured need to draw attention to the above-named problem and to expand the circle of scientists and professionals involved in search of the solution. Of course, the theory of intersubjective management is a certain idealization (as, however, any other theory, including the “ideal bureaucracy”), but, over the years, it will become more and more in line with the realities of the future information society.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.


Ackoff RL (2009) Beyond socialism and capitalism: developing society. Probl Manag Soc Syst 1(1):112–140

Chaykovsky YV (1993) On the general theory of evolution. Way Int Philos Mag 1(4):101–141

Cloke K, Goldsmith J (2004) The end of management and the rise of organizational democracy. Piter, SPb

Dictionary of Philosophical Terms (2004) Infra-M, Moscow

Furs V (2001) Paradigm of critical theory in contemporary philosophy: attempt of explication. Logos 2:46–75

Habermas J (2006) Moral consciousness and communicative action. Nauka, SPb

Hartmann N (1997) Zur Grundlegung der 1941. Ontologie. Reference is given acc. to philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. INFRA-M, Moscow, p 416

Heidegger M (2003) Being and time. Folio, Kharkov

Huebner K (1996) The truth of the myth. Respublika, Moscow

Johnson RA, Kast FE, Rosenzweig JE (1967) The theory and management of systems, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, (translation from English, Moscow: Sovetskoye Radio)

Koestler A (1989) The ghost in the machine. Arcana books, London

Kokhanovsky VP, Leshkevich TG, Matyash TP, Fatkhi TB (2004) Fundamentals of philosophy of science. Phoenix, Rostov, Don

Kukathas C (2011) The liberal archipelago: a theory of diversity and freedom. Mysl, Moscow

Kueppers G (1999) Self-organisation— the emergence of order. From local interactions to global structures. SEIN Project Paper No. 2. University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld

Laurière J-L (1991) Systems of artificial intelligence. Mir, Moscow

Losev AF (1969) History of ancient aesthetics. Sophists. Socrates. Plato. Iskusstvo, Moscow

Loskutnikova VM (2011) Habermas and Luhmann: two approaches to researches of communication in the contemporary society. Open Interdisciplinary Magazine “Humanitarian Informatics”, Issue 1, Publishing House of Tomsk University, Tomsk.

Luhmann N (2000) Decisions in information society. Problems of theoretical sociology, issue 3. Publishing House of SPb’s State University, SPb

Merrill GH (2003) The Babylon project: towards an extensible text-mining platform. IEEE IT Pro, March–April 2003, IEEE Computer Society

Mikhaylov IA (2003) Hermeneutical logics of G. Spaeth and G. Lipps. Gustav spaeth’s creative heritage in the context of philosophical problem of historical and cultural consciousness formation (Interdisciplinary Aspect). Publishing House of Tomsk University, Tomsk, pp 114–123

Modern Philosophical Dictionary (1998) London, Frankfurt am Mein, Paris, Luxembourg, Moscow, Minsk “PANPRINT”

New Philosophical Encyclopedia (in four volumes) (2010) Mysl, Moscow

Novikov AM, Novikov DA (2007) Methodology. SINTEK, Moscow

Philosophy (2003) Textbook for Higher Educational Institutions. Phoenix, Rostov/Don

Philosophy (2004) Gardariki, Moscow

Prigozhin I, Stengers I (1986) Order out of chaos. (Man’s New Dialogue with Nature). Progress, Moscow

Sapir J (2001) On economic theory of heterogeneous systems (experience in research of decentralized economy). State University, Higher School of Economics, Moscow

Shepard HA (1965) Changing relationships in organizations. In: March JG (ed) Handbook of organizations. Rand McNally, Chicago, III

Shulga EN (2004) Problems of pre-understanding in hermeneutics, phenomenology, sociology. IF RAN, Moscow

Shuman AN (2004) Contemporary logics: theory and practice. Ekonompress, Minsic

Simon H (1972) The sciences of the artificial. Mir, Moscow

Skobelev PO (2010) Multi-agent technologies for industrial applications: to 20 anniversary of Samara Scientific School of multi-agent systems. Mekhatronika Avtomatizatsia Upravlenie 12:33–46

Smirnov SV (2012) Ontological modeling in situational management. Ontol Proektirovaniya 2(4):16–24

Social Philosophy: Dictionary (2006) Akademichesky proekt, Moscow; Delovaya kniga, Yekaterinburg

Solovieva EV (2009) The concepts of “Public” and “Communicative Action” of Jurgen Habermas as a tool for analysis of social partnership. Bull Nizhny Novgorod’s N.I. Lobachevsky Univ (series “Social Sciences”) 1:62–66

Sorokin PA (2006) Social and cultural dynamics. Astrel, Moscow

Spencer H (1997) Synthetic philosophy: translation from english. Nika-Centre, Kiev

Stepin VS, Gorokhov VG, Rozov MA (1996) Philosophy of science and engineering. Gardariki, Moscow

The World Encyclopedia (2001) Philosophy. AST, Moscow; Harvest, Sovremenny Literator, Minsic (2001)

Vikhansky OS, Naumov AI (1999) Management: textbook, 3d ed. Gardariki, Moscow

Vittikh VA (2002) Integrity of complex systems. Problems of controlling and modeling in complex systems. In: Proceedings of IV international conference. Samara Scientific Centre of Russian Academy of Sciences, Samara, pp 48–58

Vittikh VA (2005) Control process in socio-technical systems. In: Proceedings of VII international conference. Samara Scientific Centre of Russian Academy of Sciences, Samara, pp 32–42

Vittikh VA (2007) Knowledge personalization. Problems of controlling and modeling in complex systems. In: Proceedings of IX international conference. Samara Scientific Centre of Russian Academy of Sciences, Samara, pp 441–446

Vittikh VA (2009a) Paradigm of limited rationality of decision-making—1. Bull Samara State Tech Univ (series “Technical Sciences”) 3(25):22–31

Vittikh VA (2009b) Ontological models of situations in the processes of collegial decision-making. Problems of controlling and modeling in complex systems. In: Proceedings of XI international conference. Samara Scientific Centre of Russian Academy of Sciences, Samara, pp 405–410

Vittikh VA (2009c) Axiological and verified scientific knowledge. Problems of controlling and modeling in complex systems. In: Proceedings of XI international conference. Samara Scientific Centre of Russian Academy of Sciences, Samara, pp 449–454

Vittikh VA (2010) Organization of complex systems. Samara Scientific Centre of Russian Academy of Sciences, Samara

Vittikh VA (2011) Cognitive science for developing systems. Mekhatronika Avtomatizatsia Upravlenie 10:45–49

Vittikh VA (2012a) Intersubjective systems as the entities of postnonclassical science. Mekhatronika Avtomatizatsia Upravlenie 1:53–55

Vittikh VA (2012b) Situational management from the positions of postnonclassical science. Ontol Des 2(4):C. 7–C. 15

Vittikh VA, Skobelev PO (2003) Multi-agent models of interaction for networking needs and opportunities in open systems. Avtomatika I Telemekhanika 1:177–185

Vittikh VA, Skobelev PO, Shamashov MA, Shveykin PK (2003) Multi-agent system for decision-making support at schedules formation and at railway traffic controlling. In: Proceedings of V international conference. Samara Scientific Centre of Russian Academy of Sciences, Samara, pp 340–346

Vittikh VA, Sitnikov PV, Smyrnov SV (2009a) Ontological approach to construction of information and logic models in the processes of control by social systems. Bull Comput Inf Technol 15:45–53

Vittikh VA, Volkhontsev DV, Gritsenko EA, Svetkina GD, Skobelev PO, Surnin OL (2009b) Regional system of provision of state and municipal services to the citizens in electronic form with appliance of integrated knowledge base and multi-agent technologies in the social sphere of Samara region

Vittikh VA, Ignatyev MV, Smirnov SV (2012a) Ontology in the intersubjective theories. Mekhatronika Avtomatizatsia Upravlenie 5:69–70

Vittikh VA, Ignatyev MV, Smirnov SV (2012b) Elaboration of communication actions support systems. In: Problems of Controlling and Modeling in Complex Systems: Proceedings of XIV International Conference. Samara Scientific Centre of Russian Academy of Sciences, Samara, pp 125–130

Zotov AF (2010) Contemporary occidental philosophy. Prospekt, Moscow

Zub AT (2010) Making management decisions. Theory and practice: a training manual. ID, Moscow: INFRA-M “FORUM”