Chemical Safety Science, 2018, Volume 2, No 2, p. 365 — 377


Expert analysis approach

UDC 338.23                                                                              Download PDF (RUS)

DOI: 10.25514/CHS.2018.2.14129



S.V. Pronichkin1,2*, I. P. Tikhonov2, I. D. Epinatiev2, and A. V. Roshchin2

1Federal Research Center “Computer Science and Control”, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

2Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Received November 09, 2018

Published December 26, 2018

Abstract – A series of existing approaches to determine promising trends for using results of scientific and technical programs has been analyzed. A number of drawbacks of the existing procedures for planning implementation of scientific and technical results are identified. A scientific and methodological approach to system analysis of the problems associated with practical use of results of scientific and technical programs are developed. The key aspects of practical using outcomes of research and development works related to chemical and biological safety issues are highlighted. The necessity of developing a decision rule is substantiated – the rule that establishes a dependence between an overall indicator reflecting the importance of implementation, and assessment values in accordance with different criteria. The presented results can be of interest both for analyzing the most significant aspects of implementation, and for determining the prospects for practical using results of scientific and technical programs.

Keywords: scientific and technical results, system analysis, decision rule, criteria, expertise, implementation of scientific results.


1. Leontyev S.K., Gubinsky A.M. Technological forecasting and planning: Russian and foreign experience, prospects for the national defense industry. M.: Izd. Mosk. Univ., 2014. P. 124 [in Russian].
2. Lyaskovskij V.L., Smirnov S.S., Pronin A.Yu. // Vooruzhenie i ekonomika [Armament and economy]. 2014. No. 3. P. 12 [in Russian].
3. Korchak V.Yu., Tuzhikov E.Z. // Kompetentnost’ [Competence]. 2016. No. 9-10. P. 6 [in Russian].
4. Vikulov O.V., Kapral’nyj Yu.V. // Vestnik RAEN [Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences]. 2016. No. 2. P. 42 [in Russian].
5. Vilensky P.L., Livshits V.N., Smolyak S.A. Evaluating the effectiveness of investment projects: theory and practice. M.: Poli Print Servis, 2015. P. 932 [in Russian].
6. Pronichkin S.V., Tikhonov I.P. // Ekonomicheskij analiz: teoriya i praktika [Economic analysis: theory and practice]. 2014. No. 3. P. 27 [in Russian].
7. Tikhonov I.P. Pronichkin S.V. // Audit i finansovyj analiz [Audit and financial analysis]. 2017. No. 3-4. P. 598 [in Russian].
8. Larichev O.I. Verbal analysis of decisions. M.: Nauka, 2006. P. 74 [in Russian].
9. Roshchin A.V., Tikhonov I.P., Pronichkin S.V. // Ekonomicheskij analiz: teoriya i praktika [Economic analysis: theory and practice]. 2013. No. 21. P. 10 [in Russian].
10. Pronichkin S.V., Tikhonov I.P., Sakharova N.A., Roshchin A.V. // Him. bezop. [Electronic Journal of Chemical Safety]. 2017. No. 1. P. 256. doi: 10.25514/CHS.2017.1.11449 [in Russian].
11. Pronichkin S.V., Tikhonov I.P. // Natsional’nye interesy: prioritety i bezopasnost’ [National Interests: Priorities and Security]. 2013. No. 37. P. 13 [in Russian].
12. Wilson K. // International Journal of Forecasting. 2016. V. 33. P. 325. doi: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2015.11.014.