System engineering point of view [Book Review]

2002 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 60-60
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 8-20
Author(s):  
Natalia M. Lavrenyuk ◽  
Anyuta S. Tikhonova

Digitalization of society and public life is an objective fact and a challenge for Russia, which is rich in resources and risks. The article provides an assessment of the passport of the national program “Digital economy of the Russian Federation”, which is among the 12 national projects on 12 areas of strategic development, established by the decree of the President of the Russian Federation from 7 May 2018 No. 204 “On the national goals and strategic objectives development of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2024” and contributes to the solution of problems in the field of “Digital economy”. This fact already raises a number of topical questions: “Why is the program included in the list of projects?”, “Why will the national program on the digital economy be implemented within the framework of state programs of the Russian Federation: ‘Information society’ and ‘Economic development and innovative economy’?”, “How much does it contribute to the preservation and development of an integral Russia?”. The authors set a goal — using structural and functional diagnostics to give an expert opinion on the prospects for achieving qualitative and quantitative targets of the national program “Digital economy of the RF” and their value. The methodological key for the examination is the modification of the checklist for system social engineering. The introductory part of the work is devoted to the relationship between the categories of integrity and value, social system engineering, which are important for building the desired social reality, as well as an overview of approaches to social design, its goals and purpose. The main part of the work analyzes the passport of the national program “Digital economy of the RF” from the point of view of its structure, the function of their implementation at the level of state administration, and it also considers the coverage of federal and regional programs and projects of elements of the digital economy in terms of the completeness of significant tasks to be solved. In conclusion, a summary is given in the form of responses to the social engineering checklist: “Are we building a whole?”, “Are we building a valuable entity?” and “Are we building a valuable entity correctly?”.


2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-58
Author(s):  
Alessio M. Pacces ◽  
Laurent Germain ◽  
Áron Perényi

This review covers the book titled “CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: NEW CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES”, which was written by Alexander N. Kostyuk, Udo Braendle and Vincenzo Capizzi (Virtus Interpress, 2017, Hardcover, ISBN: 978-617-7309-00-9). The review shortly outlines the structure of the book, pays attention to it’s strong sides and issues that will be, by the reviewers’ point of view, most interesting for the reader.


Author(s):  
Aleksey Popov ◽  
Oleg Romanko

Introduction. The publication is a review of the monograph of British researcher V. Davis, dedicated to the Soviet and Post-Soviet memory of the Great Patriotic War in the hero city of Novorossiysk. Methods and materials. Based on a significant set of published materials and oral interviews, the author characterizes discourse, memorials, and practices related to the genesis and subsequent development of the “myth about Malaya Zemlya”. From the methodological point of view, the peer-reviewed monograph is written from the position of the popular direction of memory studies in the West and is characterized by interdisciplinarity, increased attention to the analysis of memorial discourse, visual representations and social practices, while completely ignoring the complex of archival sources on the research topic. Analysis and Results. The main conclusion of the author is that through its association with L.I. Brezhnev’s biography during his reign, the “malozemelniy myth” became an important part of not only local but also national historical memory. Generally, the reviewed book is a valuable contribution to the study of the collective memory of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet and Post-Soviet period, and the debatable nature of its individual provisions can serve as an incentive for the emergence of new studies. The main disadvantage of the book in terms of its scientific significance is the author’s desire to impose on the reader non-obvious political conclusions about the total mythology of the Soviet/Post-Soviet memory of the Great Patriotic War, as well as the permanent militarism of public consciousness in the USSR/Russia.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document