It is necessary to develop a unified strategy of the system that would ensure the most effective elimination or mitigation of existing problems. We can say that the task ahead is to formulate a unified strategy from particular strategies for solving individual problems. The essence of the strategy for solving each individual problem is the implementation of certain changes in the problem system (element) and its external environment.

In accordance with the formulation of the problem of solving a problem focused on changing the existing state, the development of strategies is carried out in terms of changes in relation to some basic development option, resulting from extrapolation of the prevailing trends, and the available ways and possibilities for implementing changes. The list of such changes characterizes the structure of the strategy and at the same time sets target standards for the development of complexes of measures for its implementation.

The active solution of the problem, as it was noted, involves the elimination or compensation of the factors that cause the occurrence and reproduction of the problem. In order to consider from these positions, the issues of developing a single strategy for the development of a problem system, it is necessary to analyze the structure of the factors of the problem situation and, on this basis, to investigate the structure of measures to eliminate them, in order to identify those elementary blocks from which a single strategy can be assembled.

One of such blocks is a private strategy, which is understood as a set of actions aimed at eliminating a problematic situation or in one of the subsystems in one of the activities of the Moscow Government. As a rule, private strategies combine elementary, object, group and functional strategies.

Since the quality of functioning of a single subsystem (line of activity) can be influenced simultaneously by several negative factors, each of which can be eliminated and compensated in various ways, it seems appropriate to initially consider a possible control effect characterized by a single object, as well as a subject and a method of influence on a separate factor. These impacts can be grouped in various aspects: concrete results, objects, subjects and the mechanism of impact. If they are combined from the position of a common control object, i.e. a factor that is the subject of control, then for each factor an appropriate strategy can be selected that allows it to be eliminated or compensated – an elementary strategy. In other words, the controlling influence on the factor is the basis for combining several subjects, forms and methods of management into an elementary strategy.

A set of control actions aimed at improving the quality of functioning of a certain functional element of the system gives an object strategy.

Combining object strategies into groups of the same type of functional elements belonging to different functional subsystems of the problem system is a group strategy.

Object strategies can also be combined on the basis of improving the properties of functional subsystems to which the corresponding elements belong. Such an association will form a functional strategy.

Mixed strategies will be considered a set of private strategies combined on the basis of improving various problematic characteristics of the system in question as a whole.

The combination of mixed strategies provides a general strategy for changing other properties of the problem system. At the same time, it is obvious that the costs and results of the implementation of individual mixed strategies and their arbitrary combinations vary. Therefore, the formation of a unified strategy is the task of choosing the most effective combination of options for the implementation of mixed and separate private strategies.

In the process of forming a unified strategy for solving the problem, the first source of information for us is developments on individual private strategies, but at the same time we can also obtain characteristics that go beyond the scope of the developments carried out. This implies the active use of expert analysis. Therefore, the second source of information is expert estimates.

Based on the choice of a single strategy for solving the problem for each particular strategy, the normative properties of the functional subsystems implementing them are formed, then it is necessary to assess the achievability of these normative properties by each real system. In the case of a negative assessment, the unified strategy should be revised accordingly, and in the case of a positive assessment, it is necessary to proceed to the next stage of analysis – determining the conditions under which these normative properties can be achieved.

It should be noted that during the development of the strategy, the task arises of forming alternative options for achieving the required characteristics of the various elements of the system under consideration and the links between them.

There are two approaches to its solution: the first, a purely expert approach based on the use of heuristic procedures such as «brainstorm», Delphi method, etc., and the second approach based on the widest possible systematic view of the object of planning and management and on more or less ordered procedures relations with each of the elements of this object of possible control actions. It is quite difficult to determine in advance which approach will be more effective. Apparently, they should complement each other. For example, a formal-logical approach can set a kind of strategy skeleton, which then acquires concrete content using heuristic methods.

Theoretically, the number of alternative ways to solve problems in the field of ensuring the information security of a megalopolis can sometimes be significant. Some of the alternative solutions may seem quite acceptable, some naive. The question, obviously, is whether we can actually list all possible ways to solve the problem and whether there is hope to analyze all these ways, compare them with each other. Both from a theoretical and practical point of view, a positive answer should be given to the first part of the question: in principle, for any problem in the field of ensuring information security of a megalopolis, theory and practice can suggest a list of specific ways to solve them. As for the second part of the question – about the possibility of analyzing all these ways and comparing them, it is possible to answer only by considering a specific problem, probable ways to solve it and options that can be developed in sufficient quantity on each way of solving the problem. Thus, a contradiction may arise: if all possible strategies cannot be chosen for analysis, then the best solution to the problem may not be found. In other words, the «problem solving tree» will not give us what it was made for.

Let’s consider how this contradiction can be practically resolved. Obviously, here we need to answer the question of how many strategies should be developed. Practice in various fields of activity shows that the maximum possible number of alternatives is, as a rule, seven. Most often, five alternatives are taken, and if there is no time to solve the problem, you can limit yourself to three.

Thus, if the number of alternative options being developed for each of the ways to solve the problem is in the range of 3-7, then it is practically possible to proceed to the following procedure — identifying the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative solution strategy in relation to the goal or goals.

The choice of a rational variant of the information security strategy of the city of Moscow, even if there is a list of advantages and disadvantages of alternatives, is the most difficult. The complexity is manifested in the fact that in order to evaluate alternative solutions to the problem, it is necessary to find a single measure of all advantages and disadvantages for all alternatives. In other words, to find a way to determine the indicator of the effectiveness of solutions to the problem, which would be expressed in comparable quantities. Then, having the corresponding performance indicators for many alternative solutions to the problem, you can choose the best solution for the maximum (minimum) value of the indicator.

Techniques for choosing the best solution are reduced to three groups of methods. The first group consists of methods based on the use of quantitative characteristics of alternative elements. The second group includes methods based on the use of qualitative characteristics of alternative elements. The third group includes methods based on the use of both quantitative and qualitative characteristics of alternative elements.

When considering these groups, it should be emphasized that the implementation of problem-solving methods involves the widespread use of experiments. It is from them that the correctness of the evaluation of alternatives and the choice of the best solution will largely depend.