METHOD FOR CONFIGURING THE COMPOSITION OF A PROJECT TEAM BASED ON THE CRITERIA OF SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING

The main mission in the formation of a project management team (hereinafter referred to as “team)” is reduced to the choice of “right” people from many candidates. Only thanks to this, a team will be able to work effectively as a well-coordinated, self-organizing system, thereby making a significant contribution to the success of a project under conditions of high uncertainty and turbulence. Analysis of multiple characteristics of an effective team [1, 2] suggests that the degree of its effectiveness is directly proportional to activity and intensity of the demonstration by its members of the competencies of project managers (engineering, contextual and, especially, behavioral [3]). It is common to consider subjective well-being of team participants caused by the positive working atmosphere as one of the key factors of such activity and intensity [4]. Most often, subjective well-being implies a comprehensive measure of individual happiness, which takes into consideration not only economic aspects, but also non-economic ones [5]. The latter imply equal positive relationships and trust among team members, effective working communications, sense of belonging to the whole (team, project, and organization), sense of psychological security. At the same time, subjective well-being acts as a factor of creation of a positive working atmosphere in a team. According to the research [6, 7], it is a value structure of consciousness of its participants, has a distinct focus on their value preferences. Commonness of team members by their value preferences of subjective well-being stands as the single basis, on which positive working atmosphere relies and by which it is maintained. In this context, it is appropriate to use subjective well-being as the criterion of “rightness” of candidates in formation of project teams. This is especially significant for the teams of international projects in view of multi-culture and diversity of worldviews and “backgrounds” of their participants. Subjective well-being METHOD FOR CONFIGURING THE COMPOSITION OF A PROJECT TEAM BASED ON THE CRITERIA OF SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING


Introduction
The main mission in the formation of a project management team (hereinafter referred to as "team)" is reduced to the choice of "right" people from many candidates. Only thanks to this, a team will be able to work effectively as a well-coordinated, self-organizing system, thereby making a significant contribution to the success of a project under conditions of high uncertainty and turbulence. Analysis of multiple characteristics of an effective team [1,2] suggests that the degree of its effectiveness is directly proportional to activity and intensity of the demonstration by its members of the competencies of project managers (engineering, contextual and, especially, behavioral [3]). It is common to consider subjective well-being of team participants caused by the positive working atmosphere as one of the key factors of such activity and intensity [4]. Most often, subjective well-being implies a comprehensive measure of individual happiness, which takes into consideration not only economic aspects, but also non-economic ones [5]. The latter imply equal positive relationships and trust among team members, effective working communications, sense of belonging to the whole (team, project, and organization), sense of psychological security. At the same time, subjective well-being acts as a factor of creation of a positive working atmosphere in a team. According to the research [6,7], it is a value structure of consciousness of its participants, has a distinct focus on their value preferences. Commonness of team members by their value preferences of subjective well-being stands as the single basis, on which positive working atmosphere relies and by which it is maintained. In this context, it is appropriate to use subjective well-being as the criterion of "rightness" of candidates in formation of project teams. This is especially significant for the teams of international projects in view of multi-culture and diversity of worldviews and "backgrounds" of their participants. Subjective well-being in them acts as an integral indicator of value orientation, reflexing over cultural and mental differences. At the same time, in some societies, the parameter of subjective well-being is regarded as a system-forming personality value. Based on empirical experience, such societies include the countries in Africa.
Today, parameters of subjective well-being are widely used for evaluating the performance of separate project managers, project leaders [4], as well as project teams in general [8,9]. Despite this, the issues related to the development of the system of indicators, evaluation scales, procedures for evaluating and selecting candidates to a team by this criterion remain unresolved.
This demonstrates the relevance of the research aimed at the development and experimental verification of the efficiency of approaches to constructing individual profiles of candidates based on the indicators of subjective well-being [10] and the formation of project teams according to the criterion of coherence of these profiles [11].

Literature review and problem statement
Research into issues related to the formation of project teams has always been, and remains, relevant regardless of the spheres of activity. For example, in the space sphere, special attention is paid to the ability of members to establish and maintain interpersonal relationships [12]. NASA funds the entire research direction "The risk of the efficiency and mental (behavioral) deterioration due to inadequate cooperation, coordination, communication and psychosocial adaptation in a team". Within such research, all the means, both terrestrial and within a spacecraft, which maintain proper psychosocial state of members of already formed teams, are studied in detail. However, the procedures of the evaluation and selection of candidates for space projects are described in open sources only in general terms.
It is emphasized in paper [12] that it will take years to see the first significant results towards the development of a standard set of methods for measuring, especially oriented to psychological and team factors. This situation also applies to all other spheres of activity. That is why the issue of the development of an effective method for selection of project management team members is even more important than it might be for one particular industry.
The scientific literature uses different terms in the formulation of activities for team building: selection, composition, formation, design. Usually, such studies as [12] only enumerate a series of personal characteristics (including technical, communication, and holistic) that are desirable for a candidate to a project team. However, detailed descriptions of the algorithm for selection, translation of verbal descriptive characteristics into some numeric forms for future comparison, the application of measurement and comparison scale as most important but are virtually not found in literature.
Thus, in paper [13], 47 attributes required for an effective project manager were analyzed, their ranking by their importance for males and females was explored with a view to identifying gender differences in the perception of competences. For most projects, the central issue is how to use the importance of indicators for separate individuals to determine their future compatibility for working in a team. The study [13] also uses the concept of constructing a per-sonal profile for candidates, however, such a profile consists only of formal attributes (age, sex, education, nominal education, work experience, etc.), without capturing individual personal preferences that affect the perception of the world in general.
Other studies, such as [14], analyze the impact the nature of the team development and availability of external intervention on its effectiveness, using so-called "a group development questionnaire". The tool developed in [14] is of interest to study maturity of already formed teams but is not applicable without significant modifications for the task of selecting compatible team members. The studied sample acts as a meaningful limitation of work [14]. The study participants were selected exclusively among the employees of the Swedish public sector. It does not allow extension of the obtained knowledge to other spheres of activity without their experimental verification.
Article [15] describes a ready toolset for scanning the information about the candidate in the form of a check-list template. The template contains three categories: knowledge, practical experience, features of character. The section "knowledge" is divided into three types: general management, project management, subject area (industry). This division corresponds to widely used approaches concerning the classification of competences. Paper [15] does not contain any comparison of the profiles of candidates, transfer of verbal data of check-lists to numeric data using relevant scales. However, the practice needs not only algorithms of descriptions of candidates, but also their comparison and selection based on the compatibility parameters for further work in a project.
Similarly to paper [13], article [16] examines the attributes inherent of whole cultures. Three cultural groups were separated: multi-active, reactive, and linear-active. In the contemporary context of rapid globalization, international projects become an everyday reality. Accordingly, the interaction of stakeholders from different ethnic background really requires a certain universal uniting marker in the process of the project team formation. Attempts to measure and take into consideration the ability of an individual to adapt to multicultural environment are made by introducing the concept of Cultural Intelligence [16]. In this approach, the identity is assigned the Cultural Quotient (CQ). The higher the CQ, the better adaptability to cultural diversity. However, paper [16] contains no information about how to configure a team by cultural coefficient. The feasibility of "labeling" whole nations in the form of one of the three possible characteristics (multi-active/reactive/linear-active) seems disputable.
While there are enough descriptive techniques, experimental verifications of selective methods are found in the literature more rarely. That is why papers [17,18], in which the method of selection of teachers for the educational program is based on the social judgment theory, are of particular interest. Six psychological models: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Resilience, Self-regulation, and Cognitive Ability are applied as personality attributes in them. When separating candidates into clusters, the people expressing social opinion regarding the candidates used different attributes of the six possible as the leading ones for three different clusters. In the application of such a method of selection, the goal is to get the answer to the question how likely is it that a candidate will succeed in the teaching profession. It is not enough for a project team. In a project, it is important to know that selected members of a team will succeed in working together.
It is noted in study [18] that "... team members with different personalities are unlikely to follow strict rules to regulate their behavior … but it is not worse for the effectiveness of the whole team, if it is dysfunctional in general". This statement confirms the relevance of our intention to put forward the criterion of subjective well-being as a unifying parameter to identify those candidates who have common value preferences.
Such methods are developed to create more effective, efficient, and comfortable project teams. Paper [19] analyzes the factors influencing the efficiency of teams. Such studies, though not focused on selective methods, are a valuable source of information about the factors that support the unity of team members. Thus, paper [19] studied inter-institutional research teams, consisting of representatives of academic circles. Three studied factors presumably influencing the team productivity were separated: Knowledge-sharing, Team conflict, Emotional intelligence. Paper [19] contains the most valuable material about which mathematical tools and software products were used for processing experimental data. However, there is no information on how teams were formed, and how candidates were selected. In paper [19], the selection was limited merely to representatives of one sphere of activity (education), albeit with international participants. From the conclusions reached by the authors of [19], it follows that: -on the one hand, emotional intelligence directly affects both the ability to disseminate knowledge among participants of joint projects, and conflict management; -on the other hand, in the educational environment emotional intelligence by itself does not affect the performance of teams. This relates to that the representatives of academic circles are "educated people with a high socio-economic status and self-identity, ... who can manage and appropriately express their emotions". That is why it should be borne in mind that "the elite of a society has certain dignity". Teachers have "a sense of professional morals" and the desire "to bring benefits to teamwork". Team members with higher social status easily managed their emotions, while subordinates sharply reduced the team performance due to the problems with knowledge exchange and team conflicts; -emotional intelligence "was, however, both in direct and indirect aspects, a key factor in such structure of relationships in the work of the members of academic community".
In paper [19] it was shown that belonging to the academic field served as the source of unity of the members of the studied teams. Therefore, the criterion of subjective well-being can be a really universal invariant criterion not dependent on social, economic, cultural, gender, age, and status belonging.
In sport, within some sporting disciplines, competitions are held in both in teams and among individuals. In team sports, athletes' personal qualities will not be decisive in the absence of the team cohesion. Similar logic is the basis for the classification of available techniques of team building in article [20]. The need for the developments for compiling personal profiles of candidates and for the formed teams was shown. In addition, it focuses on the analysis of already formed teams, but not at the stage of their formation.
An analysis of sources [20][21][22] makes it possible to draw a conclusion about the existence of two key selective approaches to team formation.
The first approach ("element") is aimed at identifying if a candidate meets the assigned reference values of the indicators. This method of selection involves a clearly determined reference model, procedures for measuring indicator values of a candidate, comparing them with reference values. The candidates with the highest scores are selected to the team. A typical example of this approach is outlined in [21].
The second approach ("holistic") also involves the use of a reference model. However, the obtained estimates of candidates are used for the search for the most rational configuration of a team as a holistic system. Under this approach, the concept of a complementary team is used as a key concept [22].
It is possible to identify two shortcomings that are common for these approaches. The approaches do not imply the comparison between profiles that are based on studies of self-attitude [23], that is, by a candidate himself. In addition, they do not imply a procedure for assessing the integrity of a team, when the profiles of all candidates are selected in turn as a reference profile. There have been found no studies, in which similar problems would be raised and solved in the context of the project team formation. The closest in this sense are the methods proposed in studies [24] and [25]. Thus, in paper [24], the team formation method is based on the selection of potential candidates based on the professional experience of completed works and their further ranking relative to the model of the "ideal" executor of this work. The provisions of the research were not used in [24], the method for final decision making about the choice of a candidate was not detailed. Paper [25] addressed the issues of formation of soft (educational) projects based on the ranking by the participants of the competences formed in a project as indicators of their values. To do this, the author used the concept of the function of presence developed in [26]. However, under this approach, another problem was solved -the transformation of participants' profiles in the form of ranked series into work packages and project works. This is significantly different from the problem of identifying the rational team configuration.
Based on the foregoing, it can be argued that the insufficiently developed methods for the formation of project teams, focused on taking into account of "soft" team factors, necessitates further research in this direction. The studies of the formation of project teams according to the criterion of subjective well-being as the most invariant indicator of "softness" can be considered preferable.

The aim and objectives of the study
The aim of this study is to develop the method for configuring the composition of a project team based on personal profiles of candidates by the criterion of subjective well-being.
To accomplish the aim, the following tasks have been set: -to develop the method for the construction of the personal profile of a candidate based on the results of ranking the indicators of subjective well-being; -to develop the method for determining the coherence of personal profiles of candidates by pair-wise comparison; -to develop the method for calculating the integral indicator of the results of pair-wise comparison of personal profiles; -to develop the evaluation scale and the method for evaluation of coherence (commonness) of personal profiles of candidates; -to carry out the experimental verification of the method.

Stages in the development of ae method for project team formation based on the criterion of subjective well-being
The developed method is based on the provisions of the verbal analysis of decisions [27]. The merits of this method are the possibility to collect the original data from the candidates to a project team in the verbal form that is customary for them, to check if they are contradictory and, if necessary, to have them corrected by a candidate. In this case, the data are fixed as a ranked series, the importance, or the priority of the elements of a series is determined by a candidate himself. Unlike the existing methods for verbal analysis, the author's approach involves the application of the systematic quartile models for obtaining and processing the original data [28]. This model was successfully applied in different systematic studies. The procedure of the formation of systematic models in the context of our research was described in more detail in paper [11].

1. Method for constructing the personal profile of a candidate based on the results of ranking the indicators of subjective well-being
The starting point of the method for the construction of candidates' personal profiles is the collection of original data from candidate h ({  After choosing the system model that is most preferable for h candidate, the lower left index , i h A the value of which corresponds to the ordinal number of a candidate, in added to its designation. Within the framework of the selected model, a candidate is invited to analyze the essence of each of i j h A of its elements and to rank them from the least important (assigning rank "4") to the most important (assigning rank "1") ( Fig. 1, b). These ranks are marked by symbols , i j h x in this case, the value of the top-right symbol j coincides with the value of the rank. In order to avoid confusion as to the importance of the elements of the model, the procedure for re-assignment of the values of the top-right index of the elements of model .
i j h A The values of rank i j h x are assigned to it (Fig. 1, c). Every element of model i j h A has its own set of indicators The task of a candidate at this stage is to rank separately the assigned lists of basic indicators within each element of the model. To do it, he is offered the procedure of mini-max ranking, the essence of which if reduced to the following: 1. The applicant is invited to determine the least important indicator for him from the whole totality * j s of indicators of i j h A element. In the ranked series, this indicator will take the last place and will receive the highest rank i j s : The selected indicator is removed from the original list, which already consists of ( 1) i j s − indicators. Then a candidate is invited to determine the indicator from this list that is most important for him. In the ranked series, this indicator will take the first place and it will be assigned the first rank:   Each of the columns of the indicators of elements of system i j h A is a ranked list that is actually presented in the ordinal scale. This scale also permits, in addition to the procedures for computation and comparison of sizes of categories (in our case -ranked lists of indicators of the elements of system i j h A ), to form judgements like "more than" and "less than". We will use the last procedure to build the profile of a candidate in the form of a single list of basic indicators of subjective well-being, in which indicators are listed in order of descending of importance for a candidate. The original lists are presented in Table 1. In order to integrate them into a single list, taking into account the importance of the elements of a model, we will introduce the following rule of integration: indicators of element i h A are integrated. The visually described procedure is shown in Table 2.  The procedure of uniting the lists using judgments like "more than" and "less than", used during the integration, is actually a procedure of conversion of an ordinal scale into an interval scale [29]. During this procedure, there occurs the division of the distance between neighboring ranks, not represented explicitly in the ordinal scale. Due to this, the difference between new ranks decreases on average by two times. For such a scale, it is possible to perform an operation of conditional averaging (alignment) of distances between ranks, thanks to which the ordinal scale will be converted into the interval scale. And this makes it possible to apply mathematical operations such as addition, subtraction, division, etc. to the ranks [30]. This assumption is justified by the fact that the mathematical and logical operations with quantitatively represented fuzzy data, used in the research, by their nature are classified as soft computations.

2. Method for determining the coherence of candidates' personal profiles by their pair-wise comparison
The next step in the formation of a project management team by the criterion of subjective well-being is the procedure of comparison of candidates' profiles. To do this, the authors developed the method, based on the idea of calculating the overall total rank to evaluate the initial orientation of a candidate in the field of project management. Evaluation is carried out based on results of ranking by a candidate of 27 basic competencies according to their importance and influence on the result of the project implementation [31]. The calculation involves determining the sum of ratings by those competencies, the rating of which, specified by a candidate, differs from the basic (specified) rating by more than 9 positions. At summing, the higher value of rating between the basic one and the one selected by a candidate is selected. The value of the overall total rank, which proved that the tested candidate has the competence of starting susceptibility of a project manager, should be less than 130. According to our calculations, this makes up 23.2 % from the maximum theoretically possible value of the overall total ranking. The proposed method for comparing profiles implies the similar comparison of the ratings of two candidates. In this case, the profile of the supposed project manager, to which index hb A is assigned, is chosen as basic. Table 3 shows an example of comparison of the profile of a candidate h A with the profile of a project manager.
In the table the rating of a candidate relative to the indicator of a project manager lb, which is equal to k, is designated as ( , ) v k lb (Table 3, column 4). Analysis of the results of more than 400 options of calculations of the overall total rank showed the expediency to use not all the list from S indicators, but only 2 zones, in order to determine the coincidence degree. Zone I consists of the first five most significant indicators for candidate, and zone II of seven less significant indicators. The total of the number of indicators that are taken into consideration for determining the overall total rank is equal to half of all S=27 indicators (considering rounding to integer). At the same time, to increase the stringency of requirements to the magnitude of deviation of candidate's ranks from the manager's rank, in the first zone the permissible magnitude of deviation z=2, and in the second zone z=3.
By comparing the profiles, we obtain two indicators: h I D and h II D -generalized total ranks in zone I and II, respectively. Within the framework of the method for determining the coherence of personal profiles of candidates, the described procedure is performed for all candidates to a project management team. In practice, during the implementation of international projects, the situation of choosing a project manager after the formation of a project team can occur. Then all candidates are considered as a potential manager one by one, and the similar procedure of comparison of candidates' profiles is performed.

3. Method for the calculation of integrated indicator of results of pair-wise comparison of personal profiles of candidates
It is usually recommended to include from 2 to 10 people into a project management team [32]. It is therefore necessary to calculate the indicator reflecting the degree of coherence of all team members by their assessment of the importance of indicators of subjective well-being. We propose to use the mean value of the weighted average sum of overall total ranks of zones I and II, shown in Table 3 The numeric values of weighing the coefficients are determined based on the Paretto principle. During formation of a project management team, it makes it possible to take into consideration the proximity of coherence of the importance of the first five indicators of subjective well-being even to greater extent.
Given the number of indicators in zones I and II, the theoretically calculated value of the sum of generalized total rank , h ∆ can vary from minimum value of 0 to maximum value of 273. To find the maximum permissible value , h ∆ we will use the magnitude of the relative value of the threshold total rank in the method-analogue for assessment of the initial orientation of a candidate in the field of project management, which is 23.2 % of the maximum possible. By analogy, for our case, maximum admissible value , h ∆ must be equal to 64. More stringent conditions to the difference in the candidates' ranks in the proposed method make it possible to raise this value and accept it as equal to 70. This enables normalizing of . h ∆ Based on the normalized basic component, the heuristic formula of the coefficient of coherence of a project team by the criterion of subjective well-being was proposed: In the situation of the best degree of coherence among team members by the importance of indicators of subjective well-being in zones I and II, coherence coefficient has the value of 1, while in its complete absence -0.

Development of the evaluation scale and the method for assessment of coherence of personal profiles of candidates
To form evaluation judgments about the degree of coherence of candidates' preferences (potential team members) in terms of the indicators of subjective well-being, it is necessary to develop an evaluation scale. The degree of its usefulness and adequacy depends on how much the judgments that are generated, while using it, will correspond to actual feeling by team members of their subjective well-being in joint activities. That is why, to build such a scale, we will use the results of the pilot social experiment, within which the information in the form of results of ranking the system models, their elements and indicators of subjective well-being, were obtained. 32 respondents from 7 African countries took part in the experiment. The selection of representatives of these countries is related to the fact that when selecting the basic indicators for system models in [11], mental preferences of the residents of the African continent were taken into account.
Each participant of the experiment implemented all procedures implied by the sequence of identification of the candidate's preferences regarding the indicators of subjective well-being (Fig. 1).
32 profiles were constructed based on the collected data in the course of the experiment. Then the profile of each candidate was accepted as overall ratings, and overall total ratings for all the other candidates were calculated in the reference to it. The obtained information was used to form the teams by the criterion of minimizing h ∆ mean weighted sum of overall total ranks of zones I and II. As a result, 288 theoretically possible teams, combined into nine groups, were formed. The groups differed by the number of team members from 2 up to 10 people. For each group, the minimum and maximum values . h ∆ were determined. The upper and lower curves correspond to these values in Fig. 2. For the teams with a different number of members, the section between the minimum and maximum values of , h ∆ is divided into five equal areas. The boundaries of the areas of the teams with different numbers of members are connected with one another. As a result, we obtained four curves, which are located between the upper and the lower curves.   Let us analyze the types of team distribution through applying the proposed zones (degrees) of coherence of a project team (Fig. 3). The information in Fig. 4 shows that the modal values swb K in all groups except the first group are in the zone of a rather high coherence. The number of such teams depends on the number of their members and ranges from 28 % to 41 %. Uniting the data about the areas with high and rather high compatibility shows that the number of the teams of four members and above exceeds 50 (Fig. 5). It should be noted that the number of teams consisting of 4-10 people located in the undesirable and dangerous zones is in the range of 22-28 %, and for small teams of 2-3 people -34-38 %. This suggests that there is a high probability to form a team of 4-10 people with a high and rather high coherence degree from the same number of candidates by the criterion of subjective well-being. It is much more difficult to select a coherent team from 2-3 people.

5. Experimental verification of the method for selection the candidates to a project team by the criterion of subjective well-being
At this stage of the study, it is necessary to answer the question of how adequate the information that is produced by the proposed method is. In other words, the extent to which the theoretically identified members of a theoretically coherent team are actually similar (close) according to the criterion of subjective well-being. It is possible to verify it in practice only sometime after the team formation, relying on expert evaluation of team members themselves regarding their subjective well-being in a project in general and the similarity with other team members. In this respect, the method requires long-term full-scale testing in projects of varying scale, complexity level, risk, innovation, in different subject areas, implemented in different environments, especially given the international context. Within the study, we conducted pilot testing for initial evaluation of the adequacy of the results of the method.
To do this, the students of a higher educational establishment were involved. By virtue of specific organization and the activity environment, students jointly implement a variety of educational projects, constantly interact to perform various project tasks, as well as other activity beyond their frames. This is what gives grounds to consider them as experts in relation to each other in matters of evaluation of similarity relative to the indicators of subjective well-being.
All the tested who were the representatives of African countries, were grouped according to the criterion of duration of joint activities in educational projects before the pilot testing began. Thus, team 1 consisted of five people with the experience of two-month joint activities, and team 2 consisted of seven people who had the experience of a year-long joint work.
At the first phase of the pilot testing, the preferences concerning the indicators of subjective well-being by the proposed method were gathered from every team member. Based on these data, their personal profiles were constructed and the following indicators were calculated: overall total rank for indicators of zone I ( h I D ) and ІІ ( h II D ); their sum ( h I h II D + D ), as well as the mean value of the weighted sum of the overall total ranks of the zones ( , h D Tables 4, 5).   Then a list of short-term educational projects was determined for each team separately. The projects were implemented within three months. After this each team member evaluated all the other members of their team, with who they interacted during the project. The essence of the evaluation was to establish the scores for all 27 basic indicators of subjective well-being by a five-point scale. The score reflected their expert opinion on the importance of a certain basic indicator (5 -very important, 1 -absolutely unimportant) for a team member. In team 1, each team member gave 135 scores immediately after the completion of the projects, and in team 2 -189 scores three months after completion of the projects. Based on the obtained scores and the ranking priorities of the importance of basic indicators of subjective well-being of a team member, who was conventionally (alternately) accepted as a project leader, the following indicators were calculated: overall total basic indicators for zones І (  Table 6 Indicators of assessing the importance of basic indicators of subjective well-being for team members 1 As one can see, for the prevailing majority of the team members, the values of the overall total rank of zone I is smaller than those of zone II. The teams, where project managers are team members 1.4, 2.2 and 2.3 are the exception. Table 7 Indicators for assessing the importance of basic indicators of subjective well-being for team members 2 , p h h r D D between the similar indicators of Tables 4-7 to prove the existence or the absence of the relation between them. Calculation results are shown in Table 8, the analysis of which makes it possible to draw the following conclusions. Out of the four indicators that were explored for verification of matching of the results obtained based on the developed method, and the estimates of importance of the basic indicators, the indicator of the mean value of weighed sum of the overall total ranks of zone I and II . h D has its highest value at the least variation. This proves the correctness of its selection as the main component of the heuristic formula of calculation of the coefficient of compatibility of a project team according to the criterion of subjective well-being. Table 8 Statistical characteristics for coefficients of correlation between the indicators of estimates of importance, obtained using the developed method and based on judgments of team members as experts Insignificant deviations from of medians from mean values is observed for the generalized total rank zone I h І D and the weighted sum of the overall total ranks . h D This indicates that five most important indicators of a candidate are determining for the coefficient of compatibility of a project team. The higher and more stable values of statistical characteristics for h D in comparison with h D prove the necessity of taking into consideration indicators of zone II when determining . swb K It should be noted that the time lag in assessing the importance of indicators of subjective well-being decreases the magnitude of correlation factors. This is due to the natural process of forgetting details that are fresh in memory immediately after the completion of projects. However, at the same time, the validity of residual information is retained. The external observation of the work of project teams showed high coherence of team 2. They have obtained better results within the shorter period of time. The team was more productive. Objectively, this fact reflects the number of theoretically possible combinations of teams consisting of two people, which can be formed based on team 2 and which will get to the zone of a rather high compatibility (team 2.1-2.7) and of admissible compatibility (teams 2.3-2.5, 2.6-2.5). For these zones, value h D lies within the range of 28-36 and 36-44, respectively. In addition, for this team, it is also possible to form three teams that fall into the undesirable zone ( 44 52 h D = − ), but still not to the dangerous zone. For team 1, such combinations are not available. The best theoretically possible team 1.1-1.3 gets to the dangerous zone.
Comparison of the values h D for team 1.1-1.3 and 1.3-1.1 shows that its value depends of the selection of the