Critique of: “An Overview of Management Science and Information Systems”

Abstract

Aharon B^ed-Dov's paper provides an interesting discussion of some developments relating to management science. Like most such articles, raises numerous unresolved questions. I was troubled at several points by the author's curious ambivalence toward some fundamental problems which were hinted at but not discussed. To illustrate this ambivalence, consider an introductory remark: Success in any enterprise is not predicated upon a clear understanding of the process which mak^ possible. Further, he quotes A. N. Whitehead that, it is a profoundly erroneous truism that we should cultivate the habit of thinking what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking what we are doii^. This trend of thought is concluded by the author with the discordant note that some important operations demand deliberate attention to principles and fundamentals. My immediate reaction was to wonder why, and to which kinds of operations reference is being made. A further illustration can be found in statements to the effect that decision making in business cannot be judged by the standards employed in the exact sciences. A source quoted by the author maintains that management must rely on judgment and experience. The author then concludes with the contrasting view that the methods of the exact sciences can be profitably applied in the study of business. As before, the important and most interesting questions of why and wherefore are not discussed. I am left in a state of profound but unhappy paradox. Of course, what is needed is an amplification, with cogent examples, of the role and limitations of science for decision making in management. It seems fruitful to indicate the implications of some of the previous contrasting views. I would like to pursue some thoughts about the implications of A. N. Whitehead's remarks with a quote by M. Polanyi: We know more than we can say. A little reflection will reveal this to be an obvious fact, of which, however, the ramifications are profound. To begin with, follows that the attempts to articulate the processes and assumptions leading to successful action always leave out possibly essential ingredients. There is the further implication that decision making cannot and perhaps should not be completely formalized. Hence may be that in some cases, the emphasis should not be on the articulation of the elements which enter decisions but on the evaluation of their effectiveness. To pursue this point a little further, there seems to be a tendency in manage-