Stimulating the Demand for Operational Research

Abstract

Each of the recent Presidencies of the OR Society has been characterized by a major initiative designed to extend the scope and influence of operational research in one form or another: Roy Stainton in 1984 established the Commission on the Future Practice of OR, which looked at where operational research was going and how the Society could best support the needs and aspirations of practitioners; -his successor, Jonathan Rosenhead, launched the Community OR Unit, taking operational research into new and challenging areas, certainly the most significant step of its kind for a quarter of a century or more; and -under John Ranyard's leadership, the Society has embarked on a number of steps to improve and sustain the flow of talented people into operational research, and to provide continuing skills development for those already in the field. In the course of my year as President Elect, I too was able to consider where I might best be able to contribute to the aims of the Society over the next 2 years. Of course it would have been helpful to have known why I was nominated as President of the Society in the first place, but I regret to say that this has not been revealed to me. My proposers did the business and vanished from the scene! My own career and experience differ from those of my recent predecessors in two significant respects: -first, I have spent most of my working life in management consultancy, a fringe activity when I went into it, but one which is now seen as a natural habitat for an increasing number of OR practitioners; and -secondly, I left mainstream OR consultancy in 1986 to join and subsequently to head up the central marketing and business development function at PA Consulting Group. Hence it was natural, on being elected to this office, that my thoughts should turn to the marketing of OR, and whether that should be the theme of my own personal engagement during my Presidency. However, before embarking on a course of action which would take up a good deal of time and energy, it seemed appropriate to take stock of the situation in which OR finds itself. The comments which follow draw on work carried out last year by myself and the two Vice-Presidents, Duncan Conway and Norman Lawrie. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking them for their very considerable contribution, and also of exonerating them from all blame should this turn out horribly wrong; I must stress that the views expressed today are my own. Some 4 years ago the Commission on the Future Practice of Operational Research, of which I was a member, commented that where OR exists it is well regarded, and I am sure that this continues to be the case. My recent discussions with heads of major OR groups have confirmed that their groups' reputations have never been higher. Some concerns do exist, but these have more to do with the constitution and structure of their parent organizations for example, the possibility of privatization, decentralization, etc.-than with any fundamental doubts about the perceived value of the services provided by the OR group. And indeed, objectively OR has achieved a great deal within many different application areas. For example, the drive towards performance measurement and performance management in government administration is very much OR-inspired. We have had a major influence on the spread of desk-top computing for professional and executive users. And I know from experience within my own firm that modern approaches to the management of major IT projects owe much to the contribution of OR. I believe we can also take some pride in the evolution of the product itself over the past 20