Techniques Maketh O.R.

Abstract

The title of this paper is meant to draw the reader's attention to the commonly held view that is a collection of techniques. Although many members ofthe Society would wish to take issue with this concept, they themselves must take some responsibility that this impression is still held. There has been no coherent development of the subject, and the definition that O.R. is what workers do has enabled anything to be classed as If an worker was fascinated with the problem in the generation of random numbers, then that was, and is O.R.; likewise so are polyhedral polarity, polytopes, stochastic dominance, fuzzy semi-prime ideals, S-cyclic Steiner systems etc. No clear-cut agreement concerning a definition of simply perpetuates the growth of very specialized interests. Outsiders who are not party to the reasons for the narrow technical developments have latched on to the more comprehensible parts of our activities and frequently assumed that the deflnable technical areas represent the whole of the O.R.'s contribution, influence and value. One cause (blame?) must be the tendency for academics to dominate the subject. In 1960 there were virtually no members ofthe U.K. Society in universities, but in 1983 about one quarter gave their addresses as an educational institution. Similarly, in America the proportion has risen from about 10 to 45%. The other significant feature of this growth is that the organisers of the societies have been drawn more and more from these academics. It is not necessarily a bad thing that it is the 'research' side of a body which is also the group that has a major say in its operations. Problems are likely only if the group tries to impose its interests on the majority of the members. Many professional institutions rely on their teaching members to provide the nucleus of their committee and administrative structure. Certainly, the engineering, medical and legal institutions use these members to the full. The view that is different and should not be dominated by academic needs has been maintained in the U.K. and by a few groups elsewhere. It is unfortunate that any suggestion of planned entry to or performance standards being set is greeted with howls of elitism or cries of subversion. Dominance by one group is important only if that dominance directs the course of the Society against the best interests of its members. Experience in O.R.?at least in the U.K. and through IFORS?suggests that great efforts are being made to present the subject in terms of its use, not its theory. Changes in emphasis of some publications of recent Presidents of IFORS, show how some academics are biassed away from theory and are advocating the application image of The techniques view of the subject has grown up for a variety of reasons, and this paper will attempt to discuss some of them and to consider some implications.