I think some clarity is needed in the flak flying in the REVIEW between what Engel represents (see PAR Communications July/August 1969) and what Hamilton represents (ibid.). Both are partially right and partially wrong in their conclusions. Engel is correct in stating that the methodologies gathered under the heading of operations can be helpful. That is, if: (1) the analyst realizes that the methodology that is used with in one type of system (e.g., physical) may necessitate reformulation for use in another system type (e.g., social systems in the civil sector), and (2) that the content of the analysis must include the political variables of attitudes and value structures, spectrum positions, and intensity levels of particular publics and policy formulators. If Mr. Engel inferred such when he stated using the combined knowledge of hard and soft scientist alike, it is not clear. Hamilton is correct in his disdain for the lack of success to date. A number of the RAND efforts in New York have been performed on the basis of collecting measurable data, running such through packaged computer analysis, and sitting in one's office or at hectic meetings drawing conclusions from the output. Much of this social system has been carried out by men trained only in physical systems analysis such as electrical engineering. The fireman's friend statement, by example, should not mean that a study not be made, but that operational purpose models necessitate the combined efforts of the theoretician trained in the behavioral sciences and OR methodologies and the administrator, politician, or low-level public servant engaged in the day-to-day activity. Much of the research by systems-thinking organizations has instead used a canned approach they have refined as a result of weapons and communication systems analysis. Although the OR analyst does not hold that facts . . . speak for themselves, he however is not accustomed to the amount of interpolation necessary in the modelling of large open systems with such a high degree of human activity. The firms referred to above are basically guilty of a lack of imagination and humility to the degree that they have produced much research but little that is relevant for implementation. If Mr. Hamilton inferred such with his statement bent on systematizing that which is not and cannot be a system within their rubric, it is not clear. STEPHEN D. SLINGSBY Public Administration and Management Science Faculties, and Director, Politicometrics Program Ohio State University
Read full abstract