October 1996 € Volume 23 € Number 5

Washington Report:
Plumbing the Depths of OR

---

By Carlton Henry

From the viewpoint of a Washington, D.C.-based operations research consultant during an election season, I have been thinking about INFORMS President Alfred Blumstein's call for the OR/MS profession to enhance its recognition in the larger community. Blumstein reiterated his proposal in the last issue of OR/MS Today: "We have begun to look forward to find means to strengthen our profession and its contributions to many kinds of operations and organizations, and also to its recognition in the larger community."

I recall the statement by the economist John Maynard Keynes to the effect that he hoped that economists one day would be looked upon by the larger community as possessing the practical abilities of the plumbing profession. That's a simple but tough goal and outside of perhaps medicine, few professions have achieved that level of general usefulness.

If we apply this "plumbing standard" to the OR/MS profession, how do we measure up? Not well, I would venture, and it is not because of a lack of tools and techniques but because, for a variety of reasons, the profession is not a forceful leader in shaping and influencing public opinion or corporate and public decision makers. A fundamental question is in order: What is it about a profession that makes people listen to what its practitioners have to say? I offer some comments.

The profession must address, at least in part, some aspect of everyday affairs, and it must do so in a way that people can understand. It has been said that J.M. Keynes was successful in popularizing economics because, in addition to being a scientist, he was also a persuasive writer &emdash; a formidable mixture. Building on the scientific knowledge accumulated in economics, he was able to promote his own vision while at the same time popularizing economics to a wider audience. In so doing, he fostered public debate on many of the significant public issues of his time, many issues outside the traditional boundaries of the economics profession. As a result, the economics profession benefited by gaining acceptance as "professional experts" in many areas of public affairs. Corporate executives, as public opinion makers, have never recovered.

The OR/MS community is uniquely qualified to contribute more forcefully in clarifying an ever increasing area of public policy discussion by disassembling the widespread use of modeling and simulation. For example, have you noticed over the past several months in public discussions (particularly from Washington) of welfare reform, health care reform, electric utility deregulation, Social Security reform, medicare reform, environmental regulatory reform and proposals for tax cuts, the persistent reference to conclusions from models as the basis for policy alternatives?

On the one hand, a model supports the validity of broad tax cuts while another model disputes that conclusion but supports targeted tax cuts. A simulation model from the Urban Institute, a Washington-based think tank, finds that over one million children will be affected adversely by welfare reform legislation which galvanizes opposition, and so on.

Depending on the ideological stance of the columnist, news analyst or Op Ed writer, different model results are cited as validation for certain positions.

What is not provided in the public conversation is any discussion, let alone understanding, of: (1) What are the models? (2) How are they constructed? (3) What assumptions drive them? (4) Given the issue, are the models appropriate tools for assessing the validity of the issues under discussion?

Modeling is undoubtedly an important tool, but is it prudent to use the results from modeling and simulation without fully explaining the context of the models.

The question of whether modeling and simulation are appropriate in any particular context is a methodological subject which can probably be best addressed by the "graybeards" of the profession. But the OR/MS profession is well trained to disassemble many of the model constructs and raise questions about their appropriate use; or simply explain the role of modeling.

Should Op Ed editors of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal or The Washington Post rely solely on rebuttals from subject area professionals to raise questions about the "formalized assumptions of a model"? These editors often have a stable of academics and professionals, usually economists, to call on for differing viewpoints; but how often do they reference members of the OR/MS community?

The appropriate use and explanation of the results of modeling is an opportunity to use the principles and analysis of OR/MS to clarify an increasingly important domain of modern public debate. Strengthening the profession's connections to the "fourth estate" and increasing the profession's participation in public discussions is one direct means to connect to the larger community. The results of modeling and simulation are now used by a wide range of writers to persuade. Can "systems thinking" help to clarify and establish some standards for the use of these persuasive tools?

Carlton Henry is an independent OR consultant based in Washington, D.C.