Operations Research Management Science - Forum

<BODY bgcolor="#ffffff" link="cc0000" vlink="cc0000" text="#000000"> <img src="../cleardot.gif" width=1 height=1 vspace=4 border=0><br>   <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=480><tr valign=top> <td width=10><img src="../cleardot.gif" width=1 height=1 hspace=4 border=0></td> <td width=470> <FONT face="verdana, arial, helvetica" SIZE=2><B><I><A HREF="../../ORMS.shtml" TARGET="_top">OR/MS Today</A> - February 2004</I></B></font><BR> <hr size="1"> <img src="cleardot.gif" width=1 height=1 vspace=4 border=0><br> <font face="times new roman, times"> <img src="../cleardot.gif" width=1 height=1 vspace=4 border=0><br> <FONT face="verdana, arial, helvetica" SIZE=2><B>Forum - Side Story</B></FONT><br> <IMG SRC="../barbluehook.gif" WIDTH="468" HEIGHT="4"><br> <img src="../cleardot.gif" width=1 height=1 vspace=8 border=0><br> <FONT SIZE="+2"><B>Operations Research Gives Profession<BR> a Bad Name</B></FONT><BR> <img src="../cleardot.gif" width=1 height=1 vspace=6 border=0><br> <FONT face="verdana, arial, helvetica" SIZE=2><B>By Mathieu Balez</B></FONT><br> <hr size="1"> <img src="../cleardot.gif" width=1 height=1 vspace=12 border=0><br>    As a practitioner of OR/MS, I must say that I am certainly encouraged by the steps being taken by INFORMS to more aggressively market the profession. I think a clear, persuasive and widespread marketing campaign is a wonderful  and long overdue  initiative. It is my hope however, that INFORMS and the marketing committee reconsider its stance on the "name issue." <P>Peter Horner's article <A HREF="../orms-12-03/frmarketing.html" TARGET="_top">"The Science of Better"</A> (<I>OR/MS Today,</I> December 2003) discussed Phil Johnson Associates' (PJA) vision for the marketing campaign. For the most part, I believe the proposals are sound and should help the profession attract new talent and convince management of the possibilities offered by OR/MS models. However, I think a most crucial element has been overlooked. Despite acknowledging that "Operations Research" was not the "best name in the world for the profession," PJA apparently did not deem it significant enough an issue to tackle. I beg to differ. <P>The only argument put forth to proceed with Operations Research was that it was "the only name with significant brand equity in the marketplace." It is my experience however that it is academicians, not business professionals, who mostly identify with the term. Indeed, half of the name indicates its centricity on the academic world; "research" certainly doesn't bring to mind the cost-saving and decision-support solutions that us practitioners are trying to market to decision-makers. Instead, Operations Research harkens back to the old guard in the profession, the military labs that produced the first models in those nascent days. While not inherently a bad thing, that association does nothing to help us convey our important message to the business community. <P>The aforementioned article proceeds to cite PJA as claiming MS "has its own set of problems, not the least of which is that it shares initials with an unpleasant disease." Point acknowledged, but why consider only confusing acronyms? It is my hope (though it is not evident by the article) that the term Management Science was given due consideration. I can think of few arguments against using this more modern, accurate and illustrative nomenclature. <P>Instead, I can think of only positive aspects brought forth by the term. Management Science immediately creates the appropriate association: science applied to managerial decision-making. The term instantly conjures a number of images, such as analysts making recommendations to managers based on numbers and formulas, multiple options being presented to decision-makers, trained professionals getting to the heart of the issue and putting the latest in technology to work for their clients. Operations Research can hardly claim to produce the same images in the mind of the layperson. Importantly, when combined with the word "consulting" (Management Science Consulting), we have the familiar association with management consulting, differentiated by "science." This exactly conveys the point we're trying to make. Our aims are similar to those of management consultants, except we rely on science and mathematics to inform our recommendations. Surely, you can see the benefits of marketing the profession as such, instead of using the archaic and misleading Operations Research. A final benefit of using the term Management Science is that it would erase all pre-existing misinformed opinions about the profession, and provide us with a clean slate to work with. <P>Admittedly, this would be a more expensive proposition, but I don't believe it would cost the "millions" estimated by PJA. Consider the consequences of proceeding with an admittedly bad choice of name. Are we not just pouring money into a sinking ship? At some point we must re-evaluate and re-consider our position and the current marketing push seems to be an auspicious time for such soul-searching. <P>The profession as whole has been marred in the past by its high degree of internal focus, something the PJA market analysis aptly confirmed. Going forward, I believe practitioners and academics everywhere would be best served by proceeding with a name that more accurately reflects the work we are capable of delivering for decision-makers. It is time we, as a community, embrace the outside world and invite it into the world of Management Science.<BR> <img src="../cleardot.gif" width=1 height=1 vspace=4 border=0><br> <IMG SRC="../barbluehook.gif" WIDTH="468" HEIGHT="4"><br> <img src="../cleardot.gif" width=1 height=1 vspace=2 border=0><br> <FONT face="verdana, arial, helvetica" SIZE=2><I><B>Mathieu Balez</B> is vice president of Syllogix Inc. in Montreal, Canada.</i></font><BR> <img src="../cleardot.gif" width=1 height=1 vspace=4 border=0><br> <IMG SRC="../barbluehook.gif" WIDTH="468" HEIGHT="4"><br> <img src="../cleardot.gif" width=1 height=1 vspace=2 border=0><br> <font size="2" face="verdana, arial, helvetica"> Return to main story: <I><A HREF="forum.html">'Better' Campaign Doesn't Go Far Enough</A></I></font><BR>  <img src="../cleardot.gif" width=1 height=1 vspace=5 border=0><br>  <img src="../barblue.gif" width=468 height=1 border=0 alt=" "><br> <img src="../cleardot.gif" width=1 height=1 vspace=8 border=0><br> <font face="verdana, arial, helvetica" size="1"> <CENTER><script type="text/javascript"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script></CENTER><br> <img src="../cleardot.gif" width=1 height=1 vspace=8 border=0><br> <LI> <A HREF="tocfr.html" Target="_top"><I>Table of Contents</A><br> <img src="../cleardot.gif" width=1 height=1 vspace=4 border=0><br> <LI> <A HREF="../../ORMS.shtml" TARGET="_top"><I>OR/MS Today</I> Home Page</A><br>  <img src="../cleardot.gif" width=1 height=1 vspace=8 border=0><br> <img src="../barblue.gif" width=468 height=1 border=0 alt=" "><br> <b><i>OR/MS Today</i></b> copyright © 2004 by <A HREF="http://www.informs.org/" target="_new">the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences</a>. All rights reserved.<br> <img src="../cleardot.gif" width=1 height=1 vspace=3 border=0><br> <img src="../bargrey.gif" width=468 height=1 border=0 alt=" "><br> <b>Lionheart Publishing, Inc.</b><br> 506 Roswell Rd., Suite 220, Marietta, GA 30060 USA<br> Phone: 770-431-0867 | Fax: 770-432-6969<br> E-mail: <a href="mailto:lpi@lionhrtpub.com">lpi@lionhrtpub.com</a><br> URL: <A HREF="http://www.lionhrtpub.com" target="_top">http://www.lionhrtpub.com</A><br> <img src="../cleardot.gif" width=1 height=1 vspace=3 border=0><br> <img src="../bargrey.gif" width=468 height=1 border=0 alt=" "><br> Web Site © Copyright 2004 by Lionheart Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. </td></tr></table> <img src="../cleardot.gif" width=1 height=1 vspace=2 border=0><br> </BODY>