Despite its strong emphasis on quantitative methods, O.R. was originally envisioned to have a systems orientation that would use interdisciplinary teams to bring a rich cross-section of disciplines and skills together to address problem-solving (Barrett, Peles and Odum, 1997; Hillier and Lieberman, 1986; Jackson, 1991; Ormerod, 1998). Unfortunately, it seems that our discipline has increasingly become insulated in both theory and application. In many cases, O.R. has virtually abandoned its interdisciplinary nature and has concentrated on a handful of selected mathematically rigorous techniques. It is unfortunate that O.R. curricula tend not to address qualitative methods, particularly those of problem structuring and data collection, which could provide useful approaches to complement our traditional quantitative methods.

I realize that my perspective may reflect the unique teaching and practices of military O.R., although there are indications that less mathematically rigorous methods are increasingly being used within this smaller community to complement our traditional analytical toolkit. I believe that our profession could benefit from closer integration and complementary applications of qualitative methods and quantitative methods. I look forward to similar articles that address this topic.

Priscilla A. Glasow
McLean, Va.

Alexander Rusli, a special advisor with the Ministry of Communication and Information, Republic of Indonesia, sports a "Science of Better" hat courtesy of INFORMS President Richard Larson. Larson has turned the institute's "Science of Better" marketing effort into an international campaign by distributing "Better" hats during his extensive travels overseas. Last December, Larson visited Jakarta where he met with Rusli, who has leadership responsibility for the National Tsunami Task Force.

To the Editor:

I was excited when I saw the title of the lead article, "It Takes a High-Tech Thief," in the February 2005 issue of OR/MS Today. Alas, the author sounds like another academic (retired, in this case) with a solution looking for a problem, lecturing his fellow academics about how they should jump onto his bandwagon. What's missing is any claim of adoption in any part of the real world; enough detail to illustrate the approach; and references to established authorities and resources in the field, in case the reader is unfamiliar with the topic but would like to pursue his or her newly awakened interest. How did these omissions get past your editorial review?

As an example of illustrative detail, suppose you're trying to protect a computer system against intrusion. Thinking like the enemy means, among other things, deducing that an intruder would probably start spoofing your system log files as soon as possible after gaining access. To keep you from noticing the change in usage of key system resources induced by his intrusion, he'd have the system start putting out phony log files that looked like normal activity.

You might then, in turn, introduce programs that continually look for periods of log activity with too few anomalies, or for repetitions of large patterns of activity at regular 10- to 15-minute intervals — the sorts of observations you'd typically see from a relatively straightforward form of spoofing. A clever intruder might, in turn, introduce a few random anomalies into his spoofing routine, and so on. This game produces some interesting pattern recognition problems that operations research analysts should enjoy. I suspect that, in fact, some O.R. analysts have worked on these problems, but mostly in organizations that discourage publication.

As for references and resources, the overall topic is so broad that it is extremely difficult to do it justice in a limited space, even if one knows the relevant literature. Intellectual property law is an international hodgepodge, with numerous national governments and non-governmental organizations competing to promote different standards. Just defining what is patentable varies considerably among nations, as does defining what constitutes theft of intellectual property, or unfair competition, or violation of trademark. Perhaps identifying representative sources was too daunting a task for Dr. Reisman, but he still should have tried.

By way of illustrating what is needed, here are a few references I recommend, just in the area of cybercrime and information security, for starters. Surely other readers can suggest other resources.

• Center on Terrorism and Irregular Warfare, Naval Postgraduate School, www.nps.navy.mil/ctiw/index.html.
  
  
• Denning, Dorothy, "Information Warfare and Security," Addison-Wesley, 1998.
  
  
• Information Security magazine, http://informationsecurity.techtarget.com.
  
  
• Maxion, Roy, Department of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/maxion/www/.
  
  
• Schwartau, Winn, "Information Warfare: Chaos on the Electronic Superhighway," Thunder's Mouth Press, 1994.

Douglas A. Samuelson
Annandale, Va.

Editor's note: In keeping with the publication's policy, OR/MS Today offered Arnold Reisman an opportunity to reply. Here is his response:

Though I never met Mr. Samuelson I have always enjoyed reading his "ORacle" column. My respect for him leads me to presume that his letter's omission and commission errors were by design. He is right: I am a retired academic. Retired but not fossilized (so I hope) as opposed to being a working fossil. Sounds like an oxymoron? It ain't!

Doug is right on target when he says "the overall topic is so broad that it is extremely difficult to do it justice in a limited space, even if one knows the relevant literature." This happens to be an excellent argument for the taxonomy. In a very efficient and effective manner a bunch of disjoint and disparate literatures were circumscribed, consolidated and unified. By identifying and discussing relevant international treaties, domestic laws and by classifying several criminal cases (some decided, some pending), reference No. 7 to my article documents, validates and provides "enough detail to illustrate the approach" and the "references to established authorities and resources in the field." References No. 7 and No.12 testify to the fact that "identifying representative sources was [not] too daunting a task for Dr. Reisman."

In saying that the taxonomy "sounds like a solution looking for a problem," Doug fails to distinguish between a taxonomy and yet another flow-shop algorithm in search of a mimicking refinery (see my reference No. 4), or a game-theoretic model in search of a criminal court case that fits the assumptions made (see my reference No. 6).

Moreover, my references Nos. 4, 5, 6, 13 and 14 are all counter-indicative of "lecturing his fellow academics about how they should jump onto his bandwagon" especially when coupled with the attempted analogy in "solution looking for a problem." Also, in addition to specific text in the paper itself, references Nos. 7, 12, 13 and 14 address the question of how might a taxonomy such as this be used by academics and by practicing professionals.

Lastly, a response to "How did these omissions get past your editorial review?" could read: "My dear Mr. Samuelson, how could you have written this letter without bothering to look at any of the references provided?" However, to say so violates the above presumption that his errors were committed by design. In any case, this exchange of letters may well serve as grist for the next "ORacle" column.

Arnold Reisman
Shaker Heights, Ohio

Table of Contents

OR/MS Today Home Page


OR/MS Today copyright © 2005 by the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences. All rights reserved.


Lionheart Publishing, Inc.
506 Roswell Rd., Suite 220, Marietta, GA 30060 USA
Phone: 770-431-0867 | Fax: 770-432-6969
E-mail: lpi@lionhrtpub.com
URL: http://www.lionhrtpub.com


Web Site © Copyright 2005 by Lionheart Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.