- Email: [email protected]
Education for operational research
OMEGA, The Int. Jl of Mgmt Sci., Vol. 1, No. 1, 1973
Education for Operational Research D
HICKS
Chepstow, Monmouth, Wales
The paper debates the requirements of education for operational research (O.R.). It is assumed that the objective of O.R. is to secure improvement in social systems by means of scientific methods. It is argued that the programme of learning and the methods of teaching should converge to this end. There is a brief review of what some of those who are responsible for courses in operational research at universities have said about their aims and curricula. The confusion over aims and the imbalance between the rational account of O.R. and the empirical approach is briefly discussed. There follows a plea for an effort to describe the structure of O,R. and the need for a taxonomy from which a better understanding of the educational problems may emerge. The essay concludes by asserting that the climate, nature and content of research especially in the universities should be such as to attract men of great talent and hopefully a few men of genius who will advance the subject to the status of a major science.
INTRODUCTION S o M u c h has been written in the last twenty years a b o u t how to learn to do o p e r a t i o n a l research, a n d in p a r t i c u l a r a b o u t the e d u c a t i o n a l issues, t h a t one is reluctant to a d d to the literature. But e d u c a t i o n presents difficult p r o b l e m s a n d p r o b a b l y there is no single simple s o l u t i o n o f universal a p p l i c a t i o n . So m u c h d e p e n d s on the ability o f the teacher to convey his knowledge, skills a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g to his p u p i l s a n d they t o o will differ in talent a n d readiness to learn. T h e t o t a l process is c o n t i n u o u s a n d unending. There seems to be no s h o r t cut even to acquiring some skill in using the tools o f the profession. A c q u i r i n g a skill in using the tools m a y t u r n o u t to be an inert acquisition unless at the same time one has, as W h i t e h e a d said, acquired a freshness a n d i m a g i n a t i v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f learning a n d a p a s s i o n a t e p r o t e s t against inert ideas a n d m e t h o d s [33]. It is i m p o s s i b l e to d e v e l o p a c u r r i c u l u m fully. T h e m o s t one can expect from f o r m a l courses o f i n s t r u c t i o n in the universities a n d polytechnics is that students will emerge f r o m t h e m with s o m e t h i n g t h a t they k n o w well a n d can do well a n d with a zest for e x p l o r i n g the wider c u r r i c u l u m t h r o u g h o u t their lives. It is n o t m y i n t e n t i o n in this essay to f o r m u l a t e a m o d e l syllabus for, say, a o n e - y e a r p o s t g r a d u a t e course in o p e r a t i o n a l research o r for a three-year 107
Hicks--Education for Operational Research undergraduate course and far less to speak about packaged short courses. The aims of education for O.R. will be determined largely by our understanding of the purpose and structure of O.R. If we are unclear about these matters any systems of education for O.R. that we devise will be of limited value. Education is about the utilization of knowledge and theoretical exposition isolated from important applications is of little educational value. The purpose of instruction is that the student shall acquire the essential theory that underlies the application. No tutor is effective who is not himself absorbed in the utilization of his knowledge. This is an art that is difficult to impart. Whitehead had much to say about this and the following is an example from his extensive writings on education: "The evolution of curiosity, of judgment, of the power of mastering a complicated tangle of circumstances, the use of theory in giving foresight in special cases--all these are not to be imparted by a set rule embodied in one schedule of examination subjects". These general remarks about the purpose of education may be of interest to the O.R. profession as a whole and particularly to those who manage and direct O.R. groups in industry, commerce and government. No O.R. group can be effective unless it is absorbed in the continuing process of education not only of the members of the group but also of those with whom they work to bring about changes, and hopefully, improvement in their organizations. The end result will depend on the character of the pupils and the genius of the teachers. It is useless, for example, to indulge in a discourse on complex models before the pupils have an appreciation of meaningful descriptions of situations and how these descriptions can be enlivened by measurement and how the different measurements may be related. This involves a feeling for the structure of operations and the underlying motives. This is a question of acquiring a good style and as Whitehead said, "style is the exclusive privilage of the expert". But there is the other side of the coin. We live and work in a technological environment which often is politically motivated and often ruled by amateurs. These men have great virtues in versatility and great technological advances have been made, as Sir Cyril Hinchelwood said in his Presidential Address to the British Association in 1965, " . . . by men with alert, enterprising and ingenious but quite unacademic minds--at least men of action as men of thought who ask questions not so much 'why does this happen' as 'how could this be done or what use could be made of this?' " [ll]. One of the aims of education for O.R. should on this count lead the scientist to a skill in bridging the gap between science and technology and in developing methods of being effective in a non-scientific environment. It is the technologists who have to absorb into their practices the procedures for bringing about change and improvement which have been developed by operational research. This essay would be an idle exercise if there were not a general concern about the aims of education for O.R. If the educational process is not designed to create a zest for securing improvement in social systems then it is unlikely 108
Omega, Vol. 1, No. 1 that we shall attract to the profession young men of outstanding talent and so secure a grip on the evolution of thought and action. The words of Whitehead are again highly relevant. In the Lowell Lectures which he gave in 1925 he said: "in considering the various topics to which mankind has bent its systematic thought it is impossible not to be struck by the unequal distribution of ability among the different fields. In almost all subjects there are a few outstanding names. For it requires genius to create a subject as a distinct topic for thought. But in the case of many topics after a good beginning very relevant to its immediate occasion the subsequent development appears as a weak series of ftounderings so that the whole subject gradually loses its grip on the evolution of thought. It was far otherwise with mathematics and p h y s i c s . . 2' [32].
EDUCATION AND THE PURPOSE OF O.R. Perhaps the origins of O.R. are our biggest handicap. This form of research was fashioned as a discrete and defined activity during the emergencies of war when scientists of various disciplines temporarily left their laboratories and researches and came to the aid of the fighting and civil defence services to help to get the best results from the available resources. These men applied their vivid curiosity, enthusiasm and particular skills to unfamiliar circumstances and events. They and others with whom they worked closely soon discovered that they were able to enlighten and offer solutions to difficult problems. They gave no thought to structuring their activity; they were mainly concerned to use their wits and skills urgently to the immediate occasion. When the war ended they returned to their former activities and special interests. It was from that position that the present generation of O.R. scientists started. In time they came to realize that what was born in physical conflict needed to be born again when the circumstances were entirely different. In the last twenty years there has been a compelling concern to define O.R. and to structure the pattern of continuing education. Unlike the practice of the physical sciences the practice of O.R. has evoked controversy over fundamentals that is almost as deep as occurs amongst psychologists and sociologists; there has been much wasteful disputation. In an attempt to resolve controversy the Operational Research Society in the U.K. defined O.R. as follows: "Operational Research is the application of the methods of science to complex problems arising in the direction and management of large systems of men, machines, materials and money in industry, business, government, and defence. The distinctive approach is to develop a scientific model of the system, incorporating measurements of factors such as chance and risk, with which to predict and compare the outcomes of alternative decisions, strategies or controls. The purpose is to help management determine its policy and actions scientifically." 109
Hicks--Education for Operational Research If this definition means anything then the objective of O.R. is to change the way people think about their problems and the way that they behave. The emphasis is on decision making and the development of models from which to predict the results of alternative courses of action. Can we see the influence of this definition in the structure and content of university courses in O.R ? I think that we can; in many courses the emphasis is on the formulation of problems in mathematical terms. The techniques of considering uncertainty are also taught. But the student emerging from such courses into the tangled circumstances of the world around him rarely if ever finds problems clearly defined and he has to postpone formulating hypotheses and is often hard pressed to construct the simplest model until he familiarises himself with his new environment and seeks out relevant information which the routine statistical machine rarely makes available. Unless we read more into the O.R. Society's definition than was intended I feel that in some important respects it is not very helpful to those who may wish to formulate a programme of learning on how to do O.R. However, the Operational Research Society over the years has not been unmindful of education and it has given this a high priority in its deliberations both in Committee and in public debate. In the early days the Society's Education Committee were preoccupied in assisting the organizers of short appreciation courses and then later with the development of an Integrated Introductory Courses Scheme for new entrants to O.R. groups. In the 1960's there was the rapid development of university postgraduate courses and of a few undergraduate courses in O.R. This development took place so quickly that there was little reference to the profession at large about a coherent strategy of education for O.R. For those who may be interested in the contributions on the subject of education that have appeared in the Operational Research Quarterly I have appended a list of references starting with the Presidential Address to the Society by Kendall in 1958 and concluding with the Critique by White on "Research methodology in the management sciences" which appeared in 1970. We have advanced a long way in the thirteen years. Even so during this period there has been some reluctance to formulating a taxonomy of O.R. White is a notable exception; he has stressed time and again the need for this.
O.R. IN THE UNIVERSITIES An analysis of the structure and content of current university courses in O.R. reveals a wide spectrum [10]. The troublesome feature of this is not so much in the range of subject matter and content but that the aims of the various courses are not openly revealed nor is there any means of relating any particular course to an overall programme of learning. 110
Omega, Vol. 1, No. 1 In 1970 The Institute of Management Sciences published statements from various concerned people about the purposes and quality of graduate education in the management sciences [4]. Sandwiched between Churchman's Preface and the final essay by him on "O.R. as a profession" are eleven papers by Ackoff, Cook, Cooper, Eilon, Hare, Howard, Lieberman, Littauer, Simpson and Rivett, Starr, and Thrall. This collection of papers has no unifying theme and presents a confused account of what O.R. is about; one can only conclude that many of the educators are indifferent to the basic structure of the science of O.R. and of its philosophical background and tradition. At the risk of not doing justice to the various contributions I shall briefly illustrate the variety of points of view. Littauer of Columbia University in his paper entitled What is O.R.-M.S? says " . . . the concept of management science for me entails the evaluation of the process (or processes) for effective management decision. Such subject matter is not peculiarly algorithmetically oriented but is directed towards, (a) determining the structure of the environment in which management functioning can be a science, (b) the development of measures in terms of which to describe the environment, (c) the development of management information systems (conceived as directed towards effective decision) and (d) the methodology for problem solving of management decision problems. For me a fundamental aim of management science is to provide means for asking and answering questions pertinent to this environment. An over-emphasis on techniques relegates the true nature of O.R. to a secondary position with permanent loss to the subject." Ackoff in a short paper discusses what he considers as the four essential parts of an educational programme in the Management Sciences: Foundations, Fundamentals, Frontiers and Facility. By "Foundations" he means the knowledge which it is desirable for a management scientist to have in order to understand better, (a) the systems with which he will work, (b) their environments, (c) the methodology of inquiry which he will use and these include at least the following group of topics, (i) philosophy and history of science and scientific method, (ii) logic, mathematics, probability and mathematical statistics, (iii) economics, behavioural science, decision and value theory, human communication theory, cybernetics, organization theory and general systems theory. Since adequate texts and journal articles are available on each of these topics, Ackoff says that the student should be encouraged to learn them on his own or in self-organized learning cells supplemented where the students desire by tutorials and/or lectures. Such a task of self-learning at the beginning of one's career without skilled guidance and close supervision would, I am sure, deter even the most enthusiastic and talented student. By "Fundamentals" he means the techniques and tools of management science and operational research - inventory theory, allocation theory and so on. He asserts that these tools should also be learned as much as possible III
Hicks--Education for OperationalResearch through self instruction. The "Frontiers" he says are of two types--(a) new areas of application and (b) problems of research methodology which constrain our ability to improve the operations of systems and he brings out the difference between the sponsor's problem and the researcher's problem. By "Facility" he means a combination of (a) the ability to use what is known to solve a problem, (b) the ability to find out what others know that is relevant to a problem in hand and to use it effectively and (c) the ability to develop knowledge that is not available and without which a problem cannot be solved. He then asserts that he knows of no effective way of acquiring such a facility except by working on real problems under real conditions in real organizations and he concludes that every educational programme in Management Science requires the presence of a research group that engages in solving problems for outside organizations for a fee. Faculty students should be organized into teams to work on such problems and that each team should review the work of the others so as to maximise the sharing of learning. This seems to me to be the apprentice system of training in another guise. It is difficult to see from Ackoff's rough sketch what is the unique contribution of the university. He might argue that the tradition of the universities is to attract to themselves the better thinkers and researchers and men with great prowess of exposition. Ackoff's educational plan is one that can be adopted by operational research groups outside the universities. Rivett and Simpson in a short note closely follow the Ackoff theme but stress the emphasis in the Lancaster and Sussex courses given to methodology and the formulation of problems in model terms which are mainly mathematical. The two most significant contributions from the United Kingdom are from Cook of the University of Aston in Birmingham and from Eilon of Imperial College of Science and Technology. Cook further develops the theme of education and training that he described in an earlier publication [5]. Cook's approach rests on the inter-disciplinary nature of all O.R. activities. His structure of a total programme of learning which involves a partnership of the in-house O.R. group, the academic O.R. group, the managers and all concerned with the operations is geared to the establishment of a total involvement of the scientists, technologists and the lay managers. But it is difficult to isolate from Cook's long dissertation the basic structure of O.R. I believe that there has been an over-emphasis on the interdisciplinary nature of O.R. to the extent of total intellectual confusion [12]. Eilon is more realistic and observes that we must recognize the limitations of any university education programme; there is a limit on the knowledge of O.R. that can be imparted in an academic programme simply because of its limited duration. It is impossible within the time constraints to turn out a graduate who is specialized in every single function of business. Some selection is inevitable and the question is how the selection is to be made. Eilon aims to produce a programme that has a reasonable balance between (a) subjects 112
Omega, Vol. 1, No. 1 relating to the external environment of the organization, (b) subjects relating to the individual environment of the organization, (c) supporting subjects necessary to deal with (a) and (b) at a reasonable level, and (d) subjects which may be introduced into the programme in order to liberalize the student-such as philosophy. Eilon recognizes the dilemma facing any course organizer and the difficulty of choosing between a rigid single organic approach and the modular approach which presents a wide range of subjects which the student chooses. On the latter he is satisfied that such a course, apart from being extravagant in teaching resources, will lose all sense of structure and unity. Accordingly, he favours and follows in his own postgraduate course the device of a core of compulsory subjects, which ensure a minimum of substantial knowledge in key areas, coupled with a range of elective subjects to cater for diverse interests and for the need of specialization. The problem is to determine the compulsory parts of the curriculum and this will always be in doubt until we have defined the basic anatomy of O.R.
THE CHALLENGE OF IMPLEMENTATION I do not know what prompted West Churchman to write the final essay on "O.R. as a profession" in the TIMS Symposium. He may have been disappointed that the other contributors had not clearly indicated the aims of their teaching programme and that there was confusion about what O.R. is. For his purpose he defines O.R. as "The securing of improvement in social systems by means of scientific method" and his essay is an exposition of his views on scientific methods, social systems, improvement and securing. I commend this essay to all who are concerned with the problems of education for O.R. It is fairly clear to me that if one tests the curricula of current postgraduate courses in this country they fall short of matching this definition; it is this definition that, I feel, should guide our thoughts on education for O.R. Our understanding of the structure of social systems, of the structure of scientific methods and what we mean by improvement is often immature, ambiguous and frequently inconsistent. But some would argue that there are no general principles about the art of "securing" that can be taught and that this is something that can only be learned by experience. But this is defeatist. Surely there are important aspects that can be brought to the notice of students. It seems to me that our current courses present the more rational account of O.R. where the emphasis is on issues that are amenable to solution by quickly acquired mathematical methods. Whether this is a good way to prepare scientists for the O.R. profession is open to debate. But the real world is different and I agree with D J White when he says, "It simply is not adequate to say that there is a real difference between a physical and human object without 113
H
Hicks--Education for Operational Research proper examination. We need to study properly the basic nature of the theories of human behaviour we should use in our management sciences" [2]. The emphasis on the rational story of O.R. leads one to forget that one needs to work on problems before having ideas of solutions or at least before we have settled policy solutions. "The model that says we cannot start working on problems of housing, or welfare, or drug abuse until we have formulated policy solutions which we have some substantial basis for believing to be correct, is a false model" [23].
THE N E E D FOR A S T R U C T U R E OF O.R. When Alan Mercer became Chairman of the O.R. Society's (U.K.) Education and Research Committee in January 1970 he urged the Committee to attempt a comprehensive description of the structure of O.R. and, for its various facets, to assemble in a classified manner the body of proved knowledge as it appeared in the literature. Such a compendium would serve not only to describe current courses but more especially would be a bibliographical reference source for an overall programme of learning to guide practitioners throughout their lives. This ambitious task has not yet been brought to fruition but encouraging first steps have been taken. Mercer [19] discusses O.R. under nine main headings: (a) environment, (b) methodology, (c) formal tools, (d) tools of uncertainty, (e) techniques of uncertainty, (f) organizational sciences, (g) decision theory, (h) problem representation, (i) problem resolution. Within each of the main components a good deal of further classification and subdivision is possible and Mercer illustrates how this may be done. I think that there is in these proposals more than a glimmering of a basic structure of O.R. and certainly a hope of formulating an overall programme of learning. Perhaps the biggest danger is that we may be tempted to follow the pattern of instruction and education of the physical sciences and the ways of those who practise pure basic research. The characteristic of the physical sciences is that they ignore all judgements of value and behaviour. And there is no opposition to contend with except the hidden mystery of nature. But in the social systems in which we have to work we have to contend with men of varying talent and motives, good men, evil men and men who are indifferent to change and cannot conceive of improvement. The challenge is to structure an education and research programme that will announce a methodology that combines the objectivity of the physical sciences and in similar terms deal with the different value judgements of men the long view will be to aim at a unifying model that is capable of treatment mathematically. The question we have to ask is, "What are the basic metaphors and models that make our thought possible ?" 114
Omega, Vol. 1, No. 1
CONCLUSIONS Education presents us with a difficult problem and there appears to be no simple answer as to where and how we should start and the route to follow thereafter. The goal must be to achieve some unifying thought and procedure and aim for a spirit of generalization. The educational programme must converge and at the same time cater for the scholar, the discoverer and the inventor. Our subject will die if our education programme is not geared to stimulating imagination and curiosity and generating the style and pace that characterizes the best professionals. We shall survive and live dangerously and enjoyably to the extent that O.R. is useful. Its method of diffusion is in action to secure improvement and the continuing educational process is a loop from practice to learning and research back to better practice [3]. This essay is not directed to those who in the last five to ten years have struggled valiantly to establish the teaching of O.R. in the universities. Blauch in the most recent edition of the Encyclopaedia Americana sets down three conditions for the existence o f a profession (see Churchman [4]). The third of these conditions is that the profession should establish a system of control over the practice of the calling and the education of its practitioners. On this basis it seems necessary that we should have an education map to guide our footsteps and equally necessary that all those who claim to be O.R. scientists should have a concern to establish what it is we need to learn and to teach. The foundations of the subject are deep set in philosophy. The climate and nature of research especially at the universities should be such that they will attract men of outstanding talent and hopefully a few men of genius that will enlighten the problems that confront mankind on which, so far, O.R. has made little impact. The educational process will only operate at a high level of originality if the research that goes on alongside is of a high order.
REFERENCES 1. BATTERSBYA (1965) Education for operational research. Opl Res. Q. 16, 478. 2. BEOOr~-Dov AG and KLEIN TA (1970) Research methodology in the management sciences. Opl Res. Q. 21, 311. Critique of the paper by Begod-Dov and Klein by D J White, p. 327. 3. Cn~R~qS AB (1969) Social research and its diffusion. Human Relat. 22, 200. See also: Models for the use of research. Human Relat. 25, 25. 4. CHURCHMANCW (1970) Some papers on education issues in the management sciences and operations research. Mgmt Sci. 17, B1-B53. 5. Cook SL (1965) Education for operational research. Opl Res. Q. 16, 145. 6. COOKSL (1966) Education for O.R. Opl Res. Q. 17, 95. 7. DUDLEYNA (1962) Operational research and the universities. Opl Res. Q. 13, 81. 8. EASTERFIELDTE (1965) Education for operational research. Opl Res. Q. 16, 478. 9. EmoN S (1967) Operational research in a university. Opl Res. Q. 18, 463. 10. HIcts D (1970) The teaching of O.R. in the universities, polytechnics and technical colleges in Great Britain--a catalogue of postgraduate and undergraduate courses. Operational Research Society Education Committee (unpublished). 115
Hicks--Education f o r Operational Research 11. HINCHELWOODSIR CYRIL (1965) Presidential address to the British Association. 12. JEHODA M (1971) Perspectives on the SSRC. Research SSRC Newsletter, No. 11. 13. JONES HG (1965) Education for operational research. Opl Res. Q. 16, 477. 14. KENDALLMG (1958) The teaching of operational research. Opl Res. Q. 9, 265. 15. WL, BTH and MGS (1966) Editorial. Opl Res. Q. 17, 1. 16, LAWRm NL (1967) Operational research in a university. Opl Res. Q. 18, 315. 17. LAWS CE (1966) Education for O.R. Opl Res. Q. 17, 463. 18. LAWRIENL (1967) Operational research in a university. Opl Res. Q. 18, 463. 19. MERCER A The Operational Research Society's Education Yearbook. Unpublished. 20. PENGILLYPJ (1965) Education for operational research. Opl Res. Q. 16, 479. 21. PENGILLY PJ (1968) A part-time comprehensive course in O.R.---experience at the Rutheford College of Technology. Opl Res. Q. 19, 361. 22. RIVETTBHP (1967) Editorial on "Education". Opl Res. Q. 18, 1. 23. SCFIOND (1971) Forecasting in the social sciences. SSRC Newsletter, No. 1I. 24 SIMPSONMG (1966) Integrated short courses. Opl Res. Q. 17, 18. 25. SXatrNGERJ (1966) Courses for graduates entering O.R. Opl Res. Q, 17, 12. 26. STRINGERJ (1967) Non-industrial O.R. Opl Res. Q. 18, 195. 27. TOTMANED (1966) Appreciation courses in O.R. Opl Res. Q. 17, 7. 28. WroTE DJ (1966) Education for O.R. Opl Res. Q. 17, 187. 29. WroTE DJ (1966) Taxonomic difficulties in O.R. Opl Res. Q. 17, 194. 30. WI-nTEDJ (1967) Education for O.R. Opl 21es. Q. 18, 191. 31. Win'rE DJ (1967) Operational research in a university. Opl Res. Q. 18, 464. 32. WmTEnEADAN (1925) Science and the Modern World. Lowell Lectures. Published as a Mentor Book by the New American Library, 1963. 33. WmTErmADAN (1932) The Aims of Education and Other Essays. Williams & Norgate. Also published by Ernest Benn, 1949.
116
Education for Operational Research D
HICKS
Chepstow, Monmouth, Wales
The paper debates the requirements of education for operational research (O.R.). It is assumed that the objective of O.R. is to secure improvement in social systems by means of scientific methods. It is argued that the programme of learning and the methods of teaching should converge to this end. There is a brief review of what some of those who are responsible for courses in operational research at universities have said about their aims and curricula. The confusion over aims and the imbalance between the rational account of O.R. and the empirical approach is briefly discussed. There follows a plea for an effort to describe the structure of O,R. and the need for a taxonomy from which a better understanding of the educational problems may emerge. The essay concludes by asserting that the climate, nature and content of research especially in the universities should be such as to attract men of great talent and hopefully a few men of genius who will advance the subject to the status of a major science.
INTRODUCTION S o M u c h has been written in the last twenty years a b o u t how to learn to do o p e r a t i o n a l research, a n d in p a r t i c u l a r a b o u t the e d u c a t i o n a l issues, t h a t one is reluctant to a d d to the literature. But e d u c a t i o n presents difficult p r o b l e m s a n d p r o b a b l y there is no single simple s o l u t i o n o f universal a p p l i c a t i o n . So m u c h d e p e n d s on the ability o f the teacher to convey his knowledge, skills a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g to his p u p i l s a n d they t o o will differ in talent a n d readiness to learn. T h e t o t a l process is c o n t i n u o u s a n d unending. There seems to be no s h o r t cut even to acquiring some skill in using the tools o f the profession. A c q u i r i n g a skill in using the tools m a y t u r n o u t to be an inert acquisition unless at the same time one has, as W h i t e h e a d said, acquired a freshness a n d i m a g i n a t i v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f learning a n d a p a s s i o n a t e p r o t e s t against inert ideas a n d m e t h o d s [33]. It is i m p o s s i b l e to d e v e l o p a c u r r i c u l u m fully. T h e m o s t one can expect from f o r m a l courses o f i n s t r u c t i o n in the universities a n d polytechnics is that students will emerge f r o m t h e m with s o m e t h i n g t h a t they k n o w well a n d can do well a n d with a zest for e x p l o r i n g the wider c u r r i c u l u m t h r o u g h o u t their lives. It is n o t m y i n t e n t i o n in this essay to f o r m u l a t e a m o d e l syllabus for, say, a o n e - y e a r p o s t g r a d u a t e course in o p e r a t i o n a l research o r for a three-year 107
Hicks--Education for Operational Research undergraduate course and far less to speak about packaged short courses. The aims of education for O.R. will be determined largely by our understanding of the purpose and structure of O.R. If we are unclear about these matters any systems of education for O.R. that we devise will be of limited value. Education is about the utilization of knowledge and theoretical exposition isolated from important applications is of little educational value. The purpose of instruction is that the student shall acquire the essential theory that underlies the application. No tutor is effective who is not himself absorbed in the utilization of his knowledge. This is an art that is difficult to impart. Whitehead had much to say about this and the following is an example from his extensive writings on education: "The evolution of curiosity, of judgment, of the power of mastering a complicated tangle of circumstances, the use of theory in giving foresight in special cases--all these are not to be imparted by a set rule embodied in one schedule of examination subjects". These general remarks about the purpose of education may be of interest to the O.R. profession as a whole and particularly to those who manage and direct O.R. groups in industry, commerce and government. No O.R. group can be effective unless it is absorbed in the continuing process of education not only of the members of the group but also of those with whom they work to bring about changes, and hopefully, improvement in their organizations. The end result will depend on the character of the pupils and the genius of the teachers. It is useless, for example, to indulge in a discourse on complex models before the pupils have an appreciation of meaningful descriptions of situations and how these descriptions can be enlivened by measurement and how the different measurements may be related. This involves a feeling for the structure of operations and the underlying motives. This is a question of acquiring a good style and as Whitehead said, "style is the exclusive privilage of the expert". But there is the other side of the coin. We live and work in a technological environment which often is politically motivated and often ruled by amateurs. These men have great virtues in versatility and great technological advances have been made, as Sir Cyril Hinchelwood said in his Presidential Address to the British Association in 1965, " . . . by men with alert, enterprising and ingenious but quite unacademic minds--at least men of action as men of thought who ask questions not so much 'why does this happen' as 'how could this be done or what use could be made of this?' " [ll]. One of the aims of education for O.R. should on this count lead the scientist to a skill in bridging the gap between science and technology and in developing methods of being effective in a non-scientific environment. It is the technologists who have to absorb into their practices the procedures for bringing about change and improvement which have been developed by operational research. This essay would be an idle exercise if there were not a general concern about the aims of education for O.R. If the educational process is not designed to create a zest for securing improvement in social systems then it is unlikely 108
Omega, Vol. 1, No. 1 that we shall attract to the profession young men of outstanding talent and so secure a grip on the evolution of thought and action. The words of Whitehead are again highly relevant. In the Lowell Lectures which he gave in 1925 he said: "in considering the various topics to which mankind has bent its systematic thought it is impossible not to be struck by the unequal distribution of ability among the different fields. In almost all subjects there are a few outstanding names. For it requires genius to create a subject as a distinct topic for thought. But in the case of many topics after a good beginning very relevant to its immediate occasion the subsequent development appears as a weak series of ftounderings so that the whole subject gradually loses its grip on the evolution of thought. It was far otherwise with mathematics and p h y s i c s . . 2' [32].
EDUCATION AND THE PURPOSE OF O.R. Perhaps the origins of O.R. are our biggest handicap. This form of research was fashioned as a discrete and defined activity during the emergencies of war when scientists of various disciplines temporarily left their laboratories and researches and came to the aid of the fighting and civil defence services to help to get the best results from the available resources. These men applied their vivid curiosity, enthusiasm and particular skills to unfamiliar circumstances and events. They and others with whom they worked closely soon discovered that they were able to enlighten and offer solutions to difficult problems. They gave no thought to structuring their activity; they were mainly concerned to use their wits and skills urgently to the immediate occasion. When the war ended they returned to their former activities and special interests. It was from that position that the present generation of O.R. scientists started. In time they came to realize that what was born in physical conflict needed to be born again when the circumstances were entirely different. In the last twenty years there has been a compelling concern to define O.R. and to structure the pattern of continuing education. Unlike the practice of the physical sciences the practice of O.R. has evoked controversy over fundamentals that is almost as deep as occurs amongst psychologists and sociologists; there has been much wasteful disputation. In an attempt to resolve controversy the Operational Research Society in the U.K. defined O.R. as follows: "Operational Research is the application of the methods of science to complex problems arising in the direction and management of large systems of men, machines, materials and money in industry, business, government, and defence. The distinctive approach is to develop a scientific model of the system, incorporating measurements of factors such as chance and risk, with which to predict and compare the outcomes of alternative decisions, strategies or controls. The purpose is to help management determine its policy and actions scientifically." 109
Hicks--Education for Operational Research If this definition means anything then the objective of O.R. is to change the way people think about their problems and the way that they behave. The emphasis is on decision making and the development of models from which to predict the results of alternative courses of action. Can we see the influence of this definition in the structure and content of university courses in O.R ? I think that we can; in many courses the emphasis is on the formulation of problems in mathematical terms. The techniques of considering uncertainty are also taught. But the student emerging from such courses into the tangled circumstances of the world around him rarely if ever finds problems clearly defined and he has to postpone formulating hypotheses and is often hard pressed to construct the simplest model until he familiarises himself with his new environment and seeks out relevant information which the routine statistical machine rarely makes available. Unless we read more into the O.R. Society's definition than was intended I feel that in some important respects it is not very helpful to those who may wish to formulate a programme of learning on how to do O.R. However, the Operational Research Society over the years has not been unmindful of education and it has given this a high priority in its deliberations both in Committee and in public debate. In the early days the Society's Education Committee were preoccupied in assisting the organizers of short appreciation courses and then later with the development of an Integrated Introductory Courses Scheme for new entrants to O.R. groups. In the 1960's there was the rapid development of university postgraduate courses and of a few undergraduate courses in O.R. This development took place so quickly that there was little reference to the profession at large about a coherent strategy of education for O.R. For those who may be interested in the contributions on the subject of education that have appeared in the Operational Research Quarterly I have appended a list of references starting with the Presidential Address to the Society by Kendall in 1958 and concluding with the Critique by White on "Research methodology in the management sciences" which appeared in 1970. We have advanced a long way in the thirteen years. Even so during this period there has been some reluctance to formulating a taxonomy of O.R. White is a notable exception; he has stressed time and again the need for this.
O.R. IN THE UNIVERSITIES An analysis of the structure and content of current university courses in O.R. reveals a wide spectrum [10]. The troublesome feature of this is not so much in the range of subject matter and content but that the aims of the various courses are not openly revealed nor is there any means of relating any particular course to an overall programme of learning. 110
Omega, Vol. 1, No. 1 In 1970 The Institute of Management Sciences published statements from various concerned people about the purposes and quality of graduate education in the management sciences [4]. Sandwiched between Churchman's Preface and the final essay by him on "O.R. as a profession" are eleven papers by Ackoff, Cook, Cooper, Eilon, Hare, Howard, Lieberman, Littauer, Simpson and Rivett, Starr, and Thrall. This collection of papers has no unifying theme and presents a confused account of what O.R. is about; one can only conclude that many of the educators are indifferent to the basic structure of the science of O.R. and of its philosophical background and tradition. At the risk of not doing justice to the various contributions I shall briefly illustrate the variety of points of view. Littauer of Columbia University in his paper entitled What is O.R.-M.S? says " . . . the concept of management science for me entails the evaluation of the process (or processes) for effective management decision. Such subject matter is not peculiarly algorithmetically oriented but is directed towards, (a) determining the structure of the environment in which management functioning can be a science, (b) the development of measures in terms of which to describe the environment, (c) the development of management information systems (conceived as directed towards effective decision) and (d) the methodology for problem solving of management decision problems. For me a fundamental aim of management science is to provide means for asking and answering questions pertinent to this environment. An over-emphasis on techniques relegates the true nature of O.R. to a secondary position with permanent loss to the subject." Ackoff in a short paper discusses what he considers as the four essential parts of an educational programme in the Management Sciences: Foundations, Fundamentals, Frontiers and Facility. By "Foundations" he means the knowledge which it is desirable for a management scientist to have in order to understand better, (a) the systems with which he will work, (b) their environments, (c) the methodology of inquiry which he will use and these include at least the following group of topics, (i) philosophy and history of science and scientific method, (ii) logic, mathematics, probability and mathematical statistics, (iii) economics, behavioural science, decision and value theory, human communication theory, cybernetics, organization theory and general systems theory. Since adequate texts and journal articles are available on each of these topics, Ackoff says that the student should be encouraged to learn them on his own or in self-organized learning cells supplemented where the students desire by tutorials and/or lectures. Such a task of self-learning at the beginning of one's career without skilled guidance and close supervision would, I am sure, deter even the most enthusiastic and talented student. By "Fundamentals" he means the techniques and tools of management science and operational research - inventory theory, allocation theory and so on. He asserts that these tools should also be learned as much as possible III
Hicks--Education for OperationalResearch through self instruction. The "Frontiers" he says are of two types--(a) new areas of application and (b) problems of research methodology which constrain our ability to improve the operations of systems and he brings out the difference between the sponsor's problem and the researcher's problem. By "Facility" he means a combination of (a) the ability to use what is known to solve a problem, (b) the ability to find out what others know that is relevant to a problem in hand and to use it effectively and (c) the ability to develop knowledge that is not available and without which a problem cannot be solved. He then asserts that he knows of no effective way of acquiring such a facility except by working on real problems under real conditions in real organizations and he concludes that every educational programme in Management Science requires the presence of a research group that engages in solving problems for outside organizations for a fee. Faculty students should be organized into teams to work on such problems and that each team should review the work of the others so as to maximise the sharing of learning. This seems to me to be the apprentice system of training in another guise. It is difficult to see from Ackoff's rough sketch what is the unique contribution of the university. He might argue that the tradition of the universities is to attract to themselves the better thinkers and researchers and men with great prowess of exposition. Ackoff's educational plan is one that can be adopted by operational research groups outside the universities. Rivett and Simpson in a short note closely follow the Ackoff theme but stress the emphasis in the Lancaster and Sussex courses given to methodology and the formulation of problems in model terms which are mainly mathematical. The two most significant contributions from the United Kingdom are from Cook of the University of Aston in Birmingham and from Eilon of Imperial College of Science and Technology. Cook further develops the theme of education and training that he described in an earlier publication [5]. Cook's approach rests on the inter-disciplinary nature of all O.R. activities. His structure of a total programme of learning which involves a partnership of the in-house O.R. group, the academic O.R. group, the managers and all concerned with the operations is geared to the establishment of a total involvement of the scientists, technologists and the lay managers. But it is difficult to isolate from Cook's long dissertation the basic structure of O.R. I believe that there has been an over-emphasis on the interdisciplinary nature of O.R. to the extent of total intellectual confusion [12]. Eilon is more realistic and observes that we must recognize the limitations of any university education programme; there is a limit on the knowledge of O.R. that can be imparted in an academic programme simply because of its limited duration. It is impossible within the time constraints to turn out a graduate who is specialized in every single function of business. Some selection is inevitable and the question is how the selection is to be made. Eilon aims to produce a programme that has a reasonable balance between (a) subjects 112
Omega, Vol. 1, No. 1 relating to the external environment of the organization, (b) subjects relating to the individual environment of the organization, (c) supporting subjects necessary to deal with (a) and (b) at a reasonable level, and (d) subjects which may be introduced into the programme in order to liberalize the student-such as philosophy. Eilon recognizes the dilemma facing any course organizer and the difficulty of choosing between a rigid single organic approach and the modular approach which presents a wide range of subjects which the student chooses. On the latter he is satisfied that such a course, apart from being extravagant in teaching resources, will lose all sense of structure and unity. Accordingly, he favours and follows in his own postgraduate course the device of a core of compulsory subjects, which ensure a minimum of substantial knowledge in key areas, coupled with a range of elective subjects to cater for diverse interests and for the need of specialization. The problem is to determine the compulsory parts of the curriculum and this will always be in doubt until we have defined the basic anatomy of O.R.
THE CHALLENGE OF IMPLEMENTATION I do not know what prompted West Churchman to write the final essay on "O.R. as a profession" in the TIMS Symposium. He may have been disappointed that the other contributors had not clearly indicated the aims of their teaching programme and that there was confusion about what O.R. is. For his purpose he defines O.R. as "The securing of improvement in social systems by means of scientific method" and his essay is an exposition of his views on scientific methods, social systems, improvement and securing. I commend this essay to all who are concerned with the problems of education for O.R. It is fairly clear to me that if one tests the curricula of current postgraduate courses in this country they fall short of matching this definition; it is this definition that, I feel, should guide our thoughts on education for O.R. Our understanding of the structure of social systems, of the structure of scientific methods and what we mean by improvement is often immature, ambiguous and frequently inconsistent. But some would argue that there are no general principles about the art of "securing" that can be taught and that this is something that can only be learned by experience. But this is defeatist. Surely there are important aspects that can be brought to the notice of students. It seems to me that our current courses present the more rational account of O.R. where the emphasis is on issues that are amenable to solution by quickly acquired mathematical methods. Whether this is a good way to prepare scientists for the O.R. profession is open to debate. But the real world is different and I agree with D J White when he says, "It simply is not adequate to say that there is a real difference between a physical and human object without 113
H
Hicks--Education for Operational Research proper examination. We need to study properly the basic nature of the theories of human behaviour we should use in our management sciences" [2]. The emphasis on the rational story of O.R. leads one to forget that one needs to work on problems before having ideas of solutions or at least before we have settled policy solutions. "The model that says we cannot start working on problems of housing, or welfare, or drug abuse until we have formulated policy solutions which we have some substantial basis for believing to be correct, is a false model" [23].
THE N E E D FOR A S T R U C T U R E OF O.R. When Alan Mercer became Chairman of the O.R. Society's (U.K.) Education and Research Committee in January 1970 he urged the Committee to attempt a comprehensive description of the structure of O.R. and, for its various facets, to assemble in a classified manner the body of proved knowledge as it appeared in the literature. Such a compendium would serve not only to describe current courses but more especially would be a bibliographical reference source for an overall programme of learning to guide practitioners throughout their lives. This ambitious task has not yet been brought to fruition but encouraging first steps have been taken. Mercer [19] discusses O.R. under nine main headings: (a) environment, (b) methodology, (c) formal tools, (d) tools of uncertainty, (e) techniques of uncertainty, (f) organizational sciences, (g) decision theory, (h) problem representation, (i) problem resolution. Within each of the main components a good deal of further classification and subdivision is possible and Mercer illustrates how this may be done. I think that there is in these proposals more than a glimmering of a basic structure of O.R. and certainly a hope of formulating an overall programme of learning. Perhaps the biggest danger is that we may be tempted to follow the pattern of instruction and education of the physical sciences and the ways of those who practise pure basic research. The characteristic of the physical sciences is that they ignore all judgements of value and behaviour. And there is no opposition to contend with except the hidden mystery of nature. But in the social systems in which we have to work we have to contend with men of varying talent and motives, good men, evil men and men who are indifferent to change and cannot conceive of improvement. The challenge is to structure an education and research programme that will announce a methodology that combines the objectivity of the physical sciences and in similar terms deal with the different value judgements of men the long view will be to aim at a unifying model that is capable of treatment mathematically. The question we have to ask is, "What are the basic metaphors and models that make our thought possible ?" 114
Omega, Vol. 1, No. 1
CONCLUSIONS Education presents us with a difficult problem and there appears to be no simple answer as to where and how we should start and the route to follow thereafter. The goal must be to achieve some unifying thought and procedure and aim for a spirit of generalization. The educational programme must converge and at the same time cater for the scholar, the discoverer and the inventor. Our subject will die if our education programme is not geared to stimulating imagination and curiosity and generating the style and pace that characterizes the best professionals. We shall survive and live dangerously and enjoyably to the extent that O.R. is useful. Its method of diffusion is in action to secure improvement and the continuing educational process is a loop from practice to learning and research back to better practice [3]. This essay is not directed to those who in the last five to ten years have struggled valiantly to establish the teaching of O.R. in the universities. Blauch in the most recent edition of the Encyclopaedia Americana sets down three conditions for the existence o f a profession (see Churchman [4]). The third of these conditions is that the profession should establish a system of control over the practice of the calling and the education of its practitioners. On this basis it seems necessary that we should have an education map to guide our footsteps and equally necessary that all those who claim to be O.R. scientists should have a concern to establish what it is we need to learn and to teach. The foundations of the subject are deep set in philosophy. The climate and nature of research especially at the universities should be such that they will attract men of outstanding talent and hopefully a few men of genius that will enlighten the problems that confront mankind on which, so far, O.R. has made little impact. The educational process will only operate at a high level of originality if the research that goes on alongside is of a high order.
REFERENCES 1. BATTERSBYA (1965) Education for operational research. Opl Res. Q. 16, 478. 2. BEOOr~-Dov AG and KLEIN TA (1970) Research methodology in the management sciences. Opl Res. Q. 21, 311. Critique of the paper by Begod-Dov and Klein by D J White, p. 327. 3. Cn~R~qS AB (1969) Social research and its diffusion. Human Relat. 22, 200. See also: Models for the use of research. Human Relat. 25, 25. 4. CHURCHMANCW (1970) Some papers on education issues in the management sciences and operations research. Mgmt Sci. 17, B1-B53. 5. Cook SL (1965) Education for operational research. Opl Res. Q. 16, 145. 6. COOKSL (1966) Education for O.R. Opl Res. Q. 17, 95. 7. DUDLEYNA (1962) Operational research and the universities. Opl Res. Q. 13, 81. 8. EASTERFIELDTE (1965) Education for operational research. Opl Res. Q. 16, 478. 9. EmoN S (1967) Operational research in a university. Opl Res. Q. 18, 463. 10. HIcts D (1970) The teaching of O.R. in the universities, polytechnics and technical colleges in Great Britain--a catalogue of postgraduate and undergraduate courses. Operational Research Society Education Committee (unpublished). 115
Hicks--Education f o r Operational Research 11. HINCHELWOODSIR CYRIL (1965) Presidential address to the British Association. 12. JEHODA M (1971) Perspectives on the SSRC. Research SSRC Newsletter, No. 11. 13. JONES HG (1965) Education for operational research. Opl Res. Q. 16, 477. 14. KENDALLMG (1958) The teaching of operational research. Opl Res. Q. 9, 265. 15. WL, BTH and MGS (1966) Editorial. Opl Res. Q. 17, 1. 16, LAWRm NL (1967) Operational research in a university. Opl Res. Q. 18, 315. 17. LAWS CE (1966) Education for O.R. Opl Res. Q. 17, 463. 18. LAWRIENL (1967) Operational research in a university. Opl Res. Q. 18, 463. 19. MERCER A The Operational Research Society's Education Yearbook. Unpublished. 20. PENGILLYPJ (1965) Education for operational research. Opl Res. Q. 16, 479. 21. PENGILLY PJ (1968) A part-time comprehensive course in O.R.---experience at the Rutheford College of Technology. Opl Res. Q. 19, 361. 22. RIVETTBHP (1967) Editorial on "Education". Opl Res. Q. 18, 1. 23. SCFIOND (1971) Forecasting in the social sciences. SSRC Newsletter, No. 1I. 24 SIMPSONMG (1966) Integrated short courses. Opl Res. Q. 17, 18. 25. SXatrNGERJ (1966) Courses for graduates entering O.R. Opl Res. Q, 17, 12. 26. STRINGERJ (1967) Non-industrial O.R. Opl Res. Q. 18, 195. 27. TOTMANED (1966) Appreciation courses in O.R. Opl Res. Q. 17, 7. 28. WroTE DJ (1966) Education for O.R. Opl Res. Q. 17, 187. 29. WroTE DJ (1966) Taxonomic difficulties in O.R. Opl Res. Q. 17, 194. 30. WI-nTEDJ (1967) Education for O.R. Opl 21es. Q. 18, 191. 31. Win'rE DJ (1967) Operational research in a university. Opl Res. Q. 18, 464. 32. WmTEnEADAN (1925) Science and the Modern World. Lowell Lectures. Published as a Mentor Book by the New American Library, 1963. 33. WmTErmADAN (1932) The Aims of Education and Other Essays. Williams & Norgate. Also published by Ernest Benn, 1949.
116