Feature Article—Changing the Future of Operations Research

Bonder, Seth

doi:10.1287/opre.27.2.209

Cited by 33 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These, together with a selection of classic papers [4,6,7,13,42,[102][103][104][105][106][107][108] should make the case more eloquently than I can.…”

Section: Soft or Is Not Real Ormentioning

confidence: 99%

Soft OR comes of age—but not everywhere!

Mingers

2011

Omega

178

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last forty years new methods and methodologies have been developed to deal with wicked problems or "messes". They are structured and rigorous but non-mathematical. Prime examples are: soft systems methodology (SSM), cognitive mapping/SODA and the strategic choice approach (SCA). Collectively they are known as Soft OR, Soft Systems, or Problem Structuring Methods (PSMs). Soft OR has now come of age in terms both of dealing with complex practical situations and having a presence in the academic literature. However, Soft OR is not recognised, or even seen as a legitimate part of OR, everywhere and this is especially so in the US where top journals such as Operations Research and Management Science do not publish Soft OR papers. The purpose of this paper is to generate an informed discussion and debate which may lead to a greater recognition of the contribution of Soft OR, and to it being seen to be a proper part of the OR discipline worldwide. In order to achieve this, the first section outlines the nature of Soft OR and describes briefly some of the main methods. The second section demonstrates that Soft OR has been successful both in practice and within the academic literature. The third section documents the invisibility of Soft OR within important sections of the OR literature, and the final section then suggests some explanations for this, and also proposes practical actions to try and alleviate the problem. It is not suggested that Soft OR is an alternative to traditional, mathematical OR but, rather, a complement.

show abstract

“…These, together with a selection of classic papers [4,6,7,13,42,[102][103][104][105][106][107][108] should make the case more eloquently than I can.…”

Section: Soft or Is Not Real Ormentioning

confidence: 99%

Soft OR comes of age—but not everywhere!

Mingers

2011

Omega

178

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…tpistbmologiques, comme le montre le dkveloppement d'tpisttmologies dumanagement (Berry, 1981(Berry, ,1986Boulet, 1980, Chanlat, 1984Dufour, 1985;Dunbar, 1983;Gadalla et Cooper, 1978;Moreau, 1980;Nehrbass, 1979;Whitley, 1984a, b, c), du marketing (Anderson, 1983;Bush et Hunt, 1982;Carman, 1980;Deshpande, 1983;Hirschman, 1986;Hunt, 1983;Peter et Olson, 1983;Zaltman et al, 1982), de la recherche opCrationnelle (Ackoff, 1979a, b;Bonder, 1979;Dando et Bennett, 1981;Landry et al, 1983;Sprague et Sprague, 1976;Tinkert et Lowe, 1982), des sciences comptables (Abdel-Khalik et Ajinkya, 1983;Chambers, 1980;Christenson, 1983;Colville, 1981;Hofstedt, 1976;Hoskinet Macve, 1986;Kaplan, 1980;Morgan, 1983c;Neimark et Tinker, 1985;Sotto, 1983;Tomkins et Groves, 1983a, b;Willmott, 1983), de la finance (Ederington, 1979;Findlayet Williams, 1980Whitley, 1986b), des systtmes d'information (Banville et Landry, 1989), etc. Les sciences de l'administrationsuivent encela un mouvement de dtveloppement d'tpisttmologies internes aux differentes sciences, mouvement dtjh constate dans le champ de l'tpisttmologie…”

Section: D~r Yunclassified

Enjeux et controverses épistémologiques dans le champ des sciences de l'administration

Déry

1992

Can J Adm Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RksumkLe mo&le orthodoxe de la science est, pour l'essentiel, le seul discours kpistkmologique tenu dans le champ des sciences de l'aahinistration jusqu'd la fin des annkes 70. La rkjlaion kpistkmologique ne consiste alors qu'en une transposition du discours formel et normatif ah tenants du processus formel de la protluction ah connaissances scientrques au cas a'es sciences de l'aahinistration. Depuis la fin des annkes 70, plusieurs membres du champ contestent la pertinence du mo&le orthoabxe. Toutefois, si les rkcentes recherche c?pistkmologiques s'inscrivent bien dans la tendance, constatke en kpistc?mologie, d'un rejet du mo&le orthodoxe de la science, elles ne retiennent pas celle qui a accompagd et permis ce rejet, cf savoir l'ktude de processus concrets de production de connaissances. Db lors, ces recherchessontpartielles etprgtent d la critique puisqu 'elles traitent d'une maniere thkorque b constitution des sciences & l'administration, alors que les options kpistimologiques qui y sont prises commandentprc?ciskment l'ktude deprocessus concrets. I1 sembie donc nkcessaire d'entreprendre la contestation du mo&le orthodoxe des sciences a2 l'administratwn par une amarche empirique. A la lumi2re des &veloppements du champ contemporain de l'kpistkmologie, il est clair que ce n'est qu'en s'inscrivant dam une telle amarche que l'kpistkmologie des sciences de l'aahinistration peut se &velopper d'une mani2re pertinente. AbstractUntil the end of the 70s, the orthodox model of science was essentially the only epistemological discourse held in the fieldof aahinistrativesciences. In thisfield epistemological thought consistedsimply of a transposition of the formal and normative discourse of supporters of the formal process of scientific knowledge production. Since the end of the 70s, many members of the field have contested the orthodox model's pertinence. Nevertheless' while recent epistemological research fits in with the tendency noted in epistemology to reject the orthodox model of science, it is not part of the tendency which accompanied and permitted this rejection, namely thestudy of the concreteprocessesofknowledge production. That being the case, this research is partial and open to criticism, since it treats the constitution of administrative sciences in a theoretical manner, while the epistemological options chosen clearly demand the study of its concrete processes. Therefore, it seems necessary to undertake the questioning of the orthodox model of administrative sciences by an empirical approach. In light of developments 8 ASAC 1992

show abstract

“…The most obvious of these, and the one which has recently led to a plethora of debates (see, e.g., Ackoff, 1979;Beyer, 1982Beyer, -1983Bonder, 1979;Koontz, 1980;Tomkins and Groves, 1983), is the claim of practical relevance and utility for a particular social group and interest. Regardless of the actual technical usefulness of research into management (d. Collins, 1979, pp.…”

Section: The Context Of Management Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Having sketched the major processes through which the production and validation of knowledge about management became established as a distinct activity controlled through the competitive pursuit of reputations, I now turn to the analysis of its dominant contextual features. The most obvious of these, and the one which has recently led to a plethora of debates (see, e.g., Ackoff, 1979;Beyer, 1982Beyer, -1983Bonder, 1979;Koontz, 1980;Tomkins and Groves, 1983), is the claim of practical relevance and utility for a particular social group and interest. Regardless of the actual technical usefulness of research into management (d. Collins, 1979, pp.…”

Section: The Context Of Management Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%