INFORMS Open Forum

Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

  • 1.  Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-07-2015 00:02

    http://www.humancenteredor.com


    I consider wether we should re-brand operations research, and call ourselves analytics professionals.

    Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    ------------------------------
    Robert Rose
    President
    Optimal Decisions, LLC
    Franklin Park NJ
    ------------------------------



  • 2.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-08-2015 10:51

    Hi Robert,

    Here, in Peru, there are several managers who think that Operations Research is just one or two University courses you should follow to finish your career, sometimes they associate the concept just to one or two software brands, methodology is often forgotten and they are sceptic to apply it unless there is a big brand who applies an algorithm in some transactions and shows it has obtained extraordinary results in several companies before...

    But they are "fond" of analytics, just by saying "now everything is the cloud" or "our DW software performs datamining and analytics" and recently I heard a director who encouraged his team to learn a three letter software because we had previously bought several licenses and everything necessary to learn (and use it) was available online (no one was related to O.R. except me).

    And there I see a gap, because an operations researcher is not a software expert, and that's what several companies want now (and maybe they don't need indeed). When you ask to apply the methodology selection before the software selection they don't understand that, they know that company A is applying "succesfully" this three letter software in its processes and it's going well, now they want the same in their own company, even if the team has zero knowledge about operations research or its models.

    I would think operations research needs to evolve into Analytics to sell it better as a whole pack, but it would be unfair to reduce its application into a single software package /product.

    There are several initiatives that are related to operations research, sometimes far away from big data and "predictive analytics" just by using a spreadsheet and it works! But it has not enough acknoledgement as other project with a very expensive software (and budget) and several consultants that used "analytics" even when they known only a little regarding the methodology that is behind.

    As someone told me before: "we have bought this software and we need it working, I don't mind what you use, just implement it and get results".

    The problem is that knowledge in these kind of projects is only borrowed, after several years you need to start a new project because it's a black box.

    Kind regards, 

    ------------------------------
    Carlos Rodriguez Calderon
    Operations Research lecturer
    Universidad Privada Norbert Wiener
    Lima
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-18-2015 00:32

    Hi Carlos,

    As you described in your comment, sometimes organizations are unduly influenced by information technology fashion and the marketing hype that surrounds it.

    However, we should keep in mind that fashion changes! In a 2010 paper entitled ‘The New World of Business Analytics’ , Thomas Davenport begins with the following statement:

    “Every decade or so, the business world invents another term for how it extracts managerial and decision-making value from computerized data.”

    He then offers the following names and dates:

    decision support systems 1970’s
    executive information systems early 1980’s
    online analytical processing late 1980’s
    business intelligence 1990’s
    analytics middle 2000’s
    business analytics 2010

    He ends the paper with the following sentence:

    “Business analytics seems the term with the best fit, at least for the moment.”

    The above succession of names should give pause to those who are keen to re-brand themselves as analytics professionals.

    ------------------------------
    Robert Rose
    President
    Optimal Decisions, LLC
    Franklin Park NJ
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-08-2015 12:06

    A few thoughts.

    In grad school I joined TIMS instead of ORSA because I perceived TIMS as more business/applied and ORSA as more math/theoretical. Was that perception accurate or did I simply respond to the "management science" versus "operations research" brand? The creation of INFORMS would imply that there was more perception than substance to the brand difference.

    Our friends over in data processing, automated data processing, management information systems, information systems, decision support systems, ERP, etc. seem to change their brand more often than Elizabeth Taylor changed husbands. Yet the work they do continues to be done and continues to be valued.

    If we accept Hollerith's tabulating machine as the birth of data processing and WWII as the birth of operational research, than our discipline is younger by half a century. Ackoff literally "wrote the book" on Operations Research (co-wrote anyway). Depending on your interpretation, twenty years later he either redefined the field or just walked away from it.

    We are a young discipline and I'm not convinced we know what we are yet. Are we "best" (optimization) or just the "science of better"? Is statistics part of OR/MS? Geospatial analysis? Operations management and logistics? I'm not sure how much our brand matters if our definition is unclear or too broad but if our work is valuable it will continue to be done.

    That said, the brand seems to matter in my life. I'm currently teaching "Introduction to Business Analytics" using Camm, Cochran, et al's Essentials of Business Analytics. I'm covering traditional material: linear and non-linear programming, decision analysis, simulation, Markov chains. A classic text like ASW's Intro to Management Science or Hillier & Lieberman's Intro to Operations Research would have minimal impact on course content.

    However, the class used be called "Introduction to Management Science" and I had a hard time getting enrollments. I changed the name and now the students are coming. Camm, Cochran, et al put together a good book and its title matches the name of the course. If I'm going to brand, I might as well be consistent.

    ------------------------------
    Thomas Groleau
    Carthage College
    Kenosha WI
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 5.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-10-2015 08:07

    Great post and interesting responses, both on informs.org and on the blog site. I see strong customer interest in using "analytics" to make better decisions, and they are open to the use of OR & DA techniques for this purpose. Like Thomas Groleau & John Ranyard, I think that an OR branding may not have brought me to these customers.

    Removing OR branding in the face of the analytics-without-OR wave, on the other hand, risks re-tasking of OR practitioners into non-OR roles instead of playing the OR role in analytics-with-OR projects. So we may say that our options are (1) clearly separate OR from Analytics or (2) clearly integrate OR with analytics. In both cases we would drive an analytics-with-OR world, and separate ourselves from analytics-without-OR.

    The issues that the http://www.humancenteredor.com/ blog raises possibly come from a sense that we're actually on option #3, that drowns OR into an analytics-without-OR sea.

    In any case, can we drive a brand named "Operations Research and Management Science and Decision Analysis" or "OR/Decision Analytics"? They seem clunky. I think it may not be feasible, now, to lay claim to the "Business Analytics" movement that is merrily under way in an analytics-without-OR path. I hope we can come up with a nicer brand.

    I'm using a "blue ocean" strategy in my decks to show that analytics-as-usual lacks the process to connect insights to decisions and decisions to results that we provide in an analytics-with-OR process. The OR/MS/DA community can brand the process but first we need to get our sub-disciplines aligned to build such a process. Branding requires identity, and it seems that we're struggling for ours.

    ------------------------------
    Rahul Saxena
    Cobot Systems
    Bangalore
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 6.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-11-2015 09:46

    Dear all,

    OR is a more than  85 year old discipline. Analytics has not yet shown that it is something more that a fashion or a fancy word describing a collection of interactig disciplines.

    I will be affraid of losing our identity. OR has been, and still is much more than Analytics. And yet, keeping our identity does not meen that we are not involved in or that OR is not at the heart of Analytics.

    But that's just my opinion.



    ------------------------------
    Diego Ruiz-Hernandez
    Associate Professor
    University College for Financial Studies (CUNEF)
    Madrid
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 7.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-12-2015 07:20

    Hi Diego My interest is in OR practice and you need to know that detailed investigations by Capgemini (a consultancy that covers the full range of analytics) in the USA and UK, concluded that analytics is not just a new fad or fashion and that it had already achieved greater understanding and interest generally than OR/MS. Sadly only those within the OR/MS community understand and appreciate the full potential of OR. I believe that OR can benefit by association with analytics, but specifically 'decision analytics'.  

    ------------------------------
    John Ranyard
    Lancaster University
    Derbyshire
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 8.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-16-2015 07:25

    Dear John and all the rest,

    I understand your point. But I am still waiting for someone that can give me a detailed account of the difference between Analytics and the interactions in Decision Sciences between applied statistics, data analysis, management sciences, probability or OR.

    Regarding your concern about the potential customers. I think that, at the end of the day, the OR practitioner should provide a solution to his client, independently of the name that you give to it. Likewise, the firm manager looking for an answer to his problems cares more about the quality and price of such answer than about the name that you put on the technique used to find it. An argument htat is far away from the concerns of the Or theoretician.

    OR is a science, or a branch of the mathematical  sciences -as you prefer to call it-,  not a collection of techniques waiting for the highest bidder. Analytics' emphasys on the application of such techniques to the solution of specific problems limits the wider scope of Operational Research.

    Some time ago a university colleague made a clear statement -for her students- of the differences between OR and Logistics. And I keep thinking that her arguments -if I could only remember them- could be quite usefull to solve the confusion between OR and Analytics.

    Analytics, for me yet to be proven not to be only a fashion does not matter what Capgemini says- is a 'sexy' given name for what has already been done by decision analysts over years: mixing OR techniques, statistics, data analysys and so on. On the other hand, OR is a discipline on its own, and the work of hundres of great men has bring it to a status in the mathematical sciences that can no be simply ignored.

    Have a nice weekend!


    ------------------------------
    Diego Ruiz-Hernandez
    Associate Professor
    University College for Financial Studies (CUNEF)
    Madrid
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 9.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-18-2015 00:29

    At University of Delaware, the  OR program got folded into the Statistics program as as a Decision Sciences Concentration. This is because of lack of CORE OR faculty to teach core OR courses. Our student enrollment was small. We kept the program small so we could provide quality advisement to students.  The students who got an OR degree from UD got well paying jobs in the credit card industry and the pharma industry. We also had a fantastic internship program called as CORP. Some students also went to Wharton and Columbia MBA programs. 

    Hoever, with new budget requirements Education has become a business. The Universities in  general only look at the money we can make to stay profitable. The good old days  are gone.

    In sum, even though OR is not taught at UD, I personally feel that students with OR skills is needed now more than ever. However, they need to learn new skills pertaining to data analytics. The present OR program in many schools should be revamped. This is my belief.

    PK



    ------------------------------
    Palaniappa Krishnan
    Assoc Professor
    University of Delaware
    Newark DE
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 10.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-19-2015 07:09

    Dear Diego and Rahul

    You have both made some interesting points but I would urge Diego to read the Capgemini report commissioned by INFORMS (which I presume is on the INFORMS website) before dismissing it's conclusions, one of which is that the term 'operations/operational research' is little understood outside the OR community. On the other hand 'Analytics' has quickly become more popular, both generally and  in management publications. Few groups that responded to my survey of OR practice for IFORS used the term 'OR' to label their service (preferring 'decision support', 'business analytics', and a variety of others which were found more helpful to potential clients). Also, Masters courses in the UK which rebranded as 'OR and Business Analytics' have become more popular with students than just 'OR' or 'Management Science'.

    I believe that OR could become more widely known and understood by association with the decision making end of Analytics. At the same time we could enable those practicing in this area but without an OR background to become more effective by utilising OR's successful methodology which has been developed over many decades. As Shakespeare said: "a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet". We just need to ensure that a change of name does not reduce the scope of OR!

    ------------------------------
    John Ranyard
    Lancaster University
    Derbyshire
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 11.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-19-2015 09:40

    Big data/analytics has rendered Operations Research obsolete. 

    With big enough data, methodological matters such as

    1) assumptions of Normality and other distributional assumptions

    2) improper probabilistic independence assumptions and premature use of expectation (interchanging expectation with a nonlinear function) at an intermediate stage of calculation, perhaps combined with improper independence assumption

    3) confusing P(A|B) with P(B|A) (Hi, are there any lawyers/judges here, ha ha)

    4) accounting for uncertainty

    5) linearity assumptions

    6) dynamic evolution

    are all rendered moot, and

    7) explicit optimization is rendered irrelevant

    because with big enough data, the best answer is automatically obtained and optimal, with no need for those O.R. geeks or Math type people trying to turn practical business problems into "science projects".  If we need a Math person, we'll evaluate them based on how much Python, R, NoSQL, Hadoop, and Ruby on Rails coding they have done, because nothing else matters (well, maybe except for Java).  If any of (1) through (7) appear to still matter, it's only because we need even bigger data.

    Long live O.R.  It was fun while it lasted. But big data has rendered it obsolete.  Here's to getting unstable and unreliable and maybe flat out wrong answers with really big data, instead of with small data.

    P.S. Numerical mathematical software experts (Numerical Analysts) are no longer required, because when performing machine learning, and computing things such as variance via numerically unstable textbook method (as was used in MAHOOT!!!!) instead of by a numerically stable one-pass method, all numerical instability problems are magically resolved and rendered moot when applied to large enough data sets, preferably using single precision on GPUs as is now in vogue. Algorithms which are numerically unstable and inaccurate when applied in double precision to 1000 data points, automatically become stable and accurate when applied in single precision to data sets with a billion points.

    ------------------------------
    Mark L. Stone
    Got into O.R. at the tail end of the glory days ca. early '80s
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 12.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-20-2015 07:05

    Hi Mark

    Very thought provoking and also very provocative too, as I'm sure you intended! Just a quick acknowledgement at this stage. IT departments are in a strong position re Big Data because not only do they own and manage the data but they are also integrated into the management structure of their organisations, whereas OR groups are usually consultancy oriented and always seeking new projects/clients. In the UK, OR practice is very successful where it is established as witnessed by the Heads of OR Forum, the UK counterpart to the INFORMS Roundtable, consisting of around 40 heads of OR (and Analytics) groups. But many large organisations in the UK do not use OR overtly which is one reason for trying to capitalise on the current popularity of Analytics. It is not possible for a single Master's course to provide all of the skills required by OR and Analytics/Big Data practitioners and so OR must concentrate on where it is most effective. By the way, although I am now retired most of my career was as an OR manager in industry in the UK.

    ------------------------------
    John Ranyard
    Lancaster University
    Derbyshire
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 13.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-22-2015 10:16

    I agree with John Ranyard. Associating OR with Analytics will advertise OR  "skills" as a powerful subset of analytics' qualifications. I think the words decision making as well as optimization (or mathematical/systems optimization) should also be explored more, because the private sector often relates optimization with potential improved efficiency. 

    If we do our jobs well in communicating, we will be able to create enough critical mass to have OR as being seen as a critical 'skill' within the analytics field.

    Another powerful way to bring OR concepts to the private sector is to create subtle terminology differentiations within existing analytics terms.

    Examples:

    it is very common to hear the following differentiation: Descriptive Modeling versus Predictive Modeling.

    Why not creating something also generic for OR such as Scenario Modeling. Subjects associated with the terms:

    - Scenario modeling (i.e., supply chain design, 'what if' analysis)

    - Predictive modeling (i.e, machine learning)

    - Descriptive modeling (i.e., A/B analysis)

    This is an effective way to introduce OR skills inside the semantics of analytics. 


    ------------------------------
    Guilherme Maia
    Postdoctoral Research Associate
    University of Illinois
    Champaign IL
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 14.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-24-2015 05:34

    Guilherme

    I think your 'scenario planning' is in effect 'prescriptive modelling' the third and most crucial approach to business analytics (the other two you have already mentioned) and is where OR is best placed and has most to offer in the Analytics spectrum.

    ------------------------------
    John Ranyard
    Lancaster University
    Derbyshire
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 15.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-11-2015 11:08

    Frankly, the Operations Research brand is a way to honor the historical birth of the discipline during WWII. It is known as Management & Decision Sciences in Business Schools and Mathematical Sciences in Math Departments. O.R. is a brand mostly restricted to Engineering Schools. The only problem I have with it is that when people ask me what it is that I do professionally, if I reply Operations Research more often than not people do not grasp the true nature of my work. So I prefer to say Mathematical Sciences. Still, I would not want to do away with "Operations Research"; I do not think it would be wise to disconnect from the past. There should be room, however, to incorporate new ideas and concepts brought about by the powerful technologies of our day and age. Any new classification, nevertheless, is bound to produce more rather than less compartmentalization.

    ------------------------------
    Diego Roque
    Retired
    Miami FL
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 16.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-12-2015 13:20

    As Prof Roque has written, there are historical reasons for the name Operations Research or Operational Research. This discipline, I use to call it Applied Mathematics to Decisions, has been growing from WWII to the present. Starting with Linear Programming and some of Dynamic Programming, Stochastic Processes were incorpored later, as well as Simulation, Games Theory and others. In the same way I think that we, practitioners, may admit Analytics as a new subdiscipline inside OR and with no additional names. That is no more than what was ocurred with Maths, starting with the Pythagoric and the Quadrivium concept,  wich evolved to the present, including new techniques but with no change of name. Is actual Maths the same as one thousand years ago, certainly not. After the next thousand of years surely OR will change substantially, should then suffer new changes of name, I think that the answer is no, following the same historic reasons.

    ------------------------------
    Alfredo Russo
    Honorary Professor
    Buenos Aires
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 17.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-11-2015 17:51



    ------------------------------
    Diego Roque
    Retired
    Miami FL

    I do not know why or who erased my commentary and for what reason.

    But this being the case let me leave you with one thought (even though I am not Freudian)

    Oralytics is just as important as Analytics.

    Good Luck to you!!
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 18.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-21-2015 09:55

    Mark:

    Thanks for the interesting post!

    I was one of those people who knew I wanted to do "OR" since 11th grade, when I attended a talk on it. I ended up getting my degree in OR (Cornell ORIE, 2003) and then a MEng. in Biological Engineering with applied mathematics bent. I was drawn to OR because of its practicality and generality, it's ability to take an unstructured problem and turn it into a "puzzle" that can actually be solved. To me this is the essence of OR - using mathematics and analytical thinking to structure and solve decision-oriented problems (e.g., applying OR to astrophysics research is probably not a major element...although there are probably a few doing this). I have always considered myself an OR practitioner first. However, I'd like to offer some personal experiences in being an OR person who works almost exclusively with non-OR people.

    First, my career has pivoted several times. I started out working for an environmental engineering firm, then an environmental and health science consulting firm, and now an IT firm. I have held the title "Engineer", "Consultant" and now "Data Scientist" and I have a Professional Engineering License and I got my Certified Analytics Professional certification last year. So, I have had to straddle two very different worlds in my 10+ year career.

    I am mentioning this because I have had to personally "re-brand" myself several times and so I may be able to offer a unique perspective. In particular, I have followed the OR vs. Analytics vs. Big Data vs. Data Science etc issue for several years, as well as seen the OR/MS community attempt to get some traction with non-specialists. The problem with "Operations Research" is that it conjures up "Tayloristic" images of time-motion studies or manufacturing systems, or it's so nebulous that it draws a complete blank (as I've personally experienced many, many times). 

    However, whenever I say "Analytics", people start asking me questions that indicate they have a sense of what I can offer. To wit, the following has been asked of me after explaining that I am an "analytics guy":

    1. Can you help us identify process problems in our wastewater treatment plant?
    2. What types of information are most important to our customers, based on their database queries?
    3. How can we select a research portfolio that maximizes expected publication output (normalized to subject, of course) subject to policy-driven constraints/targets on breadth, cost, risk?
    4. How can we use warranty data on tires to identify production issues?

    I have done some(admittedly anecdotal and non-random), sampling of opinions.

    When I ask people what they think I can do when I say I do "Analytics", they say...naturally...."Analysis". When I probe deeper, they indicate that they assume its "mathematical", with "statistics and computers". They also seem to agree that I would be someone they would talk to about the goals "optimize", "analyze", "describe", "predict". 

    Now, when I ask people (e.g., my wife, colleagues, friends), what comes to mind when I say "Operations Research", I get "you study how things are done" or something to that effect. 

    In other words, OR is too evocative of the study of how things are done and not with the what should be done (prescriptive viewpoint). It also does not seem to convey the degree of analytical sophistication involved.

    My most recent position as a "Data Scientist" has given me experience in this new "sexy" (per DJ Patil) job arena. It seems that this umbrella term encompasses an absolutely huge swath of people, and many job ads are asking for some pretty crazy skillsets (hence the term "unicorn" for the hypothetical job candidate who would actually fill the qualifications). Overall, it has a very "machine learning" feel to it, with learning (i.e., model fitting to the rest of the mathematical world!) and prediction being coupled to pretty visualizations. It's all very slick and fun sounding....

    However, I wasn't hired for my ability to use Hadoop, or wrangle "big data", or use a particular machine learning package. I was hired because I known how to structure an analysis to answer a question, and how to ask the right questions at the right time to help decision-makers move forward. Again, to me, this is the heart of what OR offers, and Data Science seems to be putting this "old wine" into new bottles, with a heavy dose of computer programming.

    Take Aways

    To wrap all this up, I offer the following ideas for this forum:

    1. We need to acknowledge that there are a lot of people out there who use math and data to help organizations make better decisions, besides those who would identify as "OR practitioners".

    2. By analogy to Engineering: Just as there are Associate Degree-level, junior engineers and highly advanced research engineers (PhD) and academics, there are various levels of sophistication in applying analysis to help decision-makers. We wouldn't deny a junior-level engineer their right to say they are an "engineer" (ignoring the legal sense of it...i.e., PE vs non-PE), and we shouldn't deny a bachelors-level, junior person who uses math and data to help decision-makers the right to be part of our "OR" community, just because they do not work at CPLEX, publish stochastic process papers, or write industrial-scale mathematical programming models.

    3. People still do not seem to know what OR is or what it can do for them, despite directed marketing efforts. The disconnect between the term "operations research" and what we actually can do is apparently rather large.

    4. Even in the Data Science community, they use the term "Big Data Analytics" or "Visual Analytics", so even the other "hot" job is using the term Analytics, and in a sense that seems appropriate for what OR folks can do.

    5. (1)-(4) suggest that, as much as it pains me to say it, we need to consider something more evocative and inclusive than "OR" or even "management science" (hint: it's not data science ;-)

    This is why I think that Analytics is a great term for the class of people who use math and data to help people make decisions. It's evocative and brings to the fore the key mindset that all of us have and where we can add value. The details are best left to the resume.

    In contrast, I think that Data Science, while also very popular now, is not nearly as good, as I always felt that information theorists probably have the best claim on that term, since they are actually "studying" data/information, per se. The rest of us are using (i.e., analyzing) data and mathematical models for some other purpose. For analytics/OR folks, that purpose is ultimately to support some type of decision. 

    Therefore, while I personally will always think of myself as being an "OR guy", I like the "big tent" connotation of Analytics as opposed to the obscure or arcane/academic connotation of Operations Research.  

    That's my two cents. Apologies for the long-ish post.


    ------------------------------
    Michael Beyer, PE CAP
    Data Scientist/Analytics Professional/OR Practitioner -- take your pick ;-)
    ------------------------------



    Original Message


  • 19.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-24-2015 06:11

    Hi Mark

    A very thoughtful and helpful piece, which I agree with almost entirely. I became an OR practitioner in the sixties and remember reading an article in a management publication to the effect that "using OR is the rational way to make decisions" - sadly I'm not able to find this article in recent years! Thus I expected that within 20 years OR would become widely known and applied as well as prestigious. This has not come about, partly because of the name but also, I believe, because it is difficult, if not impossible, to give a precise description of what OR people do. And once you try to give a more precise description/definition, you immediately start to constrain the discipline. On balance I think that association with Analytics can help the OR community to become more widely known, whilst retaining our unique skills, if we concentrate on 'Decision Analytics' and particularly prescriptive analytics. 

    ------------------------------
    John Ranyard
    Lancaster University
    Derbyshire
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 20.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-23-2015 08:55

    In Rutgers Business School's new "Business Analytics and Information Technology" (BAIT) major, we took the following approach: we divide "analytics" into "data analytics" and "decision analytics".  In the "data analytics" portion, we cover techniques traditionally associated with OR, such as optimization modeling, decision trees, dynamic programming, and simulation.  In the "data analytics" portion, we cover statistical and data mining techniques.  When we were developing the curriculum, we consulted with an industry advisory board made up mostly of New Jersey and New York IT professionals, and we encountered only enthusiasm and no resistance to including "decision analytics" in the "analytics" portion of the curriculum. 

    The "analytics" movement is very positive for OR.  "Decision analytics" is much easier for outsiders to grasp than "Operations Research" and "Management Science".  "Operations research" conveys little even to highly educated people outside our field, and "Management Science" sounds like the same thing as the study of organizational behavior.

    ------------------------------
    Jonathan Eckstein
    Professor
    Rutgers University
    Piscataway NJ
    ------------------------------



  • 21.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-24-2015 05:42

    Jonathan

    In the UK, Management Science has traditionally been the label for OR in universities as it was perceived to be more broadly understood than OR. Recently many, if not most, have rebranded as 'Business Analytics and Management Science' - often with minimal syllabus change - and have seen a significant increase in student applications!

    ------------------------------
    John Ranyard
    Lancaster University
    Derbyshire
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 22.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-24-2015 11:09

    Jonathan,

    "Decision analytics" and "data analytics" seems like nice terminology.

    But as O.R. people (pardon me, optimal decision analytics experts), maybe we can optimize the terminology even more.  How about "optimal decision analytics" ?  That drives home the optimization aspect, which business people can relate to, and the business value proposition provided by what have been known as O.R. practitioners.  Such practitioners at this rarefied end of the analytics spectrum can be known as optimal decision analystics experts.


    ------------------------------
    Mark L. Stone
    Optimal Decision Analytics Expert
    ------------------------------

    P.S. I thought INFORMS was really trying to get "with it" in Analytics.  You know, CAP and all. But analytics merits a red squiggle in posts composed in this forum software.


    Original Message


  • 23.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-24-2015 11:16

    I am now the world's first Optimal Decision Analytics Expert.

    A Google search showed zero matches to "Optimal Decision Analytics Expert".  I see however that Optimal Decision Analytics is already in use.

    ------------------------------
    Mark L. Stone
    Optimal Decision Analytics Expert
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 24.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-24-2015 20:36

    Jonathan:

    Absolutely superb separation (and unification) of the flavors: Data Analytics and Decision Analytics. Brilliant!

    On the other hand, BAIT is probably an acronym I would not bandy about. Begs the question what the switch is. 

    ------------------------------
    Alex Loewenthal
    Retired
    Westlake Village CA
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 25.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-24-2015 22:25

    We had some resistance to "BAIT" at first, but it is easy to pronounce and remember.  We thought about "ITBA", "BAIS", and "ISBA" (the last two with 'information systems' instead of 'information technology'), but they are just not as catchy.

    But my key point is:  we include "decision analytics" under the "analytics" umbrella.  This is not a hard sell to the consumers of our technology: the general feeling on our board was that just understanding data is not enough to help an organization compete or function better -- the organization has to put the understanding into action.  Sometimes it's obvious how to do that, but sometimes it isn't: that's why we need "decision analytics".

    ------------------------------
    Jonathan Eckstein
    Professor
    Rutgers University
    Piscataway NJ
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 26.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-25-2015 11:32

    Perhaps, then, all Analytics is divided into three parts:

       Data Analytics
       Forecast Analytics
       Decision Analytics

    I have seen these described as descriptive, predictive, and prescriptive analytics, but those terms need more explaining.  I'd be happy to say I do Decision Analytics.

    Of course I am a big fan of "optimization" (see the signature below).  The currency of terms like "search engine optimization" suggests that the concept of optimizing things may not be hard to explain.

    ------------------------------
    Robert Fourer
    President
    AMPL Optimization Inc.
    Evanston IL
    ------------------------------



  • 27.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-26-2015 22:35




    >>>>>>>

    Original Message


  • 28.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-24-2015 22:14

    There was a typo in the original text (pointed out by Mark Stone).   Here is a corrected version:

    In Rutgers Business School's new "Business Analytics and Information Technology" (BAIT) major, we took the following approach: we divide "analytics" into "data analytics" and "decision analytics".  In the "decision analytics" portion, we cover techniques traditionally associated with OR, such as optimization modeling, decision trees, dynamic programming, and simulation.  In the "data analytics" portion, we cover statistical and data mining techniques.  When we were developing the curriculum, we consulted with an industry advisory board made up mostly of New Jersey and New York IT professionals, and we encountered only enthusiasm and no resistance to including "decision analytics" in the "analytics" portion of the curriculum. 

    The "analytics" movement is very positive for OR.  "Decision analytics" is much easier for outsiders to grasp than "Operations Research" and "Management Science".  "Operations research" conveys little even to highly educated people outside our field, and "Management Science" sounds like the same thing as the study of organizational behavior.

    ------------------------------
    Jonathan Eckstein
    Professor
    Rutgers University
    Piscataway NJ
    ------------------------------



  • 29.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-25-2015 00:22

    I've always thought the INFORMS name was stupid.

    ODADAS = Optimal Decision and Data Analytics Society

    Spelled out, that's not bad.  There you go.  There's the new brand for O.R.

    Optimal Decision and Data Analytics Society

    And don't have any acronym.  No ODADAS.



    ------------------------------
    Mark L. Stone
    Optimal Decision Analytics Expert
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 30.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-25-2015 05:53

    Hi Mark

    I suspect you are still in sarcastic mode? First of all you have 'thrown out the baby with the bath water' ie the much valued OR heritage. Secondly, 'optimal' in our title? You have to be joking! That would rule out, for example, one of the most powerful and widely accepted OR techniques, namely simulation!

    I'm still flying the flag for 'OR and Decision Analytics' - with or without the acronym!

    ------------------------------
    John Ranyard
    Lancaster University
    Derbyshire
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 31.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-25-2015 14:25

    Simulation is optimal if optimally employed.

    ------------------------------
    Mark L. Stone
    Optimal Decision Analytics Expert
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 32.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-26-2015 07:39

    I've always written about our field like this:

    Any decision maker's central question -- "What should I do?" -- decomposes nicely:

    1. "What should I do, given what I believe?"
    2. "What should I believe, given what I observe?"

    Question 1 = operations research. Well, I usually write "decision analysis" here, applying this term in a somewhat hegemonistic way. That is, I would say most traditional OR techniques can be mapped to difficult cases of DA problems:

    • Alternatives are complex: Problems with too many alternatives to consider explicitly require optimization and other algorithmic techniques
    • Uncertainties are complex: Problems in which there are too many uncertain outcomes to consider explicitly benefit from probability modeling, including risk analysis and simulation
    • Objectives are complex: Problems in which the objectives are difficult to quantify or numerous require multi-objective techniques such as MAUT.

    Question 2 = data analysis. Note the Bayesian worldview - our models are a logic for clarifying the implications of our assumptions, whether they've been fortified with observations or not, and helping us choose a path forward.

    In this view, "analytics" is just a new word for the marriage of those two disciplines. At Emory, we've been calling it "decision & information analysis" for almost 25 years. "Analytics" is nice and compact, sure, but because it sheds the "what are we analyzing" context.

    As far as actually rebranding OR, I'm agnostic.

    If we do claim the "analytics" label, we are simply acknowledging the role of data in our work, and integrating statistical techniques into our modeling techniques. No real intellectual harm is done, so it's more about public positioning - jockeying for attention amid other fields and organizations trying to do the same thing while the term happens to be hot.

    ------------------------------
    Patrick S. Noonan
    Professor, Assoc. Dean
    Emory University
    Atlanta GA
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 33.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-28-2015 15:05

    Operations Research and criteria for changing its handle

    Questions: Should the name of what is taught and practiced as Operations Research (OR) be changed? Which begs the follow on question: How would we know the new name was better? This is practicing what we preach to others.

    I think we all recognize that OR has a different focus depending upon country of practice. But the logical approach to an operation analysis problem might be essentially the same everywhere. There would be a careful definition of the problem and the establishment of criteria for judging success of an implemented solution.  OR includes test and evaluation of proposed solutions.  It is practice in an applied setting where resources are at risk. It is not just academic theory.

    The terms management science and decision science have sometimes been used as synonyms. Analytics is one of the newer terms for what is a mature field. But, it may be confused as a subfield of psychiatry.  When someone talks about analytics I ask if they have declared for Freud or Jung. That is my little joke.

    Early work in the 20th Century was done to solve military problems and those applications gave prominence to the field. It was believed that the wiz kids won the wars. Many of the basic bread and butter algorithms such as assignment problems and knapsack solutions are still very relevant to new settings today.  It is not unusual to hear someone say they saved a million dollars a year by applying one of the old approaches to a new problem.

    Today we have computers that make the job of number crunching faster but they are only a tool. Success depends upon making the right choices of data and the correct methods of analysis and then presenting the results in a way that the top management will implement the suggested solution. 

    In a global context we might agree OR is a discipline that deals with the application of analytical methods with a good dose of probability theory and decision logic in the hope of making better decisions. The methods used would include logic, statistics, modeling, and simulations.  OR journals attempt to show the breadth of the methodologies and applications.  If possible the hope is to arrive at a near-optimal solution to the problem. The devil for the practitioner is in the details. Not everyone agrees on the optimum.

    The selling of the proposed solution requires good communication skills, social sensitivity, and action flexibility.  Ultimately it is a people oriented thing because top management does not usually have the computational skills the OR person has but they are smart and can grasp material if it is presented well.  OR is not just a computational tools thing. Fancy math by itself does not impress anyone worth impressing.

    What would Gene Woolsey do?  I decided to channel one of our saints.

    As far as actual contact, I only met him once, which was enough. He walked into the room wearing a cowboy hat and boots. He promptly put a boot on a chair.  I thought, this guy is a different OR than I had met before in an academic setting, industry, or the military.  And he had that quick and dirty textbook that all of us looked at and probably used more than once. He was a no- nonsense kind of guy as many have reported over the last few weeks in recalling the memory of him on the occasion of his passing.

    When he would be asked how to enlarge the size of a tunnel, he would first take a tape measure and see how wide the tunnel was now, not believe what it said in the blueprints.

    If asked to improve a process that was done for many years by a group of long term employees, he would first ask the people doing it what they did and how they thought it could be improved. He said that they were usually within four percent of optimum now.

    If Gene was asked about pilots of military aircraft, he would comment that there are hawks and doves, which are we talking about? He would have been interested in the ten percent that were hawks.

    As I further channel Gene I think he would say that words such as optimum are ambiguous, relative, and inexplicit hence mean nothing because the finance, marketing, production, legal, and accounting departments all have their own optimums. Top management’s optimum is rarely an amalgam of the department opinions. That just does not happen. The sales forecast will drive everything else.

    Gene was present during a discussion on OR many years ago where the question was on how an OR person could measure own success. Someone from industry said “Do you get hired? Next year does your budget go up?” Gene was not the one to say it, but he did not disagree.

    Who is our customer? Not the academic programs. They may theorize beautifully but are weak on implementation. They are widely under fire for being a Ponzi scheme. They train people for jobs that may not be there. In many cases today in industry and government settings there is an ecological change going on that allows the study of very fancy techniques by smart people who are willing to spend some time on the internet. The material is often free or of nominal cost. The worker/student’s optimum and the employer’s optimum is not the same as that of the academic institution.

    The OR person not in an academic setting is a worker with a bag of software tricks. Are those tricks appropriate?

    What about the data? Are they normally distributed? I doubt it. Prove me wrong.

    Are the relationships among the variables linear with equal variance among the arrays? I doubt it. Prove me wrong.

    Are you using a model? How did you validate it? Did anyone else try to replicate? What was the result?

    Where are the feedback loops? How about the time dimension? Would the results be different in five years? Why?

    Ultimately, titles are less important than if you can deliver results that top management trusts. That is not easy today.

    In summary, I would leave the title OR alone and focus on achieving replicable results with the methods that made OR recognized as an important addition to the management decision making approach.

    Allen J. Schuh

    Retired

    Pleasanton, CA



    ------------------------------
    Allen Schuh
    Pleasanton CA
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 34.  RE: Should We Re-Brand Operations Research?

    Posted 05-30-2015 01:28

    This is an interesting thread, and it comes at a time when I'm building the brand for my company. It seems we play in this landscape:
    1) OR/MS/DA people are doing something interesting, and struggle to express it. Aligning to "analytics" gets interest, but it could be misdirected interest
    2) OR/MS/DA seem to be obscure "in-group" terms, we specialize in clunky words and acronyms

    So I asked myself, can I use these as useful factors?
    1) Find a sexy term that might get broad readership, and use it to pipe-in OR stuff without getting caught up in the tides of big data & analytics
    2) Find a way to convert obscurity into desirability, possibly as access to "hidden tools & techniques of the masters" :-)

    Here are the first few paragraphs of my draft homepage, my attempt to do this:

    *Digitizing Decisions: the next frontier for Business Transformation*

    Making the right decisions consistently across the organization requires digitization. The fields of Decision Analysis and Operations Research provide the tools required for this. Digitizing decisions enables systematic conversion of data to advice, advice to actions, actions to results, and results to adaptation. Advances in tooling makes this affordable.

    We already rely on digitized decisions – people routinely use GPS and maps to get directions. The next frontier is to transform business decision-making.

    Digitizing decisions requires transformative tools. This transformation builds upon earlier transformations of the lower stages. (1) Information digitization is widespread and increasing, data now flows in from business systems, social media and distributed computers. (2) Analytics has been transformed too: exponentially larger data of different types can be processed rapidly. Big data analytics and business intelligence platforms proliferate, and many can be used as free open source tools.

    Analytics underpins digitized decisions. Analytics aspires to generate actionable insights. Digitized decisions are used to drive results from data in a continual and adaptive cycle.