Operations Research vis-à-vis Management at Arthur D. Little and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the 1950s

Abstract

Operations Research vis-à-vis Management at Arthur D. Little and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the 1950sThis article examines the establishment of the fi eld of operations research (OR) at the Arthur D. Little consulting fi rm and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. OR advocates envisioned the fi eld as a new kind of bureaucratic organ dedicated to general studies of business problems, staffed by trained scientists who could employ sophisticated methods if needed. The crux of their promotional strategy was to use their appreciation of general managerial practice to overcome the tensions to be expected from their claims to apply generic scientifi c methods to nonscientifi c activities. However, they discounted possible intellectual competition with established professions. This competition ultimately confi ned OR's identity to a jurisdiction defi ned by novel mathematical techniques.uring World War II scientists were employed by British, Canadian, and American military services in "operations research" (OR) groups to study military tactics and the use of technology in combat, and to advise on the suitability of policies and practices in light of upto-date evidence. 1 These wartime studies were designed to address whatever questions might bear on high military offi cers' deliberations, which could mean simply parsing statistics, or, when necessary, undertaking I am grateful to David Kaiser and Spencer Weart and to the editors and referees of this journal for crucial guidance and comments; to the staff of the MIT Archives and Special Collections, and the National Academies archives;

Transformation in Organizational and Human Resource Management in the Digital Intelligence Age

“…In the digital intelligence era, the influence of cross network externalities has driven two fundamental forces behind the transformation of enterprise management: a focus on customer value and the dynamics of alternative competition [8]. Customers, as external stakeholders, are increasingly integrated into the business service process [9], aiding organizations in harnessing and efficiently utilizing consumer-derived information. This, in return, bolsters innovation in product and service offerings and instigates comprehensive transformations within enterprises.…”

Decisions and Dynamics: Postwar Theoretical Problems and the MIT Style of Economics

“…Given the depth of its involvement in these developments, it is unsurprising that MIT remained interested in OR and related initiatives after the war. In 1946 it agreed to administer the US Navy's postwar successor to the ORG, the Operations Evaluation Group (Tidman 1984), and began to experiment in a pedagogy of OR in 1948, leading to the establishment of an Institute Committee on OR in 1952, which became MIT's OR Center several years later (Morse 1977;Thomas 2012). The committee and center were led by Morse, who was also a major player in the drive to develop a new OR profession after World War II.…”

“…Quickly, though, attention turned instead to the idea of making a civilianized field of OR central to SIM's work (MIT Office of the President Records, 1930-1959], box 202, folder 1, Institute Archives and Special Collections, MIT Libraries). This idea also foundered once an early investigation of OR, ordered by SIM's dean and led by an accounting professor, concluded that it was unclear what exactly OR's proponents had to offer to business, and thus that the subject could not form the basis of the school's identity (Thomas 2012). As Beatrice Cherrier points out in this volume, SIM did quickly forge links with the economics department.…”