Talk:Operations research/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

References

If you use inline references in an article, please be sure to also list the reference in the reference section. If any of the external links were used as source material for this article, please link the source to the information in the article. Please consider using reference tags rather than inline links, because reference tags can be used to generate a reference list without having to re-type the reference. See WP:Footnotes for how to use reference tags. --SueHay 13:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Operations Management versus Research

Operations Research and Operations Management are related but different. Merging the two will harm the meanings of both. Operations Management focuses on managing the processes to produce and distribute products and services. Operations Research has a broader range of topics and applications that may not be focused on a product or service. -- Mike Siley

A better merge with OR would be the Management Science article. Both state that the terms OR and MS are interchangeable Davetracy 02:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I want to suggest this link to real cases of using Operations Research ( http://www.phpsimplex.com/en/real_cases.htm ). I think it's very interesting to see real data from earnings and savings obtained by the optimization.

The link to the OR blog in the external links is inadequate. There are only a handful of posts, with the time differential between the last two being 8 months. This adds little to nothing to the topic and I suggest it be removed.

On the same note, the "morphological analysis" paper is more on an alternative approach ("nonquantitative") than an example of OR, so limiting it to the "see also" rather than "external links" seems better. Mike Trick

I added a link to my own blog at http://mat.tepper.cmu.edu/blog but perhaps that is against COI, so I'll revert. I'll leave it to others to decide if it is more appropriate than the blog in place. Mtrick 00:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the following external links from the article for discussion here. Please see WP:EL. If these were used as references for the text in this article, please use reference tags to link the text in the article to the source(s). See WP:Footnotes.

• INFORMS OR/MS Resource Collection (a comprehensive set of OR links)
• Operations Research: The Science of Better (marketing initiative by INFORMS)
• Operation everything "A primer on the most influential academic discipline you've never heard of" by Virginia Postrel.
• The Operational Research service for the UK government
• Operations Management Research Methods Weblog
• General Morphological Analysis: A General Method for Non-Quantified Modelling From the Swedish Morphological Society
• Michael Trick's Operations Research Blog

--SueHay 15:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've read over the external links rules, and it seems that the Resources page, the Science of Better Page, and the Postrel page seem in keeping. The others do not (except I won't comment on my own blog) Mtrick 20:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Ooops, I better declare further COI: I started and edit the Resources Page, I was President of INFORMS during the formation of the Science of Better, and I think I am quoted in the Postrel page. COI may prohibit me from playing any role at all on this page! Mtrick 20:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Mtrick has clearly and succinctly stated his bias in regrards to this article, and that he should be left free to edit this article as he sees fit, with due respect for other opinions. --SueHay 01:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Reinstalled some links

I've reinstalled the first two links. They seem OK to me. - Mdd 10:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Stochastics?

Hi all. As far as I know, stochastics, as a discipline, does not exist. Stochastic is an adjective. Perhaps is better to change it in probability, which also make the wikilink more consistent with the text surrounding it. But I'm not so sure so I didn't change the text. Jabbba (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Link removed

removed * Operations Research Custom Search Engine Nothing there, just a custom google search —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.190.172 (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- Mdd (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition

Is operations research really a branch of mathematics as the current definition states? I know very few mathematicians who would agree with this, and having worked for a short while in operations research I can say that many people working in this field would be reluctant to categorize the discipline as a subdiscipline of mathematics. What's a better way to word this? Mathematics is important in operations research but operations research also encompasses much more than just mathematics. It seems more like the relation between engineering and mathematics, or the relation between sociology and statistics. Cazort (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a small change adding the word "applied". Maybe this helps? -- Mdd (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can also just erase the "...of applied mathematics..." -- Mdd (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is more accurate, but I'd like erasing it better...something like "...is an interdisciplinary field of study". Maybe the problem is that Operations Research is used in different ways--some people use it to describe a subset of mathematics, but if you ask someone who is actually working for a large organization, they'll probably tell you it's much broader than just a branch of mathematics. Cazort (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I do agree thinks can be improved here. Important is that with the "...of applied mathematics..." mentions some aspect of the context of OR. No matter how you say it, I think it is important that an article like this in the first sentence should refer to the context: This can be the origin or most important application or relation... You name it. A second point is, that thinks introduced in the first sentence should be explained latter on in the article. I think the argument you bring up here is important enough to mention in the article itselve. So if you erase the context in the first place, you should bring it up latter on. Good luck. -- Mdd (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Aggree with need to change and that this doesn't belong to one discipline; conceptually it is broader and that should be recognised as encompassing those disciplines and possibly more and the word logistic or with some referrence to logical construct at the center of the process of 'operations' that the field refers to. Patelurology2 (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Damaged article

This article has significantly deteriorated over recent months; I suggest a revert back to some version in mid-2009. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Opposed: The mid-2009 version was seriously deficient and should not be revived. Updates and improvements should be made to the current version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BarryList (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Name

Given Operational Research was invented by the British, and given Wiki policy to use English spellings on articles for British companies and American spellings on articles for American companies. Should this not be called 'Operational Research?' --Mojo (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You may have a point. Ketone16 (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It has been suggested above in the talk page that the OR article is a good candidate for merger with Management science. The Operations Research article is weak on its own, containing largely historical information and redundant lists of models that are present in the Management science article. The MS article has a weak history section and points to this article for historical discussion.Czyl (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are lots of not very good articles on Wikipedia. Merging them is not the answer. Operational research is a recognised name, invented in the 1940s for something that is much older. Management science is, I suspect, something created by the education industry's Project Rebrand - don't worry, when the brand-name becomes tarnished, they will rebrand it something else to make it seem 'relevant' - maybe Neighbours' Science; lol.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If it's a rebranding of the same concept, shouldn't the corresponding articles be merged? Czyl (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I can be more direct: The two articles describe the same concept by different names and contain much of the same content. Czyl (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Merge parts. An early version of the MS article said (only): "Management Science refers to a wide variety of fields. It is often considered synonymous with Operations research, but can also refer to Organizational studies or even corporate strategy." Which indicates that some scope has been lost from the MS article. I suggest moving/merging much of the OR stuff to the OR article, leaving a brief summary in MS with a "main" template, then adding brief summaries of these other topics. Melcombe (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This seems sensible. Operations Research is a term with a sufficient history and recognition to make it very difficult to justify the removal of the OR page. Whatever the problems of overlap, some solution other than one involving demotion of the OR page to a redirect seems much preferable. Airsplit (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I suspect that "Operations Research" and "Management Science" are only synonymous within the business community. I don't think that the people who are analyzing military operations consider their jobs to be "management science." Operations Research seems to be the older and broader concept, so perhaps some or all of the content of the "Management Science" article should be merged into the Operations Research article. Ketone16 (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• (The following movid from "Management versus Research" above as more relevant to current merge discussion here:....)

I agree with the earlier comment by Mike Siley. I also think the notion of "merging" Operations Research with anything else is questionable given that, of the examples proposed, "Operations Management" and "Management Science", both could clearly reference Operations Research as the "primary predecessor" from which OM or MS was born or derived or is a fully morphed branch of or grew directly out of.

My primary reason for this view is mainly based on approaching it from a "History of Science" point of view. My view is that Operations Research is so intimately tied to World War II, and then, as the article points out the decade afterwards (the 1950's), that one should consider putting the term "Operations Research" to a dignified death (and dating that "death" as occurring during the decade of the 1960's or 1970's) as long as it is then clearly noted that Operations Research spawned a formidable progeny of related fields such as the ones already listed in the article.

This is similar to many other examples in Science where newer fields (derived from an older field) simply invent their own term to label themselves. An analogy might be a proposal to "merge" Computer Science with Mathematics. Certainly, in the early days (1960's - 1970's), this would have sounded (and been) reasonable since virtually all Computer Science study was done from within Mathematics departments. Furthermore it is certainly true that Computer Science -- at the very least CS Theory -- is derived solely from the field "Discrete Math." But as most of us would agree today, it is simply more "appropriate" to speak of Computer Science as a field in its own right.

I would argue the same holds true for many of these other important derivative fields emanating from Operations Research such as Just-In-Time Scheduling, Traffic Flow Pattern Analysis, and a host of others including many of the examples listed in the "Scope of operations research" section of the current article. (I understand that was not exactly the intent of the author)

But to pick one derived field, even one as broad and admittedly close to the mark as Management Science with which to "merge" Operations Research, seems to me, still not the way we should proceed -- this, from a History of Science perspective which is the manner this particular argument should be approached.

Yes, I am a brand-spanking newbie (to Wikipedia) -- so spank away.

-- Frumiousfalafel (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the term "Operations Research" is dead. I think it is still alive and well in the U.S. defense community, for example. There is even a large Military Operations Research Society. There are also universities that grant degrees in Operations Research. Ketone16 (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge, Operations Research is clearly a field of its own, with degrees offered at multiple universities.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] I note that none of these programs are called "Management science" and also suggest a revert of this article to some version from mid-2009, as it has significantly deteriorated recently. That this article is currently in bad shape is not a reason to merge it elsewhere: OR is notable on its own. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely. The Operations Research article is important and should not be removed or merged into some other article. I think you're misunderstanding the proposed action. The proposed merger isn't a "merge into" proposal (in Wikispeak), but rather a "merge with", meaning we combine the content in some other way. A better question is whether Management Science is a notable field on its own, or is simply a synonym or subset of Operations Research. I would agree with Ketone16's suggestion that we remove the Management Science article entirely, which isn't particularly active, and merge its content here, with a redirect from the MS page to OR. Czyl (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Conclusion: The merger was carried out 28 Feb 2010. The management science article was removed and its content was merged with the operations research article, as per the proposal and discussion. Czyl (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Management Science and Management

I was redirected to Management from a link contained on the Operations Research page. Management and Management Science are two different topics. There is a major distinction between the two fields. Management Science is a mathematical science and Management is not. Why does the management science link exist and redirect to the management page? The orginal page was merged with Operations Research last year. Management Science is NOT just Management. It is another well known name for Operations Research.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.74.192.33 (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the alteration to the redirect that was made 3 days ago without discussion. --Qwfp (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

For interest

Here is an e-book I came across: Operations Research Simplified. Fintor (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Title: Operational research and the Royal Canadian Air Force Eastern Air Command's search for efficiency in airborne anti-submarine warfare, 1942–1945 Author: Ruffilli, Dean C. Place: Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON Year: 2001 http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk3/ftp05/MQ65204.pdf Keith-264 (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"modern sounding" synonyms for OR in the first paragraph

I can't seem to find a source for "modern sounding" synonyms for OR -- just "synonyms" (see below):

http://www.rand.org/topics/operations-research.html (bottom of the page) http://www.rand.org/topics/decision-science.html (bottom of the page) http://classwebs.spea.indiana.edu/kenricha/Oxford/Archives/Oxford%202006/Courses/Decision%20Making/Articles/Hillier,%20Ch.%201.pdf (page 2 of the book scan)

Does anyone object to my changing it to just "synonyms" instead of "modern sounding" (which seems more subjective anyways)? -- AnonymousORguy (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

i think that phrasing may have been from the about.com article, but it is hardly appropriate even if there was a source. I have removed it.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Updating content

Parts of this article need substantial work, so I hope that editors interested in this article can come to a consensus as per Wikipedia policy rather than blindly reverting edits. Please remember that we are all trying to make the article better and not to take these changes personally.

Looking at several references online, the definition given for Operations Research seems to be badly out of date compared to the current definition, and the citation given for the definition is from a 1940s text. For the time being, I have moved these to a "historical definitions" section and placed in a new (cited) definition in the introduction. The definition on Wiktionary seems to match better with this one as well. Czyl (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In general, we should avoid the direct use of large pieces of borrowed content from other sources. Where the content is useful, we should rewrite it and cite the source appropriately. This improves the article's style and is generally more appropriate for an encyclopedia.

The other main difficulty is that when reading the article, it is still difficult to get a sense of what OR practitioners and researchers actually do today. The well-written history section is dominating the article at present; the other sections should be expanded to match. Czyl (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Third question: Does the long quote by Denis Bessayou. represent a consensus view on the history of OR, or just one perspective? I can't find any other sources describing this division of the history of OR into three phases as he does. I would like to propose that this quote be replaced by a rewritten overview of the history. Czyl (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any point in contributing good well-sourced content from definitive sources - it will only be removed.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Following the suggestion, I expanded the part of history after WWII a bit. I highlighted the transformation of a military application to its abilities today. (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

RAF Operational Research Section

I have embedded two Template:Anchor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)s into the text to support four redirects:

• RAF Bomber Command's Operational Research Section (BC-ORS)
• RAF Coastal Command's Operational Research Section (CC-ORS)

Please do not delete the anchors unless section headers are added and if they are then please make sure that the redirects link to the new sections. -- PBS (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Definitions section

This section just seems like a mess to me. I'm not sure I agree with the "definitions", they're oddly cited (names?), and as a minor point, they refer to "operational research" the British phrasing (which are used interchangeably throughout the page, albeit awkwardly). Along with either just deleting this section or revising it very heavily, I would suggest using a single phrasing for OR -- Operations Research seems the more common in my experience (although I'm of course not British).98.217.196.23 (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Apart from journals and organizations mentioned in the text, the article seems to predominately use "operational research" for the discipline, so it seems to have already standardized on one phrase. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, although I still think it sounds funny. Either way, why was the definitions section added back? It still has all of the issues I mentioned above -- the edit mentioned there was no discussion, but I had heard no objections. Apologies in advance since I should probably get a wikipedia account, I am new to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.196.23 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC) AnonymousORguy (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

With regards to the quotes, here are the three, and my specific objections to why they should be removed. Please comment if you disagree,

"Operational Research is a scientific method of providing executive with an analytical and objective basis for decisions. (PMS Blackett)"

I'm not sure how this adds to the page. Why is PMS Blackett a worthy source to be used on this page? Is he a "founder" of OR? I see that he is mentioned further down on the page, but how does that "make" him an authoritative voice on the subject in the year 2013? And no citation is given to boot.

Operational Research is the art of winning war without actually fighting it. (Arthur C. Clarke)[5]

This is confusing to anyone who doesn't know what OR is, they might get confused that it actually has to do with war by definition (vs. a mix of reality and metaphor the quote is referring to)

Operational Research is a scientific approach to problem solving for executive management. ( H.M. Wagner ) .

As above, I'm not sure how this adds to the page. Similarly, why is Wagner a worthy source to be used on this page? He is mentioned nowhere, and I don't even know who the source is since there is no citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.196.23 (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC) AnonymousORguy (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The 'PMS Blackett' is this one: Patrick Blackett, Baron Blackett, and yes, he was rather influential in founding OR.

BTW, it's called 'Operational Research' because it was developed to help with organising military operations, i.e., to make things easier for the people doing the actual fighting.

See also: Boffin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Operations research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130827004623/http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DWITTpkFPEAC&lpg=PA141&pg=PA117 to http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DWITTpkFPEAC&lpg=PA141&pg=PA117
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130827041022/http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DWITTpkFPEAC&lpg=PA141&pg=PA94 to http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DWITTpkFPEAC&lpg=PA141&pg=PA94
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131002032938/http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DWITTpkFPEAC&lpg=PA141&pg=PA109 to http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DWITTpkFPEAC&lpg=PA141&pg=PA109
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140327234509/http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DWITTpkFPEAC&lpg=PA141&pg=PA96 to http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DWITTpkFPEAC&lpg=PA141&pg=PA96

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Packing, Covering and Petri Nets

Should we mention this here? Lbertolotti (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge Management Science with Management

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The "Management Science" page was incorrectly merged with the "Operations Research" page. Management science is merely the science of management. It can be thought of as the body of knowledge that considers all of the factors that contribute to the overall strategic management context, the application of such consideration is done with the intent to yield sound management decisions. See the professional journal "Management Science." I think the confusion stems from the fact that Frederick Winslow Taylor, who was heavily involved in operations research, wrote the foundational operations book "The Principles of Scientific Management." But that does not mean that somehow only a subset of management science becomes management science. One cannot change the basic meaning of words. As such, the "Management Science" page should have been merged with, and should redirect to, the "Management" page. --TDJankins (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Both articles were merged after the 2009 #Merger proposal (see above discussion). Also "Management science" is not just "merely the science of management." For example the initial Wikipedia article(s) stated:

• Management Science (MS) is the discipline of using mathematics, and other analytical tools, to help make better business decisions. (2004 version)
• Management science (MS), is an interdisciplinary branch of applied mathematics.... (2009 version)

And this has never been questioned, see Talk:Management science. Now this doesn't say much, because Wikipedia has to rely on reliable sources.

Looking at reliable sources, I immediately encounter multiple meaning of the term management science:

1. Operation research
2. Scientific management,
3. The science of management,
4. Management Science (journal)

It might be an idea to recreate the "management science" lemma as disambiguation page. -- Mdd (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to simply refer back to what I've already said. Management science means the science of management. No amount of branding can change that. Webster's first two definitions of science are:

1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>

Also, in regards to when operations research sprang up, operations research was just the more formal branding that came around for the sub-field of management that Taylor and others had already firmly established, what some had called scientific management. Sure, it's evolved since Taylor, but it's still the same sub-field.

Additionally, looking at the wiki for the Management Science journal, I see that someone botched that as well, saying that it too is all about operations research. It's not! Here's the journal's own abstract showing that it is about management science aka management:

"Management Science is a scholarly journal that publishes scientific research on the practice of management. Within our scope are all aspects of management related to strategy, entrepreneurship, innovation, information technology, and organizations as well as all functional areas of business, such as accounting, finance, marketing, and operations. We include studies on organizational, managerial, and individual decision making, from both normative and descriptive perspectives."--TDJankins (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree that the only solution at this late and confused stage of the game is to make a disambiguation page and to scale back the synonymous use of management science on the Operations Research page. I think merely mentioning there once that some people alternatively refer to operations research as management science should suffice and the rest of the material can be blended. The page on the Management Science journal should be edited as well.--TDJankins (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

All options are (still) open: We could leave it like this, create a disambiguation page, recreate the management science lemma, or even do both: recreate the article with a disambiguation page beside it. This could be justified considering, that there was little support for the merge in the first place, there was even significant opposition. However, the course of action should be determined by what reliable sources tells us, and preferably any Wikipedia community consensus about this.

If we really want to improve the Wikipedia representation of these topics, we should study what reliable sources state on these matters, and make the best of it. Now personally in similar matters, I have started with collecting (notable) quotes about the topics at hand (which I have further developed at Wikiquote, and now stated a similar article there (see here). This can share some light in the, indeed, confusing "stage of the game". -- Mdd (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC) / 20:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if some people desperately want , it's impossible to preclude it from meaning the science of management. We couldn't do that even if we wanted to. Nor can we make an individual page for management science that asserts that it is only operations research or any one other thing because in doing so we would be saying that it's not the science of management, and once again, we do not have the power to do that as it would run 180 degrees counter to logic. The only thing we can do is make the main wiki for Management Science a disambiguation page.--TDJankins (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately management science it's a bad name, careful to not confuse the usage with scientific management, a distinct conceptLbertolotti (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lbertolotti. I don't disagree. @TDJankins. There are numerous reliable sources confirming that management science and operations research relate to the same or similar fields. For example Anderson et al. (2007) stated:

A variety of names exists for the body of knowledge involving quantitative approaches to decision making; in addition to management science, two other widely known and accepted names are operations research and decision science...

Source: David Anderson, ‎Dennis Sweeney, ‎Thomas Williams (2007) An Introduction to Management Science:A Quantitative Approach to Decision Making.' p. 2.

Another example are a series of books mentioning both fields in the book title:

• Wolter J. Fabrycky, ‎P. M. Ghare, ‎Paul E. Torgersen (1984). Applied operations research and management science.
• Saul I. Gass, ‎Carl M. Harris (2001). Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science.
• Erhan Kozan, ‎Azuma Ohuchi (2002). Operations Research/Management Science at Work.
• K. Aardal, ‎George L. Nemhauser, ‎R. Weismantel (2005). Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science: Volume 12 Discrete Optimization.
• A. Ravi Ravindran (2007). Operations Research and Management Science Handbook. p. xxi

There is no despair here, these are just normal reliable sources, which should be taken into consideration. -- Mdd (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Although it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to argue that operations research (aka management science, pos WWII) is the quantitative spirit of scientific management (pre WWII) powered by the computer and taken to its logical conclusion, I still think the lead should clearly distinguish between both, so readers won't be confused.Lbertolotti (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

As a bona fide B.S. degree holder in Management Science per se, my perspective is that while OR is certainly recognized as the legacy core of the discipline, OR is not only encumbered with the "operations" label but also does not adequately encapsulate the behavioral aspects of decision-making. In short, the term "management science" implicitly encompasses three aspects not clearly described by OR: an organizational orientation, a behavioral orientation, and a strategic orientation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.66.65 (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Terminology can easily be a mess in heavily inter-disciplinary fields, e.g. management science/operations research/operations management/etc., or dynamical systems/dynamic systems/system dynamics/etc. (again, on which wikipedia is not clear at all -in fact the distinction is neither mentioned nor explicitly made with separate articles). "Management science" seems to contain "operations research", although "operations research" seems to be the way to advertise the field as it is the heavier part on maths and engineering, and thus the "the real deal" as hard scientists tend to call it.

• MIT Sloan School of Management gives "Business Analytics and Operations Research (BAOR)" as part of the Management Science major program.
• Berkeley's guide was advertising "management science", and yet the link directs to the department of industrial engineering and operations research.
• At the University of Cambridge, Operations Research is researched and taught principally in the Statistical Laboratory and the Management Science Group of the Cambridge Judge Business School.
• The London School of Economics and Political Science gives "Operational Research" as one of two streams under MSc in Management Science, the other being "Decision Sciences".
• Stanford's "Operations Research" is based in the department of Management Science and Engineering.
• The University of Waterloo gives operations research in the department of management sciences.
• Columbia named the department "Industrial Engineering & Operations Research", and gives MS in Operations Research (MSOR) and MS in Management Science and Engineering (MS&E) as separate programs in the department.

Either way, "management science" and "operations research" should be separate articles.

95.15.184.242 (talk) 05:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Operations research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090527093022/http://www.informs.org:80/site/OperationsResearch/index.php?c=10&kat=Forthcoming+Papers to http://www3.informs.org/site/OperationsResearch/index.php?c=10&kat=Forthcoming+Papers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)