IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/jorsoc/v61y2010i12d10.1057_jors.2009.147.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Justifying the methods of OR

Author

Listed:
  • R J Ormerod

    (University of Warwick)

Abstract

Operational research practitioners use mathematical, statistical, scientific, and other methods to structure and analyse issues in order to advise and assist their clients. In doing so they apply values, follow rules and use methodologies. The paper examines the justification of these methods, values and methodologies. Starting with a conceptual model drawn from the philosophy of science, a justification framework is developed for operational research (OR). Making a distinction between OR academic research and OR practice helps to clarify the issues. OR research is similar to scientific, mathematical and social science research; OR practice, as technology, is closer to engineering. While OR academic researchers will seek justification in the academic discipline within which they choose to work, it is argued that the justification of OR practice lies in its usefulness. For academic OR, justification lies in the justification of mathematics, statistics, science and social science; for practice, it is practitioners who decide what usefulness means in their context.

Suggested Citation

  • R J Ormerod, 2010. "Justifying the methods of OR," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(12), pages 1694-1708, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:jorsoc:v:61:y:2010:i:12:d:10.1057_jors.2009.147
    DOI: 10.1057/jors.2009.147
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/jors.2009.147
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/jors.2009.147?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R J Ormerod, 2002. "On the nature of OR: taking stock," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 53(5), pages 475-491, May.
    2. R Ormerod, 2006. "The history and ideas of pragmatism," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(8), pages 892-909, August.
    3. W Ulrich, 2007. "Philosophy for professionals: towards critical pragmatism," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(8), pages 1109-1113, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Meinard, Y. & Cailloux, O., 2020. "On justifying the norms underlying decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 1002-1010.
    2. Christopher Heywood & Monique Arkesteijn, 2017. "Meta-Corporate Real Estate Management: Some preliminary thoughts," ERES eres2017_180, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    3. Richard J. Ormerod, 2016. "Critical Rationalism for Practice and its Relationship to Critical Systems Thinking," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 4-23, January.
    4. Meinard, Y. & Tsoukiàs, A., 2019. "On the rationality of decision aiding processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1074-1084.
    5. Ormerod, R.J., 2014. "Critical rationalism in practice: Strategies to manage subjectivity in OR investigations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(3), pages 784-797.
    6. van Antwerpen, Coen & Curtis, Neville J., 2016. "A data collection and presentation methodology for decision support: A case study of hand-held mine detection devices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(1), pages 237-251.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    2. Meinard, Y. & Tsoukiàs, A., 2019. "On the rationality of decision aiding processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1074-1084.
    3. Richard John Ormerod, 2021. "Pragmatism in professional practice," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 797-816, November.
    4. Z Zhu, 2011. "After paradim: why mixing-methodology theorising fails and how to make it work again," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 784-798, April.
    5. White, Leroy, 2016. "Behavioural operational research: Towards a framework for understanding behaviour in OR interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 827-841.
    6. R J Ormerod, 2010. "Articulate intervention revisited," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(7), pages 1078-1094, July.
    7. Richard J. Ormerod, 2016. "Critical Rationalism for Practice and its Relationship to Critical Systems Thinking," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 4-23, January.
    8. Pierre Barbaroux & Cécile Godé, 2016. "Le briefing-débriefing : une procédure pour lever les barrières pesant sur l'apprentissage organisationnel ?," Post-Print hal-03223668, HAL.
    9. Luoma, Jukka, 2016. "Model-based organizational decision making: A behavioral lens," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 816-826.
    10. Ormerod, R.J., 2014. "Critical rationalism in practice: Strategies to manage subjectivity in OR investigations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(3), pages 784-797.
    11. Karlene Tipler & Ruth Tarrant & Keith Tuffin & David Johnston, 2018. "Learning from experience: emergency response in schools," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 90(3), pages 1237-1257, February.
    12. Ian G. McHale & Philip A. Scarf & David E. Folker, 2012. "On the Development of a Soccer Player Performance Rating System for the English Premier League," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 42(4), pages 339-351, August.
    13. W Ulrich, 2007. "Philosophy for professionals: towards critical pragmatism," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(8), pages 1109-1113, August.
    14. Maurice W. Kirby, 2007. "Paradigm Change in Operations Research: Thirty Years of Debate," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(1), pages 1-13, February.
    15. R J Ormerod, 2010. "Research contribution: Citation and content analysis," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(4), pages 705-707, April.
    16. Moshe Farjoun & Christopher Ansell & Arjen Boin, 2015. "PERSPECTIVE—Pragmatism in Organization Studies: Meeting the Challenges of a Dynamic and Complex World," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1787-1804, December.
    17. R J Ormerod, 2010. "Rational inference: deductive, inductive and probabilistic thinking," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(8), pages 1207-1223, August.
    18. Zhichang Zhu, 2022. "Paradigm, specialty, pragmatism: Kuhn's legacy to methodological pluralism," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(5), pages 895-912, September.
    19. Meinard, Y. & Cailloux, O., 2020. "On justifying the norms underlying decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 1002-1010.
    20. Brocklesby, John, 2009. "Ethics beyond the model: How social dynamics can interfere with ethical practice in operational research/management science," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 1073-1082, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:jorsoc:v:61:y:2010:i:12:d:10.1057_jors.2009.147. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.