[SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science

[Thomas Haigh]

That's a good point from Gerard (and from Burt, off the list)

 

In my view "management science" is close to meaningless in this context. Or
at least needs to be historicized. It's clearly an aspirational term and is
new in the post WWII era, though you'll also notice that it's merely an
inversion of "scientific management" and so has no inherent difference.

 

He's probably using it to distinguish management research from the work of
actual managers and administrators (on one hand) and actual scientists and
engineers (on the other).

 

So was it the first? Quite possibly, but it's an odd claim as it relies on
what a computer was NOT used for rather than what it was used for. The rise
of operations research was inseparable from the computer, and OR would be
included in any plausible definition of "management science." Likewise the
LEO team were very advanced in their business applications, and did OR type
work on their machine earlier. But they also ran payroll, etc which Beer
would probably stigmatize as an administrative chore beneath the dignity of
management science.

 

So you need to reformulate the claim to have something that can be given a
definite answer. Maybe what Beer is really saying is "I headed the first
management research group well supported enough to order its own computer
without having to share it with people doing production work." Though as
Gerard says we'd need log books to know if they successfully defended it
against geologists and engineers once it arrived.

 

Tom

 

From: members-bounces at sigcis.org [mailto:members-bounces at sigcis.org] On
Behalf Of Alberts, G.
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 11:25 AM
To: Medina, Eden; members at sigcis.org
Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science

 

Dear Eden,

What in heaven would be the purport of such claim? Computers were not only
expensive, they involved major investments, certainly machines the size of
Pegasus. Hence, the legitimation for making such investment was seldomly
based on the single use for one field of application, or rather for one
department in an enterprise or university. Historians usually can trace the
considerations leading to the actual purchase in the company archives. Also
one may be able to guess where (in which subdepartment) the first initiative
to such deep investment in modernizing business originated. 

How the machine was in fact used, once installed, is much harder to
reconstruct. Did the administrative support staff actually get to use the
computer or were they pushed out by the scientific computers from the
laboratory departments. Were management scientists favored before the
statisticians and the down to earth daily bookkeeping? In the incidental
case where a logbook is preserved, or where a very early computing center
kept statistics, one may be able to tell something about who was using the
machine.

So, what could be the meaning of "dedicated to"? Was that "dedicated" on the
level of legitimation of the purchase, or was it "dedicated" in terms of
seconds and minutes of use of the system? Let alone that we could judge the
claim of "entirely" or even "first".

 

Rather, to us historians being aware of inclusion and exclusion mechanisms
around the use of computers, simply power struggles if you will, the claim
of "dedicated entirely" made in a first person account has a clear intent.
Other users, other interested parties, were succesfully made invisible, at
least in the account of the "management science" department. Probably
bookkkeeping use didnot count, or was counted under management science in
the first place, etcetera.

 

Rather than investigating the claim, my suggestion would be to investigate
the fact that such claim was made, when and by whom.

 

Best, Gerard Alberts

 

 

  _____  

From: members-bounces at sigcis.org on behalf of Medina, Eden
Sent: Fri 17-7-2009 17:11
To: members at sigcis.org
Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science

Dear SIGCIS colleagues:

 

I am hoping that your collective wisdom might help me check out a claim.
The British cybernetician Stafford Beer claims that the Ferranti Pegasus 1
machine he bought in 1956 was the only computer at that time dedicated
entirely to applications in management science.  Do you know of any other
examples of computers fully dedicated to management science applications
during this time period?  

 

Many thanks, 

--

Eden Medina

Assistant Professor of Informatics

School of Informatics and Computing

Indiana University

edenm at indiana.edu

www.informatics.indiana.edu/edenm

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/attachments/20090717/c5b13b42/attachment-0001.htm>