Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science
Dear Eden, I share many of Gerard's concerns about the unmeasurability of such claims and even how dubious making them might be. (I also agree with Tom that "management science" is too vague -- does he possibly mean operations research?) However, as a positivist (are there any others on this list?) I am inclined to take the claim at face value and see what they might mean. So while "first" is likely unprovable, I do think it would be interesting to say "most computers were bought to do payroll or missile trajectories and this one was bought to do management science." I suspect it would be relatively easy to document the "typical" motivation or application for computers in the era, even if the actual use (post hoc) is not easily measured. (Ideally, you'd want a list of who had login accounts, and if necessary assume each used their account proportionately). But in some ways, the inputs question is less interesting than the outputs question. If Beer was the first boy in the invisible college of his discipline to have a new toy, what did he do with it? Is there any evidence that this strategic foresight (or dumb luck) enabled him to advance his field in ways that his less-endowed rivals could not? I would find it terribly interesting if Beer has the best computing power but the major advances in numerical approaches to management science were being made elsewhere. IIRC, the field's major scientific prize (originally from ORSA, now INFORMS) is named after a mathematician who made his most important contributions before these sorts of computers existed. Joel On 6:25 PM +0200 7/17/09, Alberts, G. hath said:
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.
On 11:11 AM -0400 7/17/09, Medina, Eden wrote:
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?
-- Joel West, Ph.D. http://www.JoelWest.org/ Professor, Innovation & Entrepreneurship College of Business, San Jose State University BT 555, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192-0070
I knew this was the right group to ask. I too agree with the comments being made and thank everyone for their thoughts on how best to address the claim. Additional responses can be sent to me off list unless their is extensive interest in this topic. To bring some closure to the topic I may have found a very easy way to address Beer's statement. It seems that the Pegasus machine he referred to was split between United Steel and Sheffield University, thus throwing into doubt claims that it was entirely dedicated to management science. Again, thanks for the help. Eden ________________________________________ From: Joel West [joelwest@ieee.org] Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 1:17 PM To: Medina, Eden; members@sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science Dear Eden, I share many of Gerard's concerns about the unmeasurability of such claims and even how dubious making them might be. (I also agree with Tom that "management science" is too vague -- does he possibly mean operations research?) However, as a positivist (are there any others on this list?) I am inclined to take the claim at face value and see what they might mean. So while "first" is likely unprovable, I do think it would be interesting to say "most computers were bought to do payroll or missile trajectories and this one was bought to do management science." I suspect it would be relatively easy to document the "typical" motivation or application for computers in the era, even if the actual use (post hoc) is not easily measured. (Ideally, you'd want a list of who had login accounts, and if necessary assume each used their account proportionately). But in some ways, the inputs question is less interesting than the outputs question. If Beer was the first boy in the invisible college of his discipline to have a new toy, what did he do with it? Is there any evidence that this strategic foresight (or dumb luck) enabled him to advance his field in ways that his less-endowed rivals could not? I would find it terribly interesting if Beer has the best computing power but the major advances in numerical approaches to management science were being made elsewhere. IIRC, the field's major scientific prize (originally from ORSA, now INFORMS) is named after a mathematician who made his most important contributions before these sorts of computers existed. Joel On 6:25 PM +0200 7/17/09, Alberts, G. hath said:
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.
On 11:11 AM -0400 7/17/09, Medina, Eden wrote:
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?
-- Joel West, Ph.D. http://www.JoelWest.org/ Professor, Innovation & Entrepreneurship College of Business, San Jose State University BT 555, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192-0070
Interesting debate. I agree with the comments as regards to a necessary caution when it comes to evaluate dedication and use of computers. As regards to the Pegasus claim at the origin of this discussion, two points attract my mind in particular. One is about the extent to which this claim - independently of its veracity - relate to Ferranti's wishes to steal pieces of the managament computing market out of LEO's hands (launched in 1951). In my research, the Pegasus was mostly used towards scientific uses and - as far as this claim gets me to think - it may well be that Ferranti tried to push it forward as an 'administrative' machine - due to its comaprative smaller size - to expand its market outreach towards management 'bureau' issues which had been recently targeted by LEO. The other issue - expanding on Tom Haigh - is about the term of 'management science': what does it mean in 1956 when one takes into account that management was a new fashionable thing in the post-WWII context, being born out of OR WWII practices, with also OR remaining a very unfixed, changing concept (more or less quantified) well until the 1960s? Hope this helps, Sandra ________________________________ From: "Medina, Eden" <edenm@indiana.edu> To: "members@sigcis.org" <members@sigcis.org> Sent: Friday, 17 July, 2009 19:37:44 Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science I knew this was the right group to ask. I too agree with the comments being made and thank everyone for their thoughts on how best to address the claim. Additional responses can be sent to me off list unless their is extensive interest in this topic. To bring some closure to the topic I may have found a very easy way to address Beer's statement. It seems that the Pegasus machine he referred to was split between United Steel and Sheffield University, thus throwing into doubt claims that it was entirely dedicated to management science. Again, thanks for the help. Eden ________________________________________ From: Joel West [joelwest@ieee.org] Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 1:17 PM To: Medina, Eden; members@sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science Dear Eden, I share many of Gerard's concerns about the unmeasurability of such claims and even how dubious making them might be. (I also agree with Tom that "management science" is too vague -- does he possibly mean operations research?) However, as a positivist (are there any others on this list?) I am inclined to take the claim at face value and see what they might mean. So while "first" is likely unprovable, I do think it would be interesting to say "most computers were bought to do payroll or missile trajectories and this one was bought to do management science." I suspect it would be relatively easy to document the "typical" motivation or application for computers in the era, even if the actual use (post hoc) is not easily measured. (Ideally, you'd want a list of who had login accounts, and if necessary assume each used their account proportionately). But in some ways, the inputs question is less interesting than the outputs question. If Beer was the first boy in the invisible college of his discipline to have a new toy, what did he do with it? Is there any evidence that this strategic foresight (or dumb luck) enabled him to advance his field in ways that his less-endowed rivals could not? I would find it terribly interesting if Beer has the best computing power but the major advances in numerical approaches to management science were being made elsewhere. IIRC, the field's major scientific prize (originally from ORSA, now INFORMS) is named after a mathematician who made his most important contributions before these sorts of computers existed. Joel On 6:25 PM +0200 7/17/09, Alberts, G. hath said:
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.
On 11:11 AM -0400 7/17/09, Medina, Eden wrote:
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?
-- Joel West, Ph.D. http://www..JoelWest.org/ Professor, Innovation & Entrepreneurship College of Business, San Jose State University BT 555, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192-0070 _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members
I too have found this a very interesting discussion. I think there's a good paper in this somewhere. Whilst without Sandra or Tom's fundamental research background I did train in the 60s, a decade later than the subject of the question and therefore possibly irrelevant. I have looked back at dusty old text books for this response. I remember in about 1970 when my employer changed from IBM to Univac, both bureau machines. I was responsible for all the commercial applications, which were memory hungry database oriented, while we also used the computer for product design (process plant for petrochemicals such as spheres), which were computation oriented. Even though the compromises were horrendous neither of us separately could justify the expense but combined together we could. As far as I am aware everyone then was in the same position. In the early 70s I was a Leo user which, as Sandra stated below, was very much oriented toward the business user. I worked for the mainframe division of ICL in the 1970s and most sales were oriented toward computation users as it sounds the Pegasus was. This was also true for Ferranti Computers division which survived the ICL merger. Ian Martin gave a very interesting paper at BSHS09 on Martins Bank and Pegasus around about 1960 which sounded much more chaotic than most of my experiences. With regard to "Management Science" in the question I regarded it with the same suspicion as everyone else. None of my subjects were called OR. One of my final papers was called 'Management Information and Quantative Techniques' and another 'Management Principles and Practice'. The blurb on one of my text books 'Mathematics in Management' describes its purpose "to provide a sound basis of knowledge about the methods of OR now being applied in public industries and services". We knew that's what we were studying but no one called it that. Apart from Peter Drucker all my text books were British, which I have to say I now find amazing. Searching the OED for Management Science it says "1954 Amer. Econ. Rev. 44 1030 A new national society, the Institute of Management Sciences, has been established with the objective of unifying scientific knowledge that contributes to the understanding and practice of management. The Institute will publish a journal, *Management Science. 1955 H. KOONTZ & C. O'DONNELL Princ. Managem. I. i. 11 Extension of the frontiers of management science by increasing the efficiency of management, would unquestionably have revolutionary impact on the cultural level of our society. " For Computer Science it reads "1956 N.Y. Times 28 Oct. III. 21 (advt.) Unparalleled opportunities to associate with the prominent pioneers of computer science, at outstanding salaries. Electronic engineers (circuit designers and magnetics engineers), logical designers, [etc.]." While being the same time frame as the Pegasus usage in Sheffield it should be noted that these quotations are all american. I've no idea when the terms might have entered common usage in Britain. Regarding the possible use of the Pegasus by Sheffield University it seems inconceivable that they would have had a department studying management science. Even though Wharton was founded in 1881 there was no equivalent here. I considered the very idea of me studying management, business, or computer science in a British university pretty ridiculous. (I went to Glasgow College of Commerce, now Caledonian Business School.) Looking through my old books I've come across one that must belong to my wife. It was first published by the Org for European Economic Cooperation in 1952 and describes a 'Technical Assistance Mission' to the US. "American universities run schools of business administration" of which there are 166. Presumably worth noting as there were none here. None of my old books refer to computer science but one of them actually has a photograph of a Pegasus! Generally they use the term EDP. Tom may know when computer science was first taught in a British university. The majority of ICL sales in the 70s were still to universities. Eden states that the Pegasus was jointly used by Sheffield University and United Steel. It sounds to me as though Sheffield maths department would have been using it in conjunction with United Steel for OR functions, among other things. It should be possible to discover when United Steel computerised commercial functions but I would guess subsequent to the Pegasus. It seems most likely they were using it to compute some of the processes. kind regards neil Dr Roger Neil Barton Visiting Research Fellow, Institute of Historical Research http://www.uclmail.net/~neil.barton/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Sandra Mols To: Medina, Eden ; Sigcis Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science Interesting debate. I agree with the comments as regards to a necessary caution when it comes to evaluate dedication and use of computers. As regards to the Pegasus claim at the origin of this discussion, two points attract my mind in particular. One is about the extent to which this claim - independently of its veracity - relate to Ferranti's wishes to steal pieces of the managament computing market out of LEO's hands (launched in 1951). In my research, the Pegasus was mostly used towards scientific uses and - as far as this claim gets me to think - it may well be that Ferranti tried to push it forward as an 'administrative' machine - due to its comaprative smaller size - to expand its market outreach towards management 'bureau' issues which had been recently targeted by LEO. The other issue - expanding on Tom Haigh - is about the term of 'management science': what does it mean in 1956 when one takes into account that management was a new fashionable thing in the post-WWII context, being born out of OR WWII practices, with also OR remaining a very unfixed, changing concept (more or less quantified) well until the 1960s? Hope this helps, Sandra ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Medina, Eden" <edenm@indiana.edu> To: "members@sigcis.org" <members@sigcis.org> Sent: Friday, 17 July, 2009 19:37:44 Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science I knew this was the right group to ask. I too agree with the comments being made and thank everyone for their thoughts on how best to address the claim. Additional responses can be sent to me off list unless their is extensive interest in this topic. To bring some closure to the topic I may have found a very easy way to address Beer's statement. It seems that the Pegasus machine he referred to was split between United Steel and Sheffield University, thus throwing into doubt claims that it was entirely dedicated to management science. Again, thanks for the help. Eden ________________________________________ From: Joel West [joelwest@ieee.org] Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 1:17 PM To: Medina, Eden; members@sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science Dear Eden, I share many of Gerard's concerns about the unmeasurability of such claims and even how dubious making them might be. (I also agree with Tom that "management science" is too vague -- does he possibly mean operations research?) However, as a positivist (are there any others on this list?) I am inclined to take the claim at face value and see what they might mean. So while "first" is likely unprovable, I do think it would be interesting to say "most computers were bought to do payroll or missile trajectories and this one was bought to do management science." I suspect it would be relatively easy to document the "typical" motivation or application for computers in the era, even if the actual use (post hoc) is not easily measured. (Ideally, you'd want a list of who had login accounts, and if necessary assume each used their account proportionately). But in some ways, the inputs question is less interesting than the outputs question. If Beer was the first boy in the invisible college of his discipline to have a new toy, what did he do with it? Is there any evidence that this strategic foresight (or dumb luck) enabled him to advance his field in ways that his less-endowed rivals could not? I would find it terribly interesting if Beer has the best computing power but the major advances in numerical approaches to management science were being made elsewhere. IIRC, the field's major scientific prize (originally from ORSA, now INFORMS) is named after a mathematician who made his most important contributions before these sorts of computers existed. Joel On 6:25 PM +0200 7/17/09, Alberts, G. hath said:
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.
On 11:11 AM -0400 7/17/09, Medina, Eden wrote:
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?
-- Joel West, Ph.D. http://www.JoelWest.org/ Professor, Innovation & Entrepreneurship College of Business, San Jose State University BT 555, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192-0070 _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members
Dear Colleagues I think it may be useful to look at the career of Stafford Beer - I only know it in outline but the Wikipedia entry seems fairly close to what I remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_Beer From this you will see that Beer was interested in "management cybernetics" rather than management science as more classically defined. This is I think why a machine like Pegasus would have been useful to him since he was interested in Operations Research and Mathematical models. Whatever merit may be given to the original claim about the use of Pegasus it needs to be considered against the type of work Beer was actually doing. At the time when Beer started trying to model whole national economies (eg Chile) not surprisingly he ran out of machine power pretty quickly. In the light of the past few months it seems doubtful that his ideas would actually have worked no matter how powerful the computer! Good wishes Roger Johnson Dept of Computer Science & Information Systems Birkbeck College University of London ________________________________ From: members-bounces@sigcis.org [mailto:members-bounces@sigcis.org] On Behalf Of Roger Neil Barton Sent: 20 July 2009 15:16 To: Sigcis Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science I too have found this a very interesting discussion. I think there's a good paper in this somewhere. Whilst without Sandra or Tom's fundamental research background I did train in the 60s, a decade later than the subject of the question and therefore possibly irrelevant. I have looked back at dusty old text books for this response. I remember in about 1970 when my employer changed from IBM to Univac, both bureau machines. I was responsible for all the commercial applications, which were memory hungry database oriented, while we also used the computer for product design (process plant for petrochemicals such as spheres), which were computation oriented. Even though the compromises were horrendous neither of us separately could justify the expense but combined together we could. As far as I am aware everyone then was in the same position. In the early 70s I was a Leo user which, as Sandra stated below, was very much oriented toward the business user. I worked for the mainframe division of ICL in the 1970s and most sales were oriented toward computation users as it sounds the Pegasus was. This was also true for Ferranti Computers division which survived the ICL merger. Ian Martin gave a very interesting paper at BSHS09 on Martins Bank and Pegasus around about 1960 which sounded much more chaotic than most of my experiences. With regard to "Management Science" in the question I regarded it with the same suspicion as everyone else. None of my subjects were called OR. One of my final papers was called 'Management Information and Quantative Techniques' and another 'Management Principles and Practice'. The blurb on one of my text books 'Mathematics in Management' describes its purpose "to provide a sound basis of knowledge about the methods of OR now being applied in public industries and services". We knew that's what we were studying but no one called it that. Apart from Peter Drucker all my text books were British, which I have to say I now find amazing. Searching the OED for Management Science it says "1954 Amer. Econ. Rev. 44 1030 A new national society, the Institute of Management Sciences, has been established with the objective of unifying scientific knowledge that contributes to the understanding and practice of management. The Institute will publish a journal, *Management Science. 1955 H. KOONTZ & C. O'DONNELL Princ. Managem. I. i. 11 Extension of the frontiers of management science by increasing the efficiency of management, would unquestionably have revolutionary impact on the cultural level of our society. " For Computer Science it reads "1956 N.Y. Times 28 Oct. III. 21 (advt.) Unparalleled opportunities to associate with the prominent pioneers of computer science, at outstanding salaries. Electronic engineers (circuit designers and magnetics engineers), logical designers, [etc.]." While being the same time frame as the Pegasus usage in Sheffield it should be noted that these quotations are all american. I've no idea when the terms might have entered common usage in Britain. Regarding the possible use of the Pegasus by Sheffield University it seems inconceivable that they would have had a department studying management science. Even though Wharton was founded in 1881 there was no equivalent here. I considered the very idea of me studying management, business, or computer science in a British university pretty ridiculous. (I went to Glasgow College of Commerce, now Caledonian Business School.) Looking through my old books I've come across one that must belong to my wife. It was first published by the Org for European Economic Cooperation in 1952 and describes a 'Technical Assistance Mission' to the US. "American universities run schools of business administration" of which there are 166. Presumably worth noting as there were none here. None of my old books refer to computer science but one of them actually has a photograph of a Pegasus! Generally they use the term EDP. Tom may know when computer science was first taught in a British university. The majority of ICL sales in the 70s were still to universities. Eden states that the Pegasus was jointly used by Sheffield University and United Steel. It sounds to me as though Sheffield maths department would have been using it in conjunction with United Steel for OR functions, among other things. It should be possible to discover when United Steel computerised commercial functions but I would guess subsequent to the Pegasus. It seems most likely they were using it to compute some of the processes. kind regards neil Dr Roger Neil Barton Visiting Research Fellow, Institute of Historical Research http://www.uclmail.net/~neil.barton/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Sandra Mols <mailto:sandramols@yahoo.co.uk> To: Medina, Eden <mailto:edenm@indiana.edu> ; Sigcis <mailto:members@sigcis.org> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science Interesting debate. I agree with the comments as regards to a necessary caution when it comes to evaluate dedication and use of computers. As regards to the Pegasus claim at the origin of this discussion, two points attract my mind in particular. One is about the extent to which this claim - independently of its veracity - relate to Ferranti's wishes to steal pieces of the managament computing market out of LEO's hands (launched in 1951). In my research, the Pegasus was mostly used towards scientific uses and - as far as this claim gets me to think - it may well be that Ferranti tried to push it forward as an 'administrative' machine - due to its comaprative smaller size - to expand its market outreach towards management 'bureau' issues which had been recently targeted by LEO. The other issue - expanding on Tom Haigh - is about the term of 'management science': what does it mean in 1956 when one takes into account that management was a new fashionable thing in the post-WWII context, being born out of OR WWII practices, with also OR remaining a very unfixed, changing concept (more or less quantified) well until the 1960s? Hope this helps, Sandra ________________________________ From: "Medina, Eden" <edenm@indiana.edu> To: "members@sigcis.org" <members@sigcis.org> Sent: Friday, 17 July, 2009 19:37:44 Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science I knew this was the right group to ask. I too agree with the comments being made and thank everyone for their thoughts on how best to address the claim. Additional responses can be sent to me off list unless their is extensive interest in this topic. To bring some closure to the topic I may have found a very easy way to address Beer's statement. It seems that the Pegasus machine he referred to was split between United Steel and Sheffield University, thus throwing into doubt claims that it was entirely dedicated to management science. Again, thanks for the help. Eden ________________________________________ From: Joel West [joelwest@ieee.org] Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 1:17 PM To: Medina, Eden; members@sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science Dear Eden, I share many of Gerard's concerns about the unmeasurability of such claims and even how dubious making them might be. (I also agree with Tom that "management science" is too vague -- does he possibly mean operations research?) However, as a positivist (are there any others on this list?) I am inclined to take the claim at face value and see what they might mean. So while "first" is likely unprovable, I do think it would be interesting to say "most computers were bought to do payroll or missile trajectories and this one was bought to do management science." I suspect it would be relatively easy to document the "typical" motivation or application for computers in the era, even if the actual use (post hoc) is not easily measured. (Ideally, you'd want a list of who had login accounts, and if necessary assume each used their account proportionately). But in some ways, the inputs question is less interesting than the outputs question. If Beer was the first boy in the invisible college of his discipline to have a new toy, what did he do with it? Is there any evidence that this strategic foresight (or dumb luck) enabled him to advance his field in ways that his less-endowed rivals could not? I would find it terribly interesting if Beer has the best computing power but the major advances in numerical approaches to management science were being made elsewhere. IIRC, the field's major scientific prize (originally from ORSA, now INFORMS) is named after a mathematician who made his most important contributions before these sorts of computers existed. Joel On 6:25 PM +0200 7/17/09, Alberts, G. hath said: >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. On 11:11 AM -0400 7/17/09, Medina, Eden wrote: >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? -- Joel West, Ph.D. http://www.JoelWest.org/ Professor, Innovation & Entrepreneurship College of Business, San Jose State University BT 555, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192-0070 _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members ________________________________ _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members
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
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
Say, if anyone in SIG-CIS is interested in sharing a room to reduce the costs of attending SHOT, feel free to let me know. I'll be happy to match folks. (Please indicate what dates you will be staying / already have a room booked for.) Best wishes, - Atsushi ===================================== Atsushi Akera Associate Professor, Department of Science and Technology Studies Director, First Year Studies Program--Sage 5206 Rensselaer Polytechnic institute 110 8th Street Troy, NY 12180 USA ph: 518.279.9708/fx:518.276-2659/e:akeraa@rpi.edu /w: http://www.rpi.edu/~akeraa -----Original Message----- From: members-bounces@sigcis.org [mailto:members-bounces@sigcis.org] On Behalf Of Medina, Eden Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 1:38 PM To: members@sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science I knew this was the right group to ask. I too agree with the comments being made and thank everyone for their thoughts on how best to address the claim. Additional responses can be sent to me off list unless their is extensive interest in this topic. To bring some closure to the topic I may have found a very easy way to address Beer's statement. It seems that the Pegasus machine he referred to was split between United Steel and Sheffield University, thus throwing into doubt claims that it was entirely dedicated to management science. Again, thanks for the help. Eden ________________________________________ From: Joel West [joelwest@ieee.org] Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 1:17 PM To: Medina, Eden; members@sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science Dear Eden, I share many of Gerard's concerns about the unmeasurability of such claims and even how dubious making them might be. (I also agree with Tom that "management science" is too vague -- does he possibly mean operations research?) However, as a positivist (are there any others on this list?) I am inclined to take the claim at face value and see what they might mean. So while "first" is likely unprovable, I do think it would be interesting to say "most computers were bought to do payroll or missile trajectories and this one was bought to do management science." I suspect it would be relatively easy to document the "typical" motivation or application for computers in the era, even if the actual use (post hoc) is not easily measured. (Ideally, you'd want a list of who had login accounts, and if necessary assume each used their account proportionately). But in some ways, the inputs question is less interesting than the outputs question. If Beer was the first boy in the invisible college of his discipline to have a new toy, what did he do with it? Is there any evidence that this strategic foresight (or dumb luck) enabled him to advance his field in ways that his less-endowed rivals could not? I would find it terribly interesting if Beer has the best computing power but the major advances in numerical approaches to management science were being made elsewhere. IIRC, the field's major scientific prize (originally from ORSA, now INFORMS) is named after a mathematician who made his most important contributions before these sorts of computers existed. Joel On 6:25 PM +0200 7/17/09, Alberts, G. hath said: 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. 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. On 11:11 AM -0400 7/17/09, Medina, Eden wrote:
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?
-- Joel West, Ph.D. http://www.JoelWest.org/ Professor, Innovation & Entrepreneurship College of Business, San Jose State University BT 555, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192-0070 _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members
participants (6)
-
Atsushi Akera -
Joel West -
Medina, Eden -
Roger Johnson -
Roger Neil Barton -
Sandra Mols