Why is the O.R. Department Often Treated As An External Consultant?

Helping to organize two INFORMS conferences this year, I have been struck by the inability of seasoned OR practitioners, including myself, to secure corporate funding for conference travel. This is true even when papers have been accepted for presentation, or when one is involved in organizing committees. A little reflection brings the realization that there is a larger issue looming here, much darker than the personal and professional frustration that the funding situation causes. It is a question, not about the lack of conference travel budget to support professional development this year, but of perception: why are the expenses necessary to sustain a thriving OR function, or even an OR department itself, seen as an unwarranted expense rather than as a wise investment in training for key staff members? Why is the OR group seen as part of the problem rather than as part of the solution to the problem?

OR pundits commonly cite thinking based on corporate silos, short-term profitability and management inexperience as the overriding reason for insufficient support to the OR function. From this perspective, the problem is “them” – the managers, executives, board members and Wall Street analysts – who understand neither us, nor the value we bring to the table, nor the benefits that ongoing contact with the larger OR community provides to the organization.

But what if something deeper is going on? What if the problem is “us”? Many of “us” OR professionals have a profound understanding of the structure of our companies and industry. Most of us have an innate aptitude for and are highly-trained in the art of recognizing structure within masses of unstructured data. We ARE modelers, after all. So we can easily recognize and compute to the n^th decimal the value our groups offer. We have the perspective to think “big picture” and “systems approach” to the structural problems facing our organizations and our industries. We live in the world of possibility. We see the potential benefit of our contributions, which we could realize “if only they” would see things our way.

And so we experience astonishment at the ways in which clients and executives dismiss our potential contributions. This feeling is of course based on the assumption that “they” recognize our value to the organization and what is needed to realize that value, i.e. that they see the structure within the masses of unstructured data they deal with. This is a mistake. They are NOT modelers, after all.

Let’s turn the original question around.

WHY DOES THE OR DEPARTMENT OFTEN ACT AS AN EXTERNAL CONSULTANT?

“So what kind of work do you do?” the earnest young professional sitting next to me on the La Guardia shuttle asks. “I’m an OR analyst,” I reply, “And how about yourself? What do you do?” I work in Pharmaceuticals,” is the response. And there it is, folks. Do you see it? It’s all a matter of perspective. It turns out that we are both working this week to develop methods to resolve supply chain risk and threat issues that arise in our respective industries’ service/product delivery systems. But I identify myself as an analyst who happens to know a lot about a particular industry, and she identifies herself as an industry expert who happens to know a lot about analytics.

Here’s why it’s an “us” problem: I get to choose. I can choose to be identified as an OR guy with experience in a particular industry or I can choose to be identified as an industry expert with experience in OR.

Likewise, a department can choose to be seen as a group of OR/Analytics experts with knowledge of a particular industry. If it does this, the department will be seen as increasingly irrelevant over time, with or without a constant marketing effort, and may eventually be outsourced. There will always be an implicit “us-them” mentality – perceived on both sides, because the question underlying all corporate interactions will be “How can WE help YOU achieve your goals?” Over time, the group will get shoved down the organizational totem pole, unless there is a highly placed sponsor. But in the same way that all things good and bad come to an end, sponsors eventually move on to other things, leaving the OR group lacking shelter from the corporate winds that blow.

On the other hand, a department can choose to be seen as a group of industry experts with experience in OR. The implicit mentality will then be “us,” since the underlying question in corporate interactions will be shared: “How can WE achieve OUR goals?” In this situation, it’s not too hard to maintain a reporting position high enough in the organizational hierarchy to be able to continue to achieve a significant, demonstrated impact.

That seems to be a fine measure of success for any professional group in an organization.

Paul Thompson is currently Manager Operations Research at Northrop Grumman Corporation in Herndon, Virginia.