the place of psychology in operations research

The Place of Psychology in Operations ResearchAuthor(s): George D. Creelman and Richard W. WallenSource: Operations Research, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1958), pp. 116-121Published by: INFORMSStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/167405 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 19:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

INFORMS is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Operations Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.13 on Fri, 9 May 2014 19:33:07 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=informs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/167405?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Letters to the Editor

THE PLACE OF PSYCHOLOGY IN OPERATIONS RESEARCH*

George D. Creelman and Richard W. Wallent

Creelman Associates. Cleveland. Ohio

O PERATIONS RESEARCH has been variously defined, and no single defini- tion has satisfied all the specialists engaged in it. Probably, however, many

of them would support ELLIS JOHNSONE13 in his review of the characteristics of operations research. He points out that it is research on the operations of the whole organization, that it is rooted in the basic sciences, and like them, attempts to build conceptual models of the processes being studied. In addition, the research is conducted by a multi-disciplinary team. Our condensation of this description is that operations research is the application of scientific method to management problems by a team of specialists from different fields. We want to propose some possible contributions of a psychologist to such a team. We believe they are valuable enough to warrant including a psychologist on most OR teams that work in an industrial setting.

Fairly early in the short history of operations research, the value of social scientists in OR projects was mentioned. In 1951, MORSE AND KIMBALL[23 pointed out that "psychologists and economists have their special spheres of usefulness." They did not suggest, however, specific ways in which these social scientists could be used. Three years later, FLORENCE TREFETHEN131 echoed this view in her ac- count of the history of operations research: "The emphasis on human factors in military operations has resulted in drawing social scientists into the operations research family of disciplines. Both the Rand Corporation and the Operations Re- search Office have engaged psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, and anthropologists for their staffs." She does not tell us how the social scientists con- tributed.

Most references to psychologists speak of them in connection with the 'mixed- team approach.' The principle of the mixed-team approach is simple and sound: by combining scientists from different disciplines on the same team, we increase the stimulation for new ideas and novel approaches and decrease the risk of neglecting important variables. Research evidence indicating that increased creativity can result from contact among different kinds of scientists is already available.[4] But the psychologist has no distinctive claim to a place on the OR team simply because his training has been different. If his contribution is chiefly to stimulate

* Presented at the Fifth Annual Meeting of the OPERATIONS RESEARCH SOCIETY oF AMERICA, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 10, 1957.

t Now with Personnel Research and Development Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio.

116



Creelman and Wallen 117

other members of the team by his unique viewpoint, then he is no more valuable than a biologist, a meteorologist, or a literary scholar. These specialists have unique viewpoints, too, and could undoubtedly stimulate creative thought in an OR team.

If we are to justify the inclusion of a psychologist, we ought to show that his training has special relevance to the activities of the team. We believe that his training is particularly relevant to at least four phases of OR: (1) the formulation of the problem, (2) the development and solution of the model, (3) the implementa- tion of the decision, (4) the activity of the team itself.

CURRENT USE OF PSYCHOLOGY IN OPERATIONS RESEARCH

BEFORE we discuss the specific ways in which psychologists may contribute to OR, it will be enlightening to look at the part psychology has played in OR literature. In order to gauge the significance of psychology in OR, we made a survey of the citations listed in published papers. All major articles in the first four volumes of the journal Operations Research were studied. The results of this survey are not surprising. Of the 131 articles surveyed, 30 per cent of them used at least one citation of a clearly mathematical nature, and 10 per cent of the articles referred to a source in the field of economics. Many of these citations were to the journal Econometrica, which perhaps should not be classified as belonging to economics alone. Only 5 per cent of the articles mentioned at least one source that was clearly psychological.

A similar survey was carried out for the journal Management Science. We examined all major papers in its first two volumes. Of the fifty articles studied, 36 per cent cited a mathematical source, but only 12 per cent cited a psychological source. Some 28 per cent cited economics publications. In both journals, a few papers dealt with psychological topics, but did not make citations to the psychological literature.

A fair estimate of the number of authors who find psychology useful is about 10 per cent. Most of these concern psychology as an aid to model building. The data from our survey do not reflect other uses that psychology may have in OR, because those would be in detailed case histories. Such case reports form a rela- tively small part of the journal contents. It is safe to say, however, that very few case studies tell how psychologists can be used.

The psychological papers that have appeared in OR literature do not cover a wide range of topics. The main contributions have centered on group structure, information and communication theory, and organizational models and problems. Several case studies mention psychological work in learning and in morale.

We may summarize as follows: There has been fairly wide recognition that psychologists have a contribution to make to OR, but only a small number of authors have found psychology useful. A few case studies5 6 1 describe the use of psychological methods. Although a beginning has been made, the role of psychologists is still far from clear. Even specialists who have worked with psychologists maybe hard-put to describe their function. One writer 71 says: "Frankly, I find it rather difficult to summarize, or even generalize on the techniques of the psychologist."



118 Letters to the Editor

WHAT PSYCHOLOGISTS CAN DO

WE CAN BE more specific about the possible contributions of psychology. Of course, we must remember that there are specialized fields within psychology itself. Although all psychologists have training in research design, statistical analysis, data collection, and psychological theory, some possess special skills. Thus, clinical psychologists have developed interviewing and diagnostic skills that would not be found among those interested in psychometric testing or comparative psychology. Even within a single specialty, such as group dynamics, some have developed skill in working with groups, and others are primarily concerned with research on group theory. Consequently, we should not expect any single psychologist on an OR team to do all of the possible jobs.

The first place where a psychologist can make a special contribution is in the formulation of the problem. Generally, the problem as initially stated by management is either only a symptom of, or a part of the problem that really needs to be formulated. It is particularly important to clarify and to make explicit the objectives management hopes to reach. Recently, CHURCHMAN, ACKOFF, AND

ARNOFF,[8] in their book, Introduction to Operations Research, pointed out that a direct questioning of management personnel rarely gives satisfactory information about their objectives and the nature of the problem. These authors suggest one interviewing technique to help reveal some of the important but unmentioned objectives management may have. Here is a specific task that many psychologists are uniquely suited to carry out. They have had extensive training and experience in conducting interviews to bring out neglected or suppressed material. They know how to create a permissive atmosphere that makes it easy for their clients to talk and how to interpret apparent]y irrelevant remarks.

A second contribution is to the development and testing of models. While psychological models in general are still nonmetrical, some of them may apply to OR problems. There is already available a graphical model of motivational conflict that provides a systematic approach to a number of phenomena in this area. Studies of conditioned responses give us some empirically derived models that may be used in other settings. Models of communication patterns are being constructed.

Importing models from his own field, however, is not likely to be the psychologist's main contribution to OR model-building. A more promising path is to point out variables that ought to be included in an adequate model of processes involving human beings. As an illustration, we refer to an interesting model presented by WHITTLE.P9] He examined the problem of using inspection sampling in order to prevent avoidable defects, instead of simply to discover defective items. In his formula, the quantity C represents the deterrent effect due to the size of the sampling fraction. A psychologist would guess that the deterrent effect actually is a function of at least two other variables: first, the subjectively estimated probability of being detected-a variable that is probably related in some non-linear way to the actual sampling fraction; and second, the expected outcome of detection, that is, whether it will result in a reprimand, temporary suspension, or being fired. In a concrete application of a preventative sampling model, these psychological variables might be important.



Creelman and Wallen 119

In addition to suggesting psychological variables, the psychologist will have ideas about measuring them. One important problem of this kind is the measurement of value, already worked on by CHURCHMAN AND ACKOFF.[101 The measurement of such a variable immediately brings to mind all the efforts that psychologists have made to measure interests, attitudes, and motive strength. Substantial knowledge has accumulated on the use of ratings, attitude scales, questionnaires, and the so-called projective techniques. For example, considerable progress has been made in measuring ambition or 'achievement motivation' by the indirect method of analyzing stories about a standard set of test pictures.

Because of his interest in measurement, the psychologist usually can apply statistical methods, such as correlation, multiple regression, and analysis of variance. He is also familiar with the design of experiments, particularly those involving the control of conditions that might be overlooked by people unfamiliar with psychological research.

RESISTANCE TO OPERATIONS-RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS

A THIRD PHASE of OR in which the psychologist can make a unique contribution is that of implementing the decision. We can understand this point better if we survey OR activity from a broad point of view. Essentially, OR attempts to find rational solutions for the relief of some organizational disturbance. But the dis- covery of a rational solution to a problem does not ensure its acceptance. An alcoholic will often admit, for example, that it is sensible for him to stop drinking, but this conviction seldom results in his reformation. The same thing applies to an organization that is confronted with a proposal for rational change. All too often, OR findings are not applied because the proposal arouses fears of loss of prestige. ft may produce resentment because it seems to rob supervisors of their independence of action. It may be resisted because of the sheer effort of having to learn a new way of doing things. Social psychologists know something about overcoming irrational resistance to organizational change. If they are to use this knowledge effectively, however, they must be associated with the research team from the very beginning of its efforts.

In planning for changes that may result from an OR study, the psychologist would first want to know whether key people in the organization actually felt some pressure to change. Unless management below the top level is really aware that a need exists, they may regard the OR project as a new toy of top management. Their attitude may be one of resignation, amused tolerance, or disgust. A remedy for this situation is to involve those who will have the responsibility for putting the decision to work. Only if they know the facts and perspectives that produced the problem, will they feel any urgency about acting on the decision. In the second place, those who must carry out the decision should have a chance to explore freely the consequences that the decision may have for them. They must be encouraged to express their misgivings and to make suggestions for implementing the plan so as to counteract their fears. The OR team can thus acquire information that will enable it to arrive at a solution that is both rational and workable.

Actually, some management groups need preparation before they are ready to use OR. If they cannot communicate among themselves with genuine under-



120 Letters to the Ed itor

standing, they are not likely to define really crucial problems. If they are not committed to common goals, they cannot set up criteria to guide optimization. If they have not learned sound ways for resolving their differences, the research may lack the support and cooperation it requires.

In these situations, the psychologist can design training conferences for a single management group. These can be aimed at overcoming the difficulties we have listed. That is, they can be pointed toward developing a cohesive management team. Modern methods of group and leadership training have been adapted to attain this end. By training together, management people arrive at common understandings about the problems of communication, goal-setting, and the resolu- tion of conflict. Equipped with new skills and insight, they are better able to devote themselves to the rational analysis provided by operations research.

PSYCHOLOGISTS AND THE OPERATIONS-RESEARCH TEAM

OUR FINAL suggestion about the contributions of the psychologist colncerns the activity of the team itself. Psychologists with training in applied group dynamics can perform a unique service in helping the team become cohesive and effective. In order to outline his job more clearly, we must first examine the nature of teams.

A genuine team, as contrasted with a collection of individuals, is characterized mainly by the fact that members of a team share a commitment to reach certain goals. Now, while it is often easy enough to make statements about what the team is trying to do, that does not mean that agreement has truly been reached as to the common goals. For one thing, team members do not understand verbal statements about a goal in precisely the same way. These differences are not always apparent in the early stages of working together, but as detailed plans are made, they become obvious and may lead to sharp clashes of opinion. It takes time and skill to work through the process of discovering and reconciling these differences.

Furthermore, although each team member consciously intends to work toward the common goal, he also has some personal desires and interests that guide his efforts. Thus, a mathematician may privately view the project as a fine chance for another publication. A university professor may see the project as a possible entry into an industrial job. Such personal motives are not necessarily unfortunate, but they will influence the activity of the team. Specialists in group psychology will testify that these and other personal motives may, at times, seriously block the progress of the team.

The phenomena just described are found in nearly every working group. These difficulties are probably more frequent in OR teams because of diversity of training. Some of the frustrations resulting from the mixed-team approach have been frankly discussed in a recent article by DR. DONALD MICHAEL. [111

One effective way to deal with team problems is to build a feedback arrange- ment into the team so that it may guide itself more effectively. Here is a role that can be filled by a psychologist who has skill in applied group dynamics. He can serve as participant-observer for the team. In this role, he can be an active participant in the team and at the same time can help team members observe and diagnose their own problems.

We have tried to show how psychologists can be useful in OR teams. We have



Creel man and Wallen 121

pointed out that their special skills in interviewing, measurement, research design and applied group dynamics can be useful. OR literature indicates that the po- tential value of the psychologist's contribution has hardly been realized. If OR wishes to utilize the resources of modern science in studying man-machine problems, it cannot afford to overlook that science that concerns itself primarily with man: DSvcholozv.

REFERENCES

1. E. A. JOHNSON, "Introduction," in Operations Research for Managemnent, Vol. l, J. F. MCCLOSKEY AND F. N. TREE THEN (eds.), Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1954.

2. P. M. MORSE AND G. E. KIMBALL, Methods of Operations Research, Wiley, New York, 1951.

3. F. N. TREFETHEN, "A History of Operations Research," in Operations Research for Management, Vol. I, J. F. MCCLOSKEY AND F. N. TREFETHEN (eds.), Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1954.

4. H. W. PETER, (ed.), Human Factors in Research Admninistration, Foundation for Research on Human Behavior, Ann Arbor, 1956.

5. L. G. MITTEN, "Research Team Approach to an Inspection Operation," in Introduction to Operations Research, C. W. CHURCHMAN, R. L. ACKOFF, AND E. L. ARNOFF (eds.), Wiley, New York, 1957.

6. R. H. Roy, "Operations Research in the Printing Industry," in Operations Research for Management, Vol. I, J. F. MCCLOSKEY AND F. N. TREFETTHEN (eds.), Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1954.

7. R. A. McDOUGALL, "An Imperial Oil Service Station for Marketing Experi- mentation," presented at the Eighth National Meeting of the Operations Research Society of America, Ottawa, Canada, January 9-10, 1956.

8. C. W. CHURCHMAN, R. L. ACKOFF, AND E. L. ARNOFF (eds.), Introduction to Operations Research, Wiley, New York, 1957.

9. P. WHITTLE, "Optimum Preventative Sampling," Opns. Res. 2, 197-203 (1954). 10. C. W. CHURCHMAN AND R. L. ACKOFF, "An Approximate Measure of Value,"

Opns. Res. 2, 172-180 (1954). 11. D. N. MICHAEL, "Some Factors Tending to Limit the Utility of the Social Scien-

tist in Military Systems Analysis," Opns. Res. 5, 90-96 (1957).

ON HITCHS DISSENT ON "OPERATIONS RESEARCH

AND NATIONAL P[ANNING"'*

Russell L. Ackoff

Case Institute of Technology, Cleveland, Ohio

(Received November 7, 1957)

I CAN THINK of no more formidable problem than national planning and no more formidable dissenter than CHARLES HITCH. His dissents on technical

questions are ones that could be settled by discussion and analysis; these do not worry me even where I disagree with them. If he and I were to serve on an OR

* RUSSEI,L L. ACKOFF, "Operations Research and National Planning," Opns. Res. 5, 457-468 (August 1957); CH:ARLES HITCH ". .. -A Dissent," Opns. Res. 5, 718-723 (October 1957).



the place of psychology in operations research

Documents