Month: April 2007

Grand Challenges in Engineering

The National Academy of Engineering is soliciting thoughts on “Grand Challenges for Engineering“, setting an agenda for the next 100 years. Of course, such a goal is impossibly ambitious: imagine trying to do such a think in 1907, and come even close to what the last 100 years have achieved (or failed at). But in OR we understand the value of long-term planning with rolling horizons. If we don’t think about where we might want to go, we can’t even take the first step.

What is the role of OR in these Grand Challenges? As a field, we seem to be successful in the details, but less successful in the big picture. Even trying to define “who we are” causes more smoke than light. But we should think big: without the skills and knowledge of those in OR, any problem sufficiently broad and important to justify the title “Grand Challenge” is doomed to failure.

INFORMS President Brenda Dietrich, in her recent OR/MS Today article, talks about getting outside our comfort zone, and her comments really hit home. I am comfortable doing my research, and teaching students. I have gone a bit outside my comfort zone by moving to New Zealand for a year, but am I really stretching myself?

Thinking about Grand Challenges is a good way to get outside your comfort zone. Art Geoffrion and others have put together a wiki for OR people to think about Grand Challenges in Engineering and the role OR has to play. I think it is a great idea to spend some time thinking about the “big picture” and how engineering and OR fits into it. And definitely check out the “Grand Challenges in OR” site!

Launch of OR Forum

About a year ago, I became the Area Editor for the OR Forum for the journal Operations Research.  The purpose of the Forum is given in my editorial statement:

The OR Forum area invites work that challenges the reader to consider and evaluate the status of past, present, or future prospects and challenges within the field of operations research. Possible submissions include critical reviews of research in a specialized field, closely reasoned commentary on the practice within an area, analysis of prospects for operations research broadly, or any other area where a substantive, significant work will clarify and illuminate research and practice. Published work will often be accompanied by supplemental pieces that enhance or dispute the theses developed.

An online forum will provide opportunity to continue the discussion after publication. Papers that address prospects in areas not traditionally covered by Operations Research are strongly encouraged, as are provocative papers that take a strong stand on policy and practice issues. The arguments made in the paper should not be casual or speculative, but should be based on a firm foundation consistent with publication in a professional journal. Survey papers are appropriate providing such papers go beyond a listing of who wrote what to include a critical appraisal of the research and the prospects for the future. The work should be accessible and of interest to a significant portion of the readership of Operations Research. Authors are encouraged to contact he Area Editor early in the process of developing their work to determine suitability for consideration in this area.

The first paper of the Forum has now been published, an article by Mike Rothkopf on auctions.  Check out the Forum and feel free to add to the discussion!