Talk:Operations research

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Archive
Archives
1: 2002 - 2006


Contents

[edit] External Links

The link to the OR blog in the external links is inadequate. There are only a handful of posts, with the time differential between the last two being 8 months. This adds little to nothing to the topic and I suggest it be removed.

On the same note, the "morphological analysis" paper is more on an alternative approach ("nonquantitative") than an example of OR, so limiting it to the "see also" rather than "external links" seems better. Mike Trick

I added a link to my own blog at http://mat.tepper.cmu.edu/blog but perhaps that is against COI, so I'll revert. I'll leave it to others to decide if it is more appropriate than the blog in place. Mtrick 00:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the following external links from the article for discussion here. Please see WP:EL. If these were used as references for the text in this article, please use reference tags to link the text in the article to the source(s). See WP:Footnotes.
--SueHay 15:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've read over the external links rules, and it seems that the Resources page, the Science of Better Page, and the Postrel page seem in keeping. The others do not (except I won't comment on my own blog) Mtrick 20:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Ooops, I better declare further COI: I started and edit the Resources Page, I was President of INFORMS during the formation of the Science of Better, and I think I am quoted in the Postrel page. COI may prohibit me from playing any role at all on this page! Mtrick 20:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Mtrick has clearly and succinctly stated his bias in regrards to this article, and that he should be left free to edit this article as he sees fit, with due respect for other opinions. --SueHay 01:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reinstalled some links

I've reinstalled the first two links. They seem OK to me. - Mdd 10:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Management versus Research

Operations Research and Operations Management are related but different. Merging the two will harm the meanings of both. Operations Management focuses on managing the processes to produce and distribute products and services. Operations Research has a broader range of topics and applications that may not be focused on a product or service. -- Mike Siley

A better merge with OR would be the Management Science article. Both state that the terms OR and MS are interchangeable Davetracy 02:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

If you use inline references in an article, please be sure to also list the reference in the reference section. If any of the external links were used as source material for this article, please link the source to the information in the article. Please consider using reference tags rather than inline links, because reference tags can be used to generate a reference list without having to re-type the reference. See WP:Footnotes for how to use reference tags. --SueHay 13:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

Is operations research really a branch of mathematics as the current definition states? I know very few mathematicians who would agree with this, and having worked for a short while in operations research I can say that many people working in this field would be reluctant to categorize the discipline as a subdiscipline of mathematics. What's a better way to word this? Mathematics is important in operations research but operations research also encompasses much more than just mathematics. It seems more like the relation between engineering and mathematics, or the relation between sociology and statistics. Cazort (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a small change adding the word "applied". Maybe this helps? -- Mdd (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we can also just erase the "...of applied mathematics..." -- Mdd (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this is more accurate, but I'd like erasing it better...something like "...is an interdisciplinary field of study". Maybe the problem is that Operations Research is used in different ways--some people use it to describe a subset of mathematics, but if you ask someone who is actually working for a large organization, they'll probably tell you it's much broader than just a branch of mathematics. Cazort (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I do agree thinks can be improved here. Important is that with the "...of applied mathematics..." mentions some aspect of the context of OR. No matter how you say it, I think it is important that an article like this in the first sentence should refer to the context: This can be the origin or most important application or relation... You name it. A second point is, that thinks introduced in the first sentence should be explained latter on in the article. I think the argument you bring up here is important enough to mention in the article itselve. So if you erase the context in the first place, you should bring it up latter on. Good luck. -- Mdd (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stochastics?

Hi all. As far as I know, stochastics, as a discipline, does not exist. Stochastic is an adjective. Perhaps is better to change it in probability, which also make the wikilink more consistent with the text surrounding it. But I'm not so sure so I didn't change the text. Jabbba (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link removed

removed * Operations Research Custom Search Engine Nothing there, just a custom google search —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.190.172 (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- Mdd (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)