Technology and Urban Management. Semiannual Report, October 1, 1967 through March 31, 1968

The projects under Technology and Urban Management (TAUM) have continued during the last few months with considerable success. The individual studies conducted in the City of Oakland and the progress made are described in this report

On recognizing and formulating mathematical problems

When mathematics is used to help people cope with real-life situations, a three-stage intellectual process is involved. First, a person becomes aware of a problem-situation which stimulates him to generate a problem-statement, a verbal story-problem. This may be in writing, expressed orally, or merely thought and evidenced by other behavior. Second, he transforms the verbal problem-statement into a mathematical formulation. Third, he analyzes this mathematically stated problem into subproblems to which the solution is more immediate.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/43864/1/11251_2004_Article_BF00052419.pd

The intellectual structure and substance of the knowledge utilization field: A longitudinal author co-citation analysis, 1945 to 2004

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It has been argued that science and society are in the midst of a far-reaching renegotiation of the social contract between science and society, with society becoming a far more active partner in the creation of knowledge. On the one hand, new forms of knowledge production are emerging, and on the other, both science and society are experiencing a rapid acceleration in new forms of knowledge utilization. Concomitantly since the Second World War, the science underpinning the knowledge utilization field has had exponential growth. Few in-depth examinations of this field exist, and no comprehensive analyses have used bibliometric methods.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using bibliometric analysis, specifically first author co-citation analysis, our group undertook a domain analysis of the knowledge utilization field, tracing its historical development between 1945 and 2004. Our purposes were to map the historical development of knowledge utilization as a field, and to identify the changing intellectual structure of its scientific domains. We analyzed more than 5,000 articles using citation data drawn from the Web of Science^®. Search terms were combinations of knowledge, research, evidence, guidelines, ideas, science, innovation, technology, information theory and use, utilization, and uptake.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We provide an overview of the intellectual structure and how it changed over six decades. The field does not become large enough to represent with a co-citation map until the mid-1960s. Our findings demonstrate vigorous growth from the mid-1960s through 2004, as well as the emergence of specialized domains reflecting distinct collectives of intellectual activity and thought. Until the mid-1980s, the major domains were focused on innovation diffusion, technology transfer, and knowledge utilization. Beginning slowly in the mid-1980s and then growing rapidly, a fourth scientific domain, evidence-based medicine, emerged. The field is dominated in all decades by one individual, Everett Rogers, and by one paradigm, innovation diffusion.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We conclude that the received view that social science disciplines are in a state where no accepted set of principles or theories guide research (<it>i.e.</it>, that they are pre-paradigmatic) could not be supported for this field. Second, we document the emergence of a new domain within the knowledge utilization field, evidence-based medicine. Third, we conclude that Everett Rogers was the dominant figure in the field and, until the emergence of evidence-based medicine, his representation of the general diffusion model was the dominant paradigm in the field.</p

Philosophical speculations on systems design

Belief in the value of the scientific method as a means of implementing improvement in social systems (here called "systems design"--SD) raises important philosophical questions concerning, inter alia, the meaning of "scientific method", of "improvement", and of social reality. One underlying problem is that of the "self reflecting paradox"; e.g. the content and validity of the scientific method can only be discovered by the application of the scientific method. Similarly, SD has its own "social reality" through which it perceives that of its client. "Improvement" is bound up with ethics but ethics does not admit the limitation of obligation to one sub-system, therefore improvement requires the recognition of sub-system linkages. Paradoxically, again, the "improver" is himself part of the total system and bears its impress. Implementation (of improvement) meets the paradox that SD on SD is needed to judge the worth of the SD proposal. The pragmatic escape from the paradox identifies SD with a heuristic role in social progress but presupposes the possibility of progress. "Implementation" secures the possibility of such progress. The second major problem is that SD requires a social reality in which individuals have visible goals; but the "inner world" of individual goals is unknown and cannot be tracked from observable responses. In any case, Kant's moral precept requires that individuals be valued as ends rather than means. Much of SD uses them as means. Though SD is and must be practised, such philosophical speculation raises SD's self knowledge and points the neat paradox of its technical precision won at the price of its fundamental woolliness.

Management Science, The Journal

These remarks are concerned with the policies of the journal of the Institute. A journal not only serves as a basis of communication for its time, but also as a monument of effort for some future age. The singularity of the title Management Science dedicates us to the proposition that a science of human administration is a real possibility. Whatever sort of monument our journal may be for the future, its keystone will consist in this conviction.

The X of X

A featured presentation at the Ninth Annual International Meeting of The Institute of Management Sciences, jointly with the Econometric Society, at Ann Arbor, Michigan, September 11, 1962. "A unified science of management." Is it a matter of faith or of enterprise? A unified science of management conceals the self-reflective paradox. Science is an organized activity. Hence it operates according to some managerial principles. A unified science of management implies a management of science: a science of science, a self-reflective science.