BoardWhat’s In A Name?

[Being comments on the MORS Five Year Plan]

A. Curmudgeon

(aka Gene Visco)

The single most important assumption guiding the development and conclusions of the Five Year Plan is a view of the meaning and implications of the phrase “operations research.” The definition of that phrase occupied many years of debate starting in the late 1940s and continuing at least until the 1960s. While the arguments often centered on precise language, with suggested definitions running from simplistic (“operations research is what operations analysts do”) to long-winded details describing tools and methods. Quantification was often included, to the neglect of the need for understanding the qualitative aspects of human behavior in analysis. The debate was never really ended, as witness the assumptions made by the honest and hard-working team that composed the Five Year Plan.

Unfortunately, the planners set upon a path that predetermined the need for the first organizational change proposed in the plan: the change of the name of the Society. They failed to understand the comprehensiveness of the practice (not profession) of operations research. To some extent, the error can be attributed to a weakness in the planning committee. I yield to no one my respect and admiration for all the members of the Executive Council that constituted the committee to prepare the Plan. I note, however, that none of them is senior enough to have fought through the battles of the definition. To the best of my knowledge, the committee did not involve any of the older Fellows who might have contributed to a fuller understanding of the breadth of operations research, as a result of the over 70 years since the birth of the phrase “operational research” in the UK. I think it may have helped the planners if they had read, or re-read a note by Wayne Hughes, “Some Comments on the State of Operations Analysis,” Phalanx, Vol. 31, Number 1 (March 1998). Perhaps the planners should go back to that note.

Since the dawn of alphabets and writing, groups of people drawn together for some common purpose (organizations) have taken on or have been given names. Not numbers or ideographs but names (maybe numbers came later, otherwise organizations might just be identified by numbers). Names were to distinguish one group from another—still the primary purpose of organization names.

Other reasons for names of organizations include indicating organizational purpose—showing  the organizations’ reasons for existence. Another, perhaps lesser reason for a name is to express the group’s ethos or character, other than its purpose. It is these two characteristics that are of interest in discussing a potential change of name of the Military Operations Research Society.

Some examples of names designed to convey to the public aspects of the organizations’ purposes are: Government Employees Insurance Company and the American Association of Retired Persons. From the former name, one can easily conclude that the company has to do with insurance and government employees. Among the information lacking from just the name are type of insurance and the role of government employees (Are they the owners of the company or does the name indicate the source of customers of the company?). But, at least some information relative to the company’s business is expressed by the name. A similar argument can be followed with respect to the American Association of Retired Persons. The organization has something to do with retired persons but again, one cannot discern whether the association is made up of retired persons (with an unstated purpose) or that the association is set up to do something to or for retired persons. These two organizations are chosen particularly because at some point in their existence, they changed their names to acronyms, a proposal for the Military Operations Research Society expressed in the Five Year Plan.

Some organizations began life with acronyms as opposed to clear names. Sometimes the acronyms were built around a naming structure. Esso, for example, is a clever acronym for one of the Standard Oil organizations. At a later time, as a result of some advertising wisdom, Esso became Exxon, moving away from the earlier link with Standard Oil. There was a small consulting firm doing business in Washington, DC with the name METCOR. That stood for Muldoon’s Ego Trip Corporation, Muldoon being the founder and primary owner. Another clever designator not giving a clue about the nature of the organization is Korvette’s, a now defunct department store—but you would never know its nature from the name. Where did the name come from? The three founders were veterans of the Korean War!

Back to the issue of converting communicating names to acronyms. A few years ago, the Government Employees Insurance Company legally changed its name to GEICO, an acronym that is obvious and one which had been in use informally for some time. The company acknowledged the long-standing use of the acronym, but there was also a more pressing reason, in management’s mind, for the formal change. The company, originally limiting its automobile insurance to employees of governments, federal, state and local, had moved beyond that limited audience and had opened its policies to the wider public. Further, although not a part of its name, the company had also gone beyond offering only automobile insurance to expanding the roster of policies to home owners and apartment renters. It is also possible that the conciseness of the acronym, GEICO, was an attraction over the windier Government Employees Insurance Company.

A similar story is told about the American Association of Retired Persons. The organization was never limited to Americans who were retired. The only qualification for membership was that the applicant had to be 50 or more years of age. Membership was not limited to American citizens only, as well. One can surmise that moving to the acronym AARP was, at least partially indicated, by a desire to remove the apparent constraint (retirement) from the public’s eye. Since the acronym, like that of GEICO, had already been in use, at least informally, the change was easily accomplished. Incidentally, AARP is most attentive to its image. For many years the organization has offered a safe driving course for its members and to anyone over the age of 50, whether a member or not. The course was once called “Drive Alive at 55.” Since the alternative to driving alive is being dead, the organization has moved away from that title and now calls the program simply the “AARP Safe Driving Course”

Independent judgments can be made about the wisdom of the naming choices and the development and application of acronyms by organizations. The logic of  designing an acronym as a change from a long standing, well known, and highly regarded name either for convenience (advertising space, for example) or because the name no longer expresses the central or major purposes of the organization needs to be carefully developed and assessed. Among the questions that should be answered before a name change decision is executed are: How important is the recognition of the name and the acronym? Does the change in organization focus (membership or purposes) truly demand a change or formalization of an existing acronym? Is the proposed change one of form or substance? Are there consequences, particularly unintended ones, of importance to be considered?

My view is that, in the case of the proposed change of name for the Military Operations Research Society, the answer to the third question is the change is one of form, not necessitated by substance. The thought is that the Society now has moved into the area of homeland security specifically, by reason of the seventh sponsor, as well as by the well-recognized broader view of national defense, along with the desire to attract members from previously under represented communities (e.g., non-defense institutions such as the US State Department and the Foreign Service Departments of allied nations). The additions to the purposes and membership of the Society are thought by some to dictate a change in name, specifically to reduce the emphasis on the military aspect of the Society. Some have suggested that some candidates for membership in MORS from non-defense institutions will balk at becoming associated with an organization that has the word “military” in its name. I find that view abhorrent and simplistic. If it is borne out by objective data, let that be aired. Right now it appears to be an argument without substance. It is also a shameful characterization. It suggests that there are folks out there who we (MORS) might be interested in participating as members who find something unpleasant about the word “military.” Perhaps these are the folks who in an earlier time spat upon warriors returning from Vietnam! If so, why do we want them in MORS?

I have trouble believing that there is something unpleasant about the word “military” such that people truly concerned with national defense and security will avoid associating with an organization with that word in its title. It is important to recognize that although the matter of national security, including national defense, includes much more than the military component, nevertheless the military component is an important one. Further, it is not an inconsiderable point to emphasize that six of the sponsors of MORS, some of whom have been sponsors since the creation of the Society, are military institutions.

My conclusion is that the Military Operations Research Society is a proud name and that we should be proud to maintain it. The acronym MORS exists and is widely used by the Society in its documents and publications, as well as being widely used by members and non-members in referring to the Society. There is no need to change that.