Viewpoints...University of Leeds Leeds, LS2 9JT A. D. PEARMAN REFERENCE 1 P. DOYLE and J. E. LYNCH...
1
Operational Research Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to Journal of the Operational Research Society. www.jstor.org ® Viewpoints interpretation and use rather higher than that implied in the original paper will be needed if correct decisions are to be made. School of Economic Studies University of Leeds Leeds, LS2 9JT A. D. PEARMAN REFERENCE 1 P. DOYLE and J. E. LYNCH (1979) A strategic model for university planning. J. Opl Res. Soc. 30, 603-609. REPLY WE WELCOME Doctor Pearman's thoughtful and constructive comments. He raises two quite different issues-the validity of our view of the university's role in society and the technical competence of the planning model we propose. On the technical front we accept that the model could be operationalised in different and possibly more elegant ways. This is true of all exploratory models and we hope that we, and others, will make further advances. Additionally, we would agree entirely that a mechanistic model can never be a total substitute for administrative and academic judgement. It was never envisaged as such. Where we would like to take issue is in his more general remarks upon the role of the university in society. The argument he advances that universities have a special position as leaders of opinion and conservers of civilised values is well-known and one with which most academics (including ourselves) would agree. What we wish to question is the academic myopia which ignores the fact that this is an eminently privileged position totally dependent on society's agreement and ability to deliver the necessary resources. We do not think universities can nor should expect to be insulated from prevailing economic reality. The most likely scenario for U.K. universities in the foreseeable future is one of static or declining resources. Innovation and development can thus only be achieved through re-allocation and re-distribution. To operate the traditional academic principle of equity in this context is to court disaster or, at best, a decline into mediocrity. We believe that universities must be prepared to be more critical of their resource allocation procedures and this is the issue of principle underlying our attempts to de- velop a_ strategic planning model. In short, we too wish to see universities maintain their distinctive societal role. Where we differ from Doctor Pearman is that we believe that this role can only be maintained by a more self-critical and more objective approach to university planning. Our model for strategic planning in universities is offered as one small contribution to that process. University of Bradford Management Centre PETER DOYLE and JAMES E. LYNCH REPLY TO COMMENT ON AN IMPROVED PROCEDURE FOR THE FINITE HORIZON AND PRICE CHANGES INVENTORY MODEL I AGREE with the authors 1 that n* is always either n + or n-. However, I kept them deliberately for the simple reason that I did not want to introduce n' as suggested by the authors. As a result of introducing n', although we do not have to evaluate y-, the resulting TIC equation for Policy II does not appear to be simpler than the equation I suggested by the authors. 81
Transcript of Viewpoints...University of Leeds Leeds, LS2 9JT A. D. PEARMAN REFERENCE 1 P. DOYLE and J. E. LYNCH...
Operational Research Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access toJournal of the Operational Research Society.
www.jstor.org®
Viewpoints
interpretation and use rather higher than that implied in the original paper will be needed if correct decisions are to be made.
School of Economic Studies University of Leeds Leeds, LS2 9JT
A. D. PEARMAN
REFERENCE 1 P. DOYLE and J. E. LYNCH (1979) A strategic model for university planning. J. Opl Res. Soc. 30, 603-609.
REPLY
WE WELCOME Doctor Pearman's thoughtful and constructive comments. He raises two quite different issues-the validity of our view of the university's role in society and the technical competence of the planning model we propose. On the technical front we accept that the model could be operationalised in different and possibly more elegant ways. This is true of all exploratory models and we hope that we, and others, will make further advances. Additionally, we would agree entirely that a mechanistic model can never be a total substitute for administrative and academic judgement. It was never envisaged as such.
Where we would like to take issue is in his more general remarks upon the role of the university in society. The argument he advances that universities have a special position as leaders of opinion and conservers of civilised values is well-known and one with which most academics (including ourselves) would agree. What we wish to question is the academic myopia which ignores the fact that this is an eminently privileged position totally dependent on society's agreement and ability to deliver the necessary resources. We do not think universities can nor should expect to be insulated from prevailing economic reality. The most likely scenario for U.K. universities in the foreseeable future is one of static or declining resources. Innovation and development can thus only be achieved through re-allocation and re-distribution. To operate the traditional academic principle of equity in this context is to court disaster or, at best, a decline into mediocrity. We believe that universities must be prepared to be more critical of their resource allocation procedures and this is the issue of principle underlying our attempts to de-velop a_ strategic planning model.
In short, we too wish to see universities maintain their distinctive societal role. Where we differ from Doctor Pearman is that we believe that this role can only be maintained by a more self-critical and more objective approach to university planning. Our model for strategic planning in universities is offered as one small contribution to that process.
University of Bradford Management Centre PETER DOYLE and JAMES E. LYNCH
REPLY TO COMMENT ON AN IMPROVED PROCEDURE FOR THE FINITE HORIZON AND PRICE CHANGES
INVENTORY MODEL
I AGREE with the authors1 that n* is always either n + or n-. However, I kept them deliberately for the simple reason that I did not want to introduce n' as suggested by the authors. As a result of introducing n', although we do not have to evaluate y-, the resulting TIC equation for Policy II does not appear to be simpler than the equation I suggested by the authors.
81
![Netherlands arXiv:2001.03384v1 [eess.SY] 10 Jan 2020 · dSchool of Computing, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK eDepartment of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering, University](https://static.fdocuments.net/doc/165x107/5fbf6c8d75527754616685cc/netherlands-arxiv200103384v1-eesssy-10-jan-2020-dschool-of-computing-university.jpg)
