Gestión Interna:

Holland describes the achievements of Conway's research in the following terms: "as a first proposition there were not too many serious flaws. . . Practitioners are starting to realise that there are different types and mixes of project, and to recognise the relevant advantages of each sort" (Holland, 1988) . Holland set about investigating the original data set and research methods, and subsequently carried out a further survey of OR groups to test the validity of Conway's models as predictors of OR groups' success.

Holland considered Conway's original classifications of OR groups to be "somewhat superficial" (Holland, 1988). Whereas Conway believed that project profiles matched what was expected for groups at their respective positions in the life cycle, Holland states that "the numbers did not seem to tally with this statement". She noted "major fluctuations within the classification". She also noted a time bias in the way that projects' origins had been measured. Holland attempted to identify clusters of groups whose project profiles did match those expected under Conway's hypothesis, and consequently re­ classified 7 of the 27 OR groups.

Holland then attempted to contact each of the 27 groups to see if their project profiles supported the predictions about the group's life that would have been made by their original positioning on the life cycle. At this point, it is important to note that the life cycle concept does not explicitly refer to the time that groups might take to move around the cycle.

When some groups were classified according to their "demise" or "absorption", this was a prediction of the groups' 'fate' at some (unspecified) later point - the demise had not already taken place at the point when Conway conducted his fieldwork. Holland's assessment of the accuracy of these 'predictions'

appears to be a comparison of the project profiles constructed in 1980 by Conway and in 1988 by Holland, although this is not entirely clear from Holland (1988).

By 1988, Holland had made contact with 17 of the 27 groups, and had been able to compile project profiles of 7 groups, and a later publication (Holland, 1989b) suggests that more data may have been collected. Holland estimates that 12 of the 27 'predictions' were wholly or partly correct, although this is obviously not all substantiated by the results of her survey. The survey returned 5 out of 7 predictions correct. Two groups were known to have 'demised', as predicted. The other 5 "correct" predictions were, presumably, based on anecdotal evidence.

The purpose of Holland's survey was to validate the models developed by Conway. The previous paragraph indicates that she collected some favourable evidence. However, Holland (1988) also used the data to make comparisons between OR practice in 1980 and 1988. She claims that there is "a significant shift in the character of British OR" (Holland, 1988). It is clearly unacceptable to use the same data for both purposes.

[The comparisons between 1980 and 1988 were based on the results from six OR groups. It should be noted that, although Conway's original sample was considered "representative"

(Conway, 1987), this may not apply to the six remaining groups. In particular, Holland notes that "some groups were not happy with the way they had been classified in the 1980 survey, taking exception in the main to the phrase "maladaptive", and because of this were not encouraged to help again" (Holland, 1988) She also notes that "groups may not have included their failed projects on the form".]

I have dwelt at length on the methodology and results of Conway and Holland's research. I hope it is clear that the validity (in the empiricist sense) of the models developed by Conway depends upon the results of Holland's study. [The dynamic model and life cycle must be stand or fall together, since the former was not initially established by rigorous empirical study.] I have already referred to a number of methodological problems or errors, notably a systematically biased sample and a heterogeneous basic unit of analysis (the project). Holland recognised that "project type alone has not proved wholly satisfactory for defining an OR group's position on its life cycle" (Holland, 1988), and determined to develop the model further.

I suggest that the OR community's positive response to the models offers crreater support for the models than the empirical studies so far. By this, I mean that practicing ORers (particularly OR managers) may judge the research by its

utility in describing their working lives, and helping them to direct or influence their lives in a desirable way. Conway claims that the dynamic model, in conjunction with the life cycle,

"provides the basis for a prediction of the future path of development of the group, and so gives early warning of potential future problems in time to allow corrective action to be taken" (Conway, 1987).

There are, however, a number of practical difficulties which confront anyone trying to use the model in this way:

Firstly, as Tomlinson puts it,

"project selection has been subjected to a good deal of theoretical analysis, most of which starts with the assumption that a list of possible projects exists which is greater than the number that can be undertaken"

but, in his experience at the NCB,

"there has never been a long list of projects to hand at any one time" (Tomlinson, 1971).

In contrast, it seems that OR managers and practitioners have to be opportunistic in their approach to generating projects.

Secondly, if such choices among projects did exist, it would be difficult for OR managers to justify turning down projects on the basis that 'it will spoil our project profile'! Even if an OR manager is skilled at making excuses for not undertaking undesirable projects, this could have a damaging effect in the long term. Tomlinson comments that "once you say 'no' to a project, the sponsor is unlikely to ask you to take anything else on". This would not be consistent with the 'client- centred' approach which many OR practitioners espouse and desire.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, it seems that the most likely corrective action that an OR group might want to take would be to increase the proportion of internal and external linkage projects (project types 2 and 3) in order to reach the "dynamic equilibrium" which is the 'ideal' position in the life cycle. Ironically, these projects are not (according to Conway) initiated by the OR group, so it is not obvious what the OR manager and practitioners could do to improve the situation. Only project types 4 and 5 can actually be initiated by the OR group. Instead, the proportions of these types of work must be increased by ORers by developing close relationships with clients, and by carrying out project work effectively, thus encouraging further requests for work from those clients, and improving the OR group's image abroad the company. My research suggests that OR practitioners can, in fact, do much to promote repeat and internal linkage work.