TRANSCRIPCIÓN DE ENTREVISTA AL SR ALCALDE DE PEÑALOLÉN

In section 8.1, above, I explained that OR practitioners in this study seemed primarily concerned with developing and maintaining relationships with clients in order to ensure access to the arenas in which their problem-handling activities take place. I criticised this attitude on the basis that these consultants had previously expressed collaborative work as an ideal, but paid little attention to the practical business of working through problems with clients. However, it is clear that these ORers are concerned with living out on-going problem-helping relationships with the clients, and regard relationships, of various kinds, as fundamental to the nature of their consultancy work. In the following sections, I will consider how OR work can be described in terms of these relationships.

Traditionally, OR has been described in terms of what takes place during a single project. Projects are, as Pidd and Woolley (1981) put it,

"the discrete units in which the OR product is sold to the rest of the organisation. Projects are used by various parties to control the progress of the research".

Bryant (1988) describes projects as "an administrative convenience" that is "eminently 'sensible'". The use of 'the project' in this way is not in question. However, there is evidence to suggest that the process by which OR work is carried out can usefully be described in terms of relationships

which transcend individual projects. Here, a project is "a stage, possibly an important one, in an unfolding relationship between the parties concerned" (Bryant, 1988).

All of the ORers in this study described how projects are imbedded in ongoing relationships, and how social networks are the source of new work:

"The people who use OR tend to be the people who have

"We tend to work in certain areas where we've built up a relationship";

"Work comes in from individuals who know us".

Most simply, a project may proceed from a previous one with the same problem owner. [See Conway (1977) for an explanation of the psychological processes by which a client develops 'new' problems.] Some of this work is so closely related to previous work that it is referred to as 'maintenance' or 'updating' . Indeed, it is quite common for such work to be carried out without officially beginning a new "project".

Alternatively, relationships may yield further projects in

different problem areas : One OR practitioner in this study explained that

"follow-on work is usually obvious . . you follow on because you've got a set of contacts . . talking over their problems over lunch . . and [a client] says ' I have now got such-and-such a problem, have you got any thoughts about it?"

Another practitioner explained that often "they'll ring you up about one thing, and then mention something else". A third practitioner explained that his projects "blend seamlessly" into one another. Eden (1989) describes the deliberate way in which the "SODA" (Strategic Options Development and Analysis) methodology accounts for the "follow-on" phenomenon: here, the development of a "strategic map" yields "clusters" which often become the subject of further work, whose attraction "lies in the clear understanding that it will be carried out within the context of broader qualitative issues". In view of the fact that OR work involves a more complex social network than merely a single client and consultant, it should not be surprising that an OR consultant's relationship with various social actors can spawn projects. As the ORers in this study described the sources of project work, and the nature of their consulting profession, they invariably found it easier to refer to work done 'in a particular area', rather than necessarily for a particular client. This may mean a

geographical area, a functional department, or some other subset or suberin within the client organisation.

I noted that a "problem-owner" may often be a small coalition in or around a particular department; such a coalition may qualify as an 'area' in this sense. One OR worker said that most OR projects are "variations on a theme", meaning that most projects have some similarities or connections to previous projects. These projects may have the same sponsor, or may be sponsored by someone within a function which has sponsored OR work before. The locus of problem-ownership may have shifted within the department. This ORer referred to "fashions of working in a particular area" for about one or two years.

Another ORer explained that in one area of his work, a regular meeting (involving clients and consultants) is held to oversee OR work which is being carried out as several different projects. These interactions serve to control and facilitate progress that is being made within a consulting relationship, rather than merely within a single project. On other occasions, projects develop from involvement with people in a working party. Again, the locus of concern may be have changed since the earlier project.

A third OR practitioner in this study referred to "streams of work" involving people (clients) whose interest in OR work transcends individual projects. Of these people, he said, "I would have no compunction about ringing up and saying ' Hi ! Remember me?'". Another ORer explained that connections between projects may exist because data, information, or a computer model is common to two or more projects. However, this ORer is involved in more computer-related 'maintenance' work than the others in the study.

In three of the OR practices that are being considered in this research, there is some form of organisational or

administrative connection between OR consultants and clients (or groups of clients) which undergirds a series of projects.

This connection is perhaps most obvious at British Coal where OR work has been administered as "fields of work" as well as projects (Tomlinson, 1971). This requires a conscious focus on "reaching agreement with management on the future development of the work" (Tomlinson). Mitchell's ideal for OR is expressed as a "continuing research programme" (Mitchell, 1980).

Some projects arise because a problem owner has learnt, via social networks ("the grapevine") within the client organisation, that OR practitioners may be able to offer some help. This is a more indirect source of project work than that described above, but it is still based on relationships. ORers in this study described projects which are similar to previous ones, in terms of the nature of the problem, but which are carried out on behalf of clients who have a 'parallel' role to that of the original problem owner. Projects may arise because a problem owner is a previous member of an OR group, and is therefore aware of the support that might be available. Projects may be referred to ORers by other consulting groups who feel that it is more appropriate for a problem to be tackled by ORers.

More remote still is the project source described by a local government OR worker whereby elected members raise an issue in a committee meeting which is subsequently taken up by the OR group because someone at the meeting has heard of them. Schein (1969) explains that most of his ('external') consultancy projects arise because someone has heard him give a talk somewhere, or read one of his books. Two ORers in this study said that, on rare occasions, projects had arisen as a result of their circulation of a magazine, report or leaflet describing 'successful' OR work that they had done previously. The role of OR practitioners themselves in generating projects should not be underestimated. Although ORers in this study claim that clients' ownership of problems is the basis of their work, it is clear that they feel that, in many cases, their relationships with clients gives them the opportunity and the

right to suggest problems. As one ORer put it :

"If we perceive a problem somewhere, maybe an unstated one, or one that somebody isn't sure that they've got, we can go in there and spend a bit of time showing this person that things are not as wonderful as they might be".

This is consistent with the nature of problems as described in chapter 5 in so far as they are thought to have an observable, objective, core, and in so far as they are socially

'negotiated' between a number of social actors, including ORers, according to their power within that part of the organisation.

In the experience of the ORer quoted above, it is typical for projects to follow on from one another, and to be initiated by the OR group. Senior OR workers, who may be called "section leader" or "project leader" often have the task of "getting work" as an explicit part of their job descriptions. OR managers are also often very involved in marketing their 'service'. One OR worker in this study told a story about a former OR manager who was

"standing at the coffee machine when a man came out of an office that he'd never seen before [sic]. The OR manager introduced himself - 'I'm the OR manager, can we have a chat?' - and a project came out of that!"

The present OR manager in that organisation still "goes out like a rag'n'bone man, sometimes".

Sections 8.1.3 and 8.2 include references to the ways in which