Hales (1974), Rosenhead and Thunhurst (1982), as well as Wood and Kelly (1978) critiqued OR using Marxist arguments. Their critique focused at technical rather than practical interests.
Point 1: OR has a mistaken view of its own purpose and rationality. It sees itself as an objective, value- free application of science to the common good. In fact, it is neither objective nor value-free, but a part of the developing means of production, committed to improving the effective use and control of the workforce.
Point 2: Indeed, far from being neutral, OR is ideological - it suppresses open discussion and con- sideration of ends and values in favour of a technical selection of efficient means. It trades on the label 'scientific' to justify particular, instrumental, values.
Point 3: Where differing interests and values are recognized, as in Ackoff's work", it is assumed that an agreeable reconciliation can always be reached. This is denied by critics'" who argue that there are genuine, structural conflicts which cannot be resolved consensually, but only through the exercise of power. Apparent agreement will, in reality, maintain the status quo.
(Source: Minger, 1992)
References
- Hales, M. (1974) Management science and the 'second industrial revolution'. Rad. Sci. 1, 5-28.
- Mingers, J. (1992). Recent developments in critical management science. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 43(1), 1-10.
- Rosenhead, J. and C. Thunhurst, C., (1982). A materialist analysis of operational research. J. Opl Res. Soc. 33, 111-122.
- Wood S and Kelly J. (1978) Towards a critical management science. J. Mgt Studies 15, 1-24.