PRESIDENT'S LETTERby Larry P. Ritzman, Boston College
GOING GLOBALMay and June have certainly been an eye opener for me, beginning with a two-week trip to St. Petersburg and Moscow with some of our MBA students. This first trip helped me to learn first-hand about the working life in a country and culture quite different from that in the United States. The focus was on globalization and privatization in Eastern Europe. Academic, business, cultural, and political dimensions were all part of the learning process. While the rest of the group went on to visit the Czech Republic and Poland, I went on a second trip to the Institute's Second International Conference in Seoul, Korea. This second trip was full of insights on international issues, and there was also the opportunity to visit Samsung Electronics and Hyundai Motor Company plants later in the week. Jong Hyon Chey, chairman of the Federation of Korean Industries, was the keynote speaker at the opening Plenary Session. He quickly set the stage for the meeting, which had a theme of "Managing in the Global Economy: A Decision Sciences Perspective." Mr. Chey emphasized the coming of globalization, which requires firms to compete in a worldwide open market without the benefit of governmental protection. To prosper, I believe that a firm must more and more treat the world as its stage. It must view its customers, suppliers, employees, joint-venture partners, facility locations, and customers in global terms. Domestic markets no longer mean domestic competitors. Foreign competition is not just with manufactured products; it is also becoming a fact of life in services as well. It is no wonder that the Porter-McKibbin Report and the Graduate Management Admission Council Report encourage business schools to do a better job with the fast-changing global marketplace and workplace, both in the classroom and in research. Decision scientists need to better understand what is the SAME regardless of location and what is DIFFERENT from one country to another. Using an example from the operations management area, it may be true universally that capital intense operations are more profitable if facility utilization is high. This prescription may be equally true in Russia or Korea. On the other hand, the level of capital intensity best for a firm making a particular product may vary from one country to the next, depending on such things as the wage rate, work ethic, and how much control the home office retains on operations overseas. The Institute is well positioned to address such international issues, regardless of whether one's primary interest is in MIS, marketing, strategy, organizational theory, or operations. Our concern for decision-making techniques and processes at both private and public organizations provides a wide umbrella. Decision making is a basic building block of management activity that cuts across national boundaries. Indeed, I believe that the international dimension will be the major source of the Institute's growth in the future. For example, over one-third of the library subscriptions to Decision Sciences are international. Even more to the point, the Seoul meeting was three times the size of the one in Brussels just two years ago. Success at SeoulThe Seoul meeting was a truly momentous occasion in the Institute's history, and was a great success by every measure. The last I heard, there were 450 attendees. By way of contrast, there were only 100 attending the that first meeting in New Orleans when the Institute was founded. A total of 259 papers were accepted for the Seoul meeting, along with five workshop sessions. This meeting was truly international in both execution and scope. Attendees and participants had a unique opportunity to discuss, debate, and advance the decision sciences from a global viewpoint. Moreover, we were able to interact with professional colleagues from 25 different countries. We are confident that our presence in the Asia-Pacific academic and business community will be enhanced because of this meeting. It is fostering a number of international professional relationships and enhancing our membership base. In addition, there is a very real possibility that a new region for the Institute will be created, which would hold annual meetings in the Asia-Pacific region and also be a full member of the Institute. Discussions on this possibility took place at the Seoul meeting, and the enthusiasm was contagious. I fully expect leaders such as Duk Choong Kim and Kee Young Kim to bring forward to the Board of Directors a proposal for establishing such an Asian regional subdivision. The OrganizersAs you know, such success usually is traced to the efforts of some key people who worked long and hard. This is particularly true for the Seoul meeting. I would like to specifically recognize: Program Co-Chairs Associate Program Co-Chairs Conference Secretaries Assistant Secretaries Proceedings Editors I would also like to thank the program track chairs for the meeting. Each of the eleven tracks was chaired by an outstanding scholar, some domestically based and some internationally based. In fact, there is an even split, to the extent that the number 11 can be split evenly. Accounting: Kwan Hee Yoo (Hanyang University) The contributions of the Program Advisory Board, chaired by Duk Choong Kim, Sogang University, were also very important. The 23 members of the Advisory Board represented ten different countries. A Continuing InitiativeThis second international meeting was part of the Institute's major long range objective of an ever-expanding global perspective. For many years we have conducted internationally oriented sessions at both our national and regional meetings. Notably, in recent years the keynote speakers at our national meetings have been prominent international business leaders and academicians. Our international thrust has received considerably impetus from our past three presidents, beginning with Ron Ebert, and then Bob Markland, and then Bill Perkins. Certainly the leadership of Bob Markland was very evident at the Seoul conference. Other key players have been Linda Sprague and Alaine Ruttiens, who made helped make the Brussels meeting a success. We have a great deal more to accomplish in making the Institute more global in nature. For example, most of our members are from the United States, and there is a void of international participation in the Institute's governance. In response, several important initiatives within the Institute are underway. Among them are the following:
Our goal is to have international meetings every other year, which, if my arithmetic is correct, makes 1995 the time for our third international meeting. I have heard several ideas for future sites, including Cairo, Madrid, Hong Kong (in 1997), New Delhi, Prague, and Vienna. The Board will make a final selection from formal proposals in November for the next international site. If you have a preference, or some thoughts on how to further internationalize the Institute, please take time to share them with me. |