PRESIDENT'S LETTER

K. Roscoe Davis,
University of Georgia

How Can We Internationalize the Institute?

On June 24-26, 1991, we held the First International Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute in Brussels, Belgium. The meeting, which drew an attendance of approximately 150 participants, was co-chaired by Alain Ruttiens (Director, Banque Indosuez Belgique, Belgium) and Linda Sprague (University of New Hampshire). On June 14-16, 1993, the Second International Meeting of the Institute was held in Seoul, Korea. That meeting was co-chaired by Soo-Il Kwak (Seoul National University) and Bob Markland (University of South Carolina). Attendees and participants at the meeting numbered more than 450 and involved individuals from more than 25 different countries. At the April 1994 Board meeting of the Institute, approval was granted for the creation of the Asia-Pacific region. Individuals/leaders such as Duk Choong Kim and Kee Young Kim (and others) were involved in developing and championing the proposal for the formation of the region. Also at the April Board meeting, approval was given for the Third International Meeting of the Institute to be held June 12-14, 1995, in Puebla, Mexico. Benito Flores (Professor, Texas A&M University) and Manuel Mancebo (Dean, School of Business Administration, The University of The Americas) were heavily involved in developing the proposal and interacting with the Board for sponsorship and support of the meeting.

With all these activities one might conclude that the Institute has internationalized. But have we really achieved this distinction? Moreover, what does it mean to internationalize? In the September/October 1990 issue of , Ron Ebert, then President of the Institute, characterized the organization in this manner:

[T]he Institute's international bent has been relatively slow in developing. . . . Consider for example the void of international participants in the Institute's governance. All of the 55 Board members, coordinators, and officers, both regional and national, are affiliated with domestic institutions. All the past presidents, at the time of their serving in the office, as well as the 67 Institute Fellows have (had) domestic affiliations. The editor and the managing editor of are domestically affiliated as are the occupants of the 28 editorial positions listed in the most recent issue of . These indicators point to the stark reality that our organizational leadership has been dominantly domestic. No surprise, perhaps, due to its origin and development, but the overall `culture' seems even more `one-sided' than many realize before looking at the numbers.

If we examine where the Institute is today, four years later, there has been limited change. With the addition of the Asia-Pacific region the total number of Board members, coordinators, and officers will increase from the 55 that existed in 1990, and the beginning of an international ``mix'' will occur. But we still have no Fellow of the Institute with an international affiliation, we have no international column in , and we have only one non-domestic individual serving in an editorial position with the Journal. We thus have a ``ways-to-go'' before we can truly say that we have internationalized.

What does it mean to internationalize and what impact will that have on the existing members of the Institute? Before we attempt to answer these questions, we first need to ask why the Institute should consider internationalizing. In the July 1991 issue of , Bob Markland provided a reasonable argument, based on his discussion of the ``global manager'' and the worldwide emphasis on education. Markland stated:

The global manager now operates in a global network web, which has a new and different logic. The threads of the global web are computers, facsimile machines, satellites, high-resolution monitors and modems. No longer is the location of a company's headquarters of great importance. It may not even be in the country where most of the shareholders or employees live. The links of the global company extend across the old boundaries of the company to include transactions between managers in different countries . . . . IBM has five different nationalities represented among its highest ranking officers, four nationalities are represented on the Unilever Board, and three nationalities are on the Board of Shell Oil. [P]eople worldwide will be increasingly well educated with the developing countries producing an increasing share of the world's college graduates . . . . Since the members of the Institute are actively involved in educating global managers and contributing to knowledge disseminated worldwide, the Institute itself must emphasize the development of global networks. Moreover, as a professional organization offering service to our members, we will be challenged to be more effective in providing these services on a worldwide basis. We also will be challenged to sharpen and improve the educational focus of our meetings and publications, as part of the worldwide emphasis on education.

Indeed, we now have the technical capabilities to communicate and interact ``real time'' with colleagues worldwide. If we are doing this within our research activities, why should we not also seek to interact on educational issues (especially if we are professional educators and if we seek to meet the needs of the global managers, as well as our members)? Assuming that we should internationalize, how does one define the term? In an article in the March-April 1994 issue of the entitled ``The Right Way to Go Global,'' David Whitwam, CEO of Whirlpool Corporation, provides an answer from the perspective of a corporation that in 1987 was a North American company, whereas today the corporation manufactures in 11 countries, including the United States, Europe, and Latin America, and markets products in more than 120 locations as diverse as Thailand, Hungary, and Argentina. According to Whitwam, the way in which a company can internationalize is to leverage its capabilities around the world so that the corporation as a whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Specifically Whitwam states:

Being an international companyþselling global, having global brands or operations in different countriesþisn't enough. In fact, most international manufacturers aren't truly global. They are what I call flag planters. They may have acquired or established businesses all over the world, but their regional or national divisions still operate as autonomous entities. In this day and age, you can't run a business that way. . . . [O]ur vision at Whirlpool is to integrate our geographical businesses wherever possible, so that our most advanced expertise in any given areaþwhether it's refrigeration technology, financial reporting systems, or distribution strategyþisn't confined to one location or division. We want to be able to take the best capabilities we have and leverage them in all our operations worldwide.

To internationalize the Institute likewise means that we must leverage our capabilities worldwide. Obviously to be an international organization we must have geographical diversity worldwide. Where possible, both regionally (throughout all countries/nations) and at the corporate/home-office level, we must take the best capabilities we have and leverage them to all our operations. This means, for example, if we have a placement system, convention management system, and/or any other activity that works well in one region or area, then we should evaluate whether the concept is applicable to all regions. To date we have not been very effective in fostering such exchanges among the regions. One of the charges I have given the Regional Activities Committee for 1994-95 is to explore ways to build better communication linkages across the regions so that we can take advantage of our capabilities. This will become even more important as we institutionalize the Asia-Pacific region (as well as other regions that will likely emerge in the near future).

But, according to Whitwam, before a corporation can develop and leverage common technologies and capabilities, it must first define the organization's goals and objectives, and it must focus on its customers and their needs. Whitwam's specific comments are:

You must create an organization whose people are adept at exchanging ideas, processes, and systems across borders, people who are absolutely free of the `not-invented here' syndrome, people who are constantly working together to identify the best global opportunities and the biggest global problems facing the organization. But, if you are going to ask people to work together in pursuing global ends across organizational and geographic boundaries, you have to give them a vision of what they are striving to achieve, as well as a unifying philosophy to guide their efforts.

That is why we have worked so hard at Whirlpool to define and communicate our vision, objectives, and market philosophy that represents our unifying focus. Our vision is to be one company worldwide. Our overarching objective is to drive this company to world-class performance in terms of delivering shareholder value. Our market philosophy is to deliver this value over the long term by focusing on the customer. Only prolonged, intensive effort to understand and respond to customer needs can lead to the breakthrough products and services that earn long term loyalty.

My vision for the Institute is for it to be one organization worldwide. Our objective should be to drive the organization to world-class performance in terms of delivering membership value. Our market philosophy should be to deliver this value over the long term by focusing on our customers (i.e., our current and future members) and by identifying their specific needs, so that products and services can be developed that earn their long-term loyalty.

How do we accomplish these goals? We can take the approach that Whitwam took with Whirlpool, a team approach. To this end I have taken two courses of action. First, I have recommended and received approval from the Board to create a Global Development Coordinator position within the Institute. The Global Development Coordinator will work under the direction of the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee to ``champion'' the international activities of the Institute, including (but not limited to) developing a long-term plan for internationalization, reporting progress on international initiatives, studying specific Board requests on international activities, responding to international requests and generating information and providing input to the Board's international strategy. The major responsibilities of the coordinator will be to:

1. Chair the Strategic Planning for International Affairs Committee and oversee the overall international activities of the Institute.
2. Work with the Strategic Planning for International Affairs Committee to develop a long-term plan/strategy for internationalizing the Institute.
3. Provide an annual plan for the international activities and report the progress of meeting the long-term plan for internationalization.
4. Coordinate with other Institute committees, program chairs and publications editors to accomplish approved international objectives of the Institute.
5. Design, develop, seek approval, implement, and evaluate a 6-year (horizon) planning system to be employed in the planning of international events.
6. Serve as an advisor to the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee.
7. Work with the Member Services Coordinator to identify and obtain information useful in understanding potential international membership characteristics. Develop an international membership plan/strategy.
8. Access members' international interests, foster communication on international opportunities, monitor and report on international activities, and propose new international initiatives.
9. Work with the Editor of to publicize the international dimension of the Institute. Consider the development of an International Column in .

The second action/step I have taken is to charge different committees for 1994-95 with specific tasks related to international activities. These specific tasks include (but are not limited to) the following:

The Strategic Planning for International Affairs Committee has been asked to:

1. Begin to develop a plan/strategy for internationalizing the Institute, including a time horizon for the plan, steps, and action items for accomplishing this.
2. Recommend a list of candidates for the position of Global Development Coordinator.
3. Continue to work on the formation of a European region of the Institute.
4. Make recommendations regarding the formation of a Latin American region.

The Fellows Committee has been requested to work on the nomination of Decision Sciences Institute Fellows from outside the United States, as well as from within. The Committee for Development of Excellence in Decision Sciences has been asked to work with the Programs and Meetings Committee and the Strategic Planning for International Affairs Committee to implement an international scholars activity. Specifically the committee will seek ways to secure the participation of international scholars at our annual meeting.

The Coordinator of Placement Services has been asked to work with the Doctoral Student Affairs Committee to explore the potential for creating a ``Clearinghouse of Academic Positions'' within the U.S. and internationally.

The Member Services Committee has been instructed to make recommendations as to how to market the Institute internationally.

The Computer Services Coordinator has been instructed to design the Membership Database such that international affiliations can easily be incorporated.

The Editor of has been asked to explore (along with the Global Development Coordinator) the potential for creation of an International Column in the newsletter.

Obviously these are not all the activities that will result in the "internationalization" of the Institute. But hopefully they will begin to move us in that direction. One item that we have particularly taken action on is to implement our international scholar program: Kee Young Kim (South Korea) has agreed to provide a keynote address at our 1994 meeting in Hawaii. An additional item, of which I would welcome your comments, relates to a change in name of the Institute. It has been strongly recommended by one individual that we should consider changing the title of our organization to Decision Sciences International (which would allow us to retain the ``DSI'' acronym). Changing our name is not necessary in order to internationalize, but it should at least be considered.

The final item I have regarding international activities is to make each of you aware that the Board is accepting recommendations/proposals for the international meeting in 1996, as well as 1997. Potential sites include Prague, Hong Kong, Madrid, Melbourne and others. If you have inputs/recommendations you should contact Mark Davis (Bentley College) who is the 1994-95 Chairperson for the Strategic Planning for International Affairs Committee.

If you have recommendations and/ or preferences on how we can further internationalize the Institute, please advise. I hope you have had a great summer!