Comments (4)
  • Add a Comment
  • Edit
  • More Actions v
  • Quarantine this Entry

1 PaulRubin commented Permalink

One small point of disagreement (third paragraph of the section on reporting): I think personal history is interesting. It connects the reader to the author, and adds some context.

2 JeanFrancoisPuget commented Permalink

Thank you Paul, point well taken!

3 IrvLustig commented Permalink

There is another part of the project that is also a challenge, which is implementing the optimized solution in the business. Once you have explained the solution, and shown the benefits, someone has to apply change management techniques to get the business to change the way they operate in order to take advantage of the optimized solution. If an optimization result shows that you can do the same production schedule with 50 less people, then the HR department has to figure out what to do with those people (are they laid off? Are they given new jobs?). Or, if the result shows some planner how to do their job a different way, that planner has to be trained to accept a new way of working. As optimizers, we often forget that implementing the optimized solution within the business may even be harder than doing all the steps you speak of in your article!

4 JeanFrancoisPuget commented Permalink

Irv,

 
Good point, thank.
 
I focused on the process that starts with an opportunity and ends with a bought in management. You're going one step further, With this last step, the relative importance of optimization technology is even smaller.
 
Don't misread me, it does not mean that optimization isn't worth much here. We have a chain, and the strength of a chain is equal to that of its weakest element. A weak tool in any of the steps weakens all the chain. Hence having strong optimization tools is still required!