1 ON OPERATIONS RESEARCH, ETHICS AND VALUE CONFLICTS Fred Wenstøp and Haavard Koppang Norwegian School of Management BI 0442 Oslo fred.wenstop@bi.no Abstract: The paper addresses the question of how Operations Research ought to handle decision problems that involve value conflicts. First, we note that early OR was essentially value free with a mechanistic systems perspective, although some voiced concern that an analyst should not detach herself from the consequences of her work. Then we propose a value conflict scale, which we use to assess the conflict levels in a small sample of OR applications. We then turn to value identification. In practise, organizational value statements include many kinds of values, and we discuss how values can be sorted out according to ethical categories, which helps in identifying consequentialistic decision criteria. The next question is how values can be enacted in a decision process. We review findings in neuroscience, which indicate that intra- personal decision-making takes place in a field of tension between deliberation and affect, the implication being that low level conflicts leave decision-makers too coldly rational and therefore want infusion of emotion, while emotions in high-level conflicts need to be tempered. Emotions can be tempered through two strategies: focus on consequences rather than virtues and rules, and discourse ethics, which are the subjects of the two last parts. We conclude by proposing five ethical rules for OR analysis of value conflicts. An analyst should: Not regard herself as being detached from the decision that are made; be conscious that good decision-making requires temperate emotions that balance affect and deliberation; promote focus on consequences; promote the view that stakeholders have intrinsic value, they should not be treated instrumentally; encourage fair processes to identify stakeholder values. Keywords: Ethics, value conflict, emotion, decision-making, discourse 1. Introduction How can Operations Research (OR) handle ethical questions? Or more precisely: what role can OR play in the analysis of decision problems that involve conflicts of value, and can OR contribute to a more ethical approach to such problems? These are the general questions we want to address, and we will approach them through a somewhat winding pathway that touches on the nature of OR as well as essential issues in ethics. We hope this may contribute to the development of an ethical paradigm for OR approaches to value conflicts. Two current, but separate developments prompt our discussion: i) value statements on the web[1], and ii) the emerging field of neuroeconomics[2]. For a start, let us note that value is a central concept in OR; one might indeed argue that it is the central concept since OR is dedicated to maximising value in one form or other – be it one- dimensional maximisation or multi-dimensional value trade-off. Specific ethical issues in OR are therefore to identify what is of value, and to help enact the values in decision-making processes. Our basic tenet is that value statements and neuroeconomics are important pieces in a picture of an OR paradigm that incorporates ethics. brought to you by CORE View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk provided by NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives