From evan at snarc.net Fri Jul 10 17:41:39 2009 From: evan at snarc.net (Evan Koblentz) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:41:39 -0400 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Speakers needed: Vintage Computer Festival East 6.0 Message-ID: <4A57B593.2050403@snarc.net> As many of you know, I produce an annual hobbyist convention, the Vintage Computer Festival East. This year's event is Sept. 12-13 at the InfoAge Science Center, located in Wall, New Jersey. VCF has two parts: morning lectures, and afternoon exhibits. The afternoon part is like an antique car show, the difference being that everything is running! But we're in need of some guest speakers. First, we need a keynote speaker. Some of our past years' speakers were David Ahl (of Creative Computing magazine), Steve Lukasik (of the ARPANET), Chuck Peddle (MOS 6502), and Bill Mauchly (son of John.) We also need some "regular" speakers -- people who have expertise in a particular history topic, but may not have actually been there when history was made. Remember though, this is a hobbyist convention, not an academic conference. All are welcome, but anyone who shows up in formal attire will be (ahem) "shot" on site. :) Anyone interested should email me privately. Thank you. - Evan (evan at snarc.net) From edenm at indiana.edu Fri Jul 17 11:11:07 2009 From: edenm at indiana.edu (Medina, Eden) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:11:07 -0400 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science Message-ID: <1637854CF482594C98D4ADA40F0FCC7A0EA47BF8C6@iu-mssg-mbx01.ads.iu.edu> Dear SIGCIS colleagues: I am hoping that your collective wisdom might help me check out a claim. The British cybernetician Stafford Beer claims that the Ferranti Pegasus 1 machine he bought in 1956 was the only computer at that time dedicated entirely to applications in management science. Do you know of any other examples of computers fully dedicated to management science applications during this time period? Many thanks, -- Eden Medina Assistant Professor of Informatics School of Informatics and Computing Indiana University edenm at indiana.edu www.informatics.indiana.edu/edenm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090717/03867274/attachment.htm From G.Alberts at uva.nl Fri Jul 17 12:25:06 2009 From: G.Alberts at uva.nl (Alberts, G.) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:25:06 +0200 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science References: <1637854CF482594C98D4ADA40F0FCC7A0EA47BF8C6@iu-mssg-mbx01.ads.iu.edu> Message-ID: <153B413D3A9E054784CC218A3E719A51A66051@kwek.ic.uva.nl> Dear Eden, What in heaven would be the purport of such claim? Computers were not only expensive, they involved major investments, certainly machines the size of Pegasus. Hence, the legitimation for making such investment was seldomly based on the single use for one field of application, or rather for one department in an enterprise or university. Historians usually can trace the considerations leading to the actual purchase in the company archives. Also one may be able to guess where (in which subdepartment) the first initiative to such deep investment in modernizing business originated. How the machine was in fact used, once installed, is much harder to reconstruct. Did the administrative support staff actually get to use the computer or were they pushed out by the scientific computers from the laboratory departments. Were management scientists favored before the statisticians and the down to earth daily bookkeeping? In the incidental case where a logbook is preserved, or where a very early computing center kept statistics, one may be able to tell something about who was using the machine. So, what could be the meaning of "dedicated to"? Was that "dedicated" on the level of legitimation of the purchase, or was it "dedicated" in terms of seconds and minutes of use of the system? Let alone that we could judge the claim of "entirely" or even "first". Rather, to us historians being aware of inclusion and exclusion mechanisms around the use of computers, simply power struggles if you will, the claim of "dedicated entirely" made in a first person account has a clear intent. Other users, other interested parties, were succesfully made invisible, at least in the account of the "management science" department. Probably bookkkeeping use didnot count, or was counted under management science in the first place, etcetera. Rather than investigating the claim, my suggestion would be to investigate the fact that such claim was made, when and by whom. Best, Gerard Alberts ________________________________ From: members-bounces at sigcis.org on behalf of Medina, Eden Sent: Fri 17-7-2009 17:11 To: members at sigcis.org Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science Dear SIGCIS colleagues: I am hoping that your collective wisdom might help me check out a claim. The British cybernetician Stafford Beer claims that the Ferranti Pegasus 1 machine he bought in 1956 was the only computer at that time dedicated entirely to applications in management science. Do you know of any other examples of computers fully dedicated to management science applications during this time period? Many thanks, -- Eden Medina Assistant Professor of Informatics School of Informatics and Computing Indiana University edenm at indiana.edu www.informatics.indiana.edu/edenm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090717/3b0f1869/attachment.htm From thaigh at computer.org Fri Jul 17 12:54:10 2009 From: thaigh at computer.org (Thomas Haigh) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:54:10 -0500 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science In-Reply-To: <153B413D3A9E054784CC218A3E719A51A66051@kwek.ic.uva.nl> References: <1637854CF482594C98D4ADA40F0FCC7A0EA47BF8C6@iu-mssg-mbx01.ads.iu.edu> <153B413D3A9E054784CC218A3E719A51A66051@kwek.ic.uva.nl> Message-ID: <005f01ca06ff$3626f3b0$a274db10$@org> That's a good point from Gerard (and from Burt, off the list) In my view "management science" is close to meaningless in this context. Or at least needs to be historicized. It's clearly an aspirational term and is new in the post WWII era, though you'll also notice that it's merely an inversion of "scientific management" and so has no inherent difference. He's probably using it to distinguish management research from the work of actual managers and administrators (on one hand) and actual scientists and engineers (on the other). So was it the first? Quite possibly, but it's an odd claim as it relies on what a computer was NOT used for rather than what it was used for. The rise of operations research was inseparable from the computer, and OR would be included in any plausible definition of "management science." Likewise the LEO team were very advanced in their business applications, and did OR type work on their machine earlier. But they also ran payroll, etc which Beer would probably stigmatize as an administrative chore beneath the dignity of management science. So you need to reformulate the claim to have something that can be given a definite answer. Maybe what Beer is really saying is "I headed the first management research group well supported enough to order its own computer without having to share it with people doing production work." Though as Gerard says we'd need log books to know if they successfully defended it against geologists and engineers once it arrived. Tom From: members-bounces at sigcis.org [mailto:members-bounces at sigcis.org] On Behalf Of Alberts, G. Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 11:25 AM To: Medina, Eden; members at sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science Dear Eden, What in heaven would be the purport of such claim? Computers were not only expensive, they involved major investments, certainly machines the size of Pegasus. Hence, the legitimation for making such investment was seldomly based on the single use for one field of application, or rather for one department in an enterprise or university. Historians usually can trace the considerations leading to the actual purchase in the company archives. Also one may be able to guess where (in which subdepartment) the first initiative to such deep investment in modernizing business originated. How the machine was in fact used, once installed, is much harder to reconstruct. Did the administrative support staff actually get to use the computer or were they pushed out by the scientific computers from the laboratory departments. Were management scientists favored before the statisticians and the down to earth daily bookkeeping? In the incidental case where a logbook is preserved, or where a very early computing center kept statistics, one may be able to tell something about who was using the machine. So, what could be the meaning of "dedicated to"? Was that "dedicated" on the level of legitimation of the purchase, or was it "dedicated" in terms of seconds and minutes of use of the system? Let alone that we could judge the claim of "entirely" or even "first". Rather, to us historians being aware of inclusion and exclusion mechanisms around the use of computers, simply power struggles if you will, the claim of "dedicated entirely" made in a first person account has a clear intent. Other users, other interested parties, were succesfully made invisible, at least in the account of the "management science" department. Probably bookkkeeping use didnot count, or was counted under management science in the first place, etcetera. Rather than investigating the claim, my suggestion would be to investigate the fact that such claim was made, when and by whom. Best, Gerard Alberts _____ From: members-bounces at sigcis.org on behalf of Medina, Eden Sent: Fri 17-7-2009 17:11 To: members at sigcis.org Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science Dear SIGCIS colleagues: I am hoping that your collective wisdom might help me check out a claim. The British cybernetician Stafford Beer claims that the Ferranti Pegasus 1 machine he bought in 1956 was the only computer at that time dedicated entirely to applications in management science. Do you know of any other examples of computers fully dedicated to management science applications during this time period? Many thanks, -- Eden Medina Assistant Professor of Informatics School of Informatics and Computing Indiana University edenm at indiana.edu www.informatics.indiana.edu/edenm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090717/c5b13b42/attachment.htm From joelwest at ieee.org Fri Jul 17 13:17:31 2009 From: joelwest at ieee.org (Joel West) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:17:31 -0700 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science Message-ID: Dear Eden, I share many of Gerard's concerns about the unmeasurability of such claims and even how dubious making them might be. (I also agree with Tom that "management science" is too vague -- does he possibly mean operations research?) However, as a positivist (are there any others on this list?) I am inclined to take the claim at face value and see what they might mean. So while "first" is likely unprovable, I do think it would be interesting to say "most computers were bought to do payroll or missile trajectories and this one was bought to do management science." I suspect it would be relatively easy to document the "typical" motivation or application for computers in the era, even if the actual use (post hoc) is not easily measured. (Ideally, you'd want a list of who had login accounts, and if necessary assume each used their account proportionately). But in some ways, the inputs question is less interesting than the outputs question. If Beer was the first boy in the invisible college of his discipline to have a new toy, what did he do with it? Is there any evidence that this strategic foresight (or dumb luck) enabled him to advance his field in ways that his less-endowed rivals could not? I would find it terribly interesting if Beer has the best computing power but the major advances in numerical approaches to management science were being made elsewhere. IIRC, the field's major scientific prize (originally from ORSA, now INFORMS) is named after a mathematician who made his most important contributions before these sorts of computers existed. Joel On 6:25 PM +0200 7/17/09, Alberts, G. hath said: >What in heaven would be the purport of such claim? Computers were not only expensive, they involved major investments, certainly machines the size of Pegasus. Hence, the legitimation for making such investment was seldomly based on the single use for one field of application, or rather for one department in an enterprise or university. Historians usually can trace the considerations leading to the actual purchase in the company archives. Also one may be able to guess where (in which subdepartment) the first initiative to such deep investment in modernizing business originated. >How the machine was in fact used, once installed, is much harder to reconstruct. Did the administrative support staff actually get to use the computer or were they pushed out by the scientific computers from the laboratory departments. Were management scientists favored before the statisticians and the down to earth daily bookkeeping? In the incidental case where a logbook is preserved, or where a very early computing center kept statistics, one may be able to tell something about who was using the machine. >So, what could be the meaning of "dedicated to"? Was that "dedicated" on the level of legitimation of the purchase, or was it "dedicated" in terms of seconds and minutes of use of the system? Let alone that we could judge the claim of "entirely" or even "first". > >Rather, to us historians being aware of inclusion and exclusion mechanisms around the use of computers, simply power struggles if you will, the claim of "dedicated entirely" made in a first person account has a clear intent. Other users, other interested parties, were succesfully made invisible, at least in the account of the "management science" department. Probably bookkkeeping use didnot count, or was counted under management science in the first place, etcetera. > >Rather than investigating the claim, my suggestion would be to investigate the fact that such claim was made, when and by whom. On 11:11 AM -0400 7/17/09, Medina, Eden wrote: >I am hoping that your collective wisdom might help me check out a claim. The British cybernetician Stafford Beer claims that the Ferranti Pegasus 1 machine he bought in 1956 was the only computer at that time dedicated entirely to applications in management science. Do you know of any other examples of computers fully dedicated to management science applications during this time period? -- Joel West, Ph.D. http://www.JoelWest.org/ Professor, Innovation & Entrepreneurship College of Business, San Jose State University BT 555, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192-0070 From edenm at indiana.edu Fri Jul 17 13:37:44 2009 From: edenm at indiana.edu (Medina, Eden) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:37:44 -0400 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1637854CF482594C98D4ADA40F0FCC7A0EA47BF8CF@iu-mssg-mbx01.ads.iu.edu> I knew this was the right group to ask. I too agree with the comments being made and thank everyone for their thoughts on how best to address the claim. Additional responses can be sent to me off list unless their is extensive interest in this topic. To bring some closure to the topic I may have found a very easy way to address Beer's statement. It seems that the Pegasus machine he referred to was split between United Steel and Sheffield University, thus throwing into doubt claims that it was entirely dedicated to management science. Again, thanks for the help. Eden ________________________________________ From: Joel West [joelwest at ieee.org] Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 1:17 PM To: Medina, Eden; members at sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science Dear Eden, I share many of Gerard's concerns about the unmeasurability of such claims and even how dubious making them might be. (I also agree with Tom that "management science" is too vague -- does he possibly mean operations research?) However, as a positivist (are there any others on this list?) I am inclined to take the claim at face value and see what they might mean. So while "first" is likely unprovable, I do think it would be interesting to say "most computers were bought to do payroll or missile trajectories and this one was bought to do management science." I suspect it would be relatively easy to document the "typical" motivation or application for computers in the era, even if the actual use (post hoc) is not easily measured. (Ideally, you'd want a list of who had login accounts, and if necessary assume each used their account proportionately). But in some ways, the inputs question is less interesting than the outputs question. If Beer was the first boy in the invisible college of his discipline to have a new toy, what did he do with it? Is there any evidence that this strategic foresight (or dumb luck) enabled him to advance his field in ways that his less-endowed rivals could not? I would find it terribly interesting if Beer has the best computing power but the major advances in numerical approaches to management science were being made elsewhere. IIRC, the field's major scientific prize (originally from ORSA, now INFORMS) is named after a mathematician who made his most important contributions before these sorts of computers existed. Joel On 6:25 PM +0200 7/17/09, Alberts, G. hath said: >What in heaven would be the purport of such claim? Computers were not only expensive, they involved major investments, certainly machines the size of Pegasus. Hence, the legitimation for making such investment was seldomly based on the single use for one field of application, or rather for one department in an enterprise or university. Historians usually can trace the considerations leading to the actual purchase in the company archives. Also one may be able to guess where (in which subdepartment) the first initiative to such deep investment in modernizing business originated. >How the machine was in fact used, once installed, is much harder to reconstruct. Did the administrative support staff actually get to use the computer or were they pushed out by the scientific computers from the laboratory departments. Were management scientists favored before the statisticians and the down to earth daily bookkeeping? In the incidental case where a logbook is preserved, or where a very early computing center kept statistics, one may be able to tell something about who was using the machine. >So, what could be the meaning of "dedicated to"? Was that "dedicated" on the level of legitimation of the purchase, or was it "dedicated" in terms of seconds and minutes of use of the system? Let alone that we could judge the claim of "entirely" or even "first". > >Rather, to us historians being aware of inclusion and exclusion mechanisms around the use of computers, simply power struggles if you will, the claim of "dedicated entirely" made in a first person account has a clear intent. Other users, other interested parties, were succesfully made invisible, at least in the account of the "management science" department. Probably bookkkeeping use didnot count, or was counted under management science in the first place, etcetera. > >Rather than investigating the claim, my suggestion would be to investigate the fact that such claim was made, when and by whom. On 11:11 AM -0400 7/17/09, Medina, Eden wrote: >I am hoping that your collective wisdom might help me check out a claim. The British cybernetician Stafford Beer claims that the Ferranti Pegasus 1 machine he bought in 1956 was the only computer at that time dedicated entirely to applications in management science. Do you know of any other examples of computers fully dedicated to management science applications during this time period? -- Joel West, Ph.D. http://www.JoelWest.org/ Professor, Innovation & Entrepreneurship College of Business, San Jose State University BT 555, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192-0070 From Joel.West at sjsu.edu Fri Jul 17 12:57:49 2009 From: Joel.West at sjsu.edu (Joel West) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:57:49 -0700 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science In-Reply-To: <153B413D3A9E054784CC218A3E719A51A66051@kwek.ic.uva.nl> References: <1637854CF482594C98D4ADA40F0FCC7A0EA47BF8C6@iu-mssg-mbx01.ads.iu.edu> <153B413D3A9E054784CC218A3E719A51A66051@kwek.ic.uva.nl> Message-ID: Dear Eden, I share many of Gerard's concerns about the unmeasurability of such claims and even how dubious making them might be. However, as a positivist (are there any others on this list?) I am inclined to take the claim at face value and see what they might mean. So while "first" is likely unprovable, I do think it would be interesting to say "most computers were bought to do payroll or missile trajectories and this one was bought to do management science." I suspect it would be relatively easy to document the "typical" motivation or application for computers in the era, even if the actual use (post hoc) is not easily measured. (Ideally, you'd want a list of who had login accounts, and if necessary assume each used their account proportionately). But in some ways, the inputs question is less interesting than the outputs question. If Beer was the first boy in the invisible college of his discipline to have a new toy, what did he do with it? Is there any evidence that this strategic foresight (or dumb luck) enabled him to advance his field in ways that his less-endowed rivals could not? I would find it terribly interesting if Beer has the best computing power but the major advances in numerical approaches to management science were being made elsewhere. IIRC, the field's major scientific prize (originally from ORSA, now INFORMS) is named after a mathematician who made his most important contributions before these sorts of computers existed. Joel On 6:25 PM +0200 7/17/09, Alberts, G. hath said: >What in heaven would be the purport of such claim? Computers were not only expensive, they involved major investments, certainly machines the size of Pegasus. Hence, the legitimation for making such investment was seldomly based on the single use for one field of application, or rather for one department in an enterprise or university. Historians usually can trace the considerations leading to the actual purchase in the company archives. Also one may be able to guess where (in which subdepartment) the first initiative to such deep investment in modernizing business originated. >How the machine was in fact used, once installed, is much harder to reconstruct. Did the administrative support staff actually get to use the computer or were they pushed out by the scientific computers from the laboratory departments. Were management scientists favored before the statisticians and the down to earth daily bookkeeping? In the incidental case where a logbook is preserved, or where a very early computing center kept statistics, one may be able to tell something about who was using the machine. >So, what could be the meaning of "dedicated to"? Was that "dedicated" on the level of legitimation of the purchase, or was it "dedicated" in terms of seconds and minutes of use of the system? Let alone that we could judge the claim of "entirely" or even "first". > >Rather, to us historians being aware of inclusion and exclusion mechanisms around the use of computers, simply power struggles if you will, the claim of "dedicated entirely" made in a first person account has a clear intent. Other users, other interested parties, were succesfully made invisible, at least in the account of the "management science" department. Probably bookkkeeping use didnot count, or was counted under management science in the first place, etcetera. > >Rather than investigating the claim, my suggestion would be to investigate the fact that such claim was made, when and by whom. On 11:11 AM -0400 7/17/09, Medina, Eden wrote: >I am hoping that your collective wisdom might help me check out a claim. The British cybernetician Stafford Beer claims that the Ferranti Pegasus 1 machine he bought in 1956 was the only computer at that time dedicated entirely to applications in management science. Do you know of any other examples of computers fully dedicated to management science applications during this time period? From evan at snarc.net Fri Jul 17 21:24:45 2009 From: evan at snarc.net (Evan Koblentz) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:24:45 -0400 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Anyone in Georgia? Message-ID: <4A61245D.4080808@snarc.net> This week I heard from Ryan Gill, who's an IT worker in Atlanta. Says he was given some copies of ENIAC documents, various ENIAC-era photographs, and some Hollerith cards. He's looking to donate these materials to a university in his area. Ryan's email is rmgill at mindspring.com. From sandramols at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jul 20 05:31:52 2009 From: sandramols at yahoo.co.uk (Sandra Mols) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:31:52 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science In-Reply-To: <1637854CF482594C98D4ADA40F0FCC7A0EA47BF8CF@iu-mssg-mbx01.ads.iu.edu> References: <1637854CF482594C98D4ADA40F0FCC7A0EA47BF8CF@iu-mssg-mbx01.ads.iu.edu> Message-ID: <650699.63659.qm@web25304.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Interesting debate. I agree with the?comments as regards to?a necessary caution when it comes to evaluate dedication and use of computers. As regards to the Pegasus claim at the origin of this discussion, two points attract my mind in particular. One is about the?extent to which?this claim - independently of its veracity - relate to Ferranti's wishes to steal pieces of the managament computing ?market out of LEO's hands (launched in 1951). In my research, the Pegasus was mostly used towards scientific uses and - as far as?this claim gets me to think ?- it may well be that Ferranti tried to push it forward as an 'administrative' machine - due to its comaprative smaller size - to expand its market outreach towards management 'bureau' issues which had been recently targeted by LEO. The other issue - expanding on Tom Haigh - is about the term of 'management science': what does it mean in 1956?when one takes into account that?management was a new fashionable thing in the post-WWII context, being born out of OR WWII practices, with also OR remaining a very unfixed, changing?concept (more or less quantified) well until the 1960s? Hope this helps, Sandra ________________________________ From: "Medina, Eden" To: "members at sigcis.org" Sent: Friday, 17 July, 2009 19:37:44 Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science I knew this was the right group to ask.? I too agree with the comments being made and thank everyone for their thoughts on how best to address the claim.? Additional responses can be sent to me off list unless their is extensive interest in this topic.? To bring some closure to the topic I may have found a very easy way to address Beer's statement.? It seems that the Pegasus machine he referred to was split between United Steel and Sheffield University, thus throwing into doubt claims that it was entirely dedicated to management science. Again, thanks for the help. Eden ________________________________________ From: Joel West [joelwest at ieee.org] Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 1:17 PM To: Medina, Eden; members at sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science Dear Eden, I share many of Gerard's concerns about the unmeasurability of such claims and even how dubious making them might be. (I also agree with Tom that "management science" is too vague -- does he possibly mean operations research?) However, as a positivist (are there any others on this list?) I am inclined to take the claim at face value and see what they might mean. So while "first" is likely unprovable, I do think it would be interesting to say "most computers were bought to do payroll or missile trajectories and this one was bought to do management science." I suspect it would be relatively easy to document the "typical" motivation or application for computers in the era, even if the actual use (post hoc) is not easily measured. (Ideally, you'd want a list of who had login accounts, and if necessary assume each used their account proportionately). But in some ways, the inputs question is less interesting than the outputs question. If Beer was the first boy in the invisible college of his discipline to have a new toy, what did he do with it? Is there any evidence that this strategic foresight (or dumb luck) enabled him to advance his field in ways that his less-endowed rivals could not? I would find it terribly interesting if Beer has the best computing power but the major advances in numerical approaches to management science were being made elsewhere. IIRC, the field's major scientific prize (originally from ORSA, now INFORMS) is named after a mathematician who made his most important contributions before these sorts of computers existed. Joel On 6:25 PM +0200 7/17/09, Alberts, G. hath said: >What in heaven would be the purport of such claim? Computers were not only expensive, they involved major investments, certainly machines the size of Pegasus. Hence, the legitimation for making such investment was seldomly based on the single use for one field of application, or rather for one department in an enterprise or university. Historians usually can trace the considerations leading to the actual purchase in the company archives. Also one may be able to guess where (in which subdepartment) the first initiative to such deep investment in modernizing business originated. >How the machine was in fact used, once installed, is much harder to reconstruct. Did the administrative support staff actually get to use the computer or were they pushed out by the scientific computers from the laboratory departments. Were management scientists favored before the statisticians and the down to earth daily bookkeeping? In the incidental case where a logbook is preserved, or where a very early computing center kept statistics, one may be able to tell something about who was using the machine. >So, what could be the meaning of "dedicated to"? Was that "dedicated" on the level of legitimation of the purchase, or was it "dedicated" in terms of seconds and minutes of use of the system? Let alone that we could judge the claim of "entirely" or even "first".. > >Rather, to us historians being aware of inclusion and exclusion mechanisms around the use of computers, simply power struggles if you will, the claim of "dedicated entirely" made in a first person account has a clear intent. Other users, other interested parties, were succesfully made invisible, at least in the account of the "management science" department. Probably bookkkeeping use didnot count, or was counted under management science in the first place, etcetera. > >Rather than investigating the claim, my suggestion would be to investigate the fact that such claim was made, when and by whom. On 11:11 AM -0400 7/17/09, Medina, Eden wrote: >I am hoping that your collective wisdom might help me check out a claim.? The British cybernetician Stafford Beer claims that the Ferranti Pegasus 1 machine he bought in 1956 was the only computer at that time dedicated entirely to applications in management science.? Do you know of any other examples of computers fully dedicated to management science applications during this time period? -- Joel West, Ph.D.? ? ? ? ? http://www..JoelWest.org/ Professor, Innovation & Entrepreneurship College of Business, San Jose State University BT 555, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192-0070 _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090720/4ca7015b/attachment.htm From neil.barton at uclmail.net Mon Jul 20 10:15:40 2009 From: neil.barton at uclmail.net (Roger Neil Barton) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:15:40 +0100 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science References: <1637854CF482594C98D4ADA40F0FCC7A0EA47BF8CF@iu-mssg-mbx01.ads.iu.edu> <650699.63659.qm@web25304.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <28AD85E44C34449E983E4F5125C464B5@GreyBox> I too have found this a very interesting discussion. I think there's a good paper in this somewhere. Whilst without Sandra or Tom's fundamental research background I did train in the 60s, a decade later than the subject of the question and therefore possibly irrelevant. I have looked back at dusty old text books for this response. I remember in about 1970 when my employer changed from IBM to Univac, both bureau machines. I was responsible for all the commercial applications, which were memory hungry database oriented, while we also used the computer for product design (process plant for petrochemicals such as spheres), which were computation oriented. Even though the compromises were horrendous neither of us separately could justify the expense but combined together we could. As far as I am aware everyone then was in the same position. In the early 70s I was a Leo user which, as Sandra stated below, was very much oriented toward the business user. I worked for the mainframe division of ICL in the 1970s and most sales were oriented toward computation users as it sounds the Pegasus was. This was also true for Ferranti Computers division which survived the ICL merger. Ian Martin gave a very interesting paper at BSHS09 on Martins Bank and Pegasus around about 1960 which sounded much more chaotic than most of my experiences. With regard to "Management Science" in the question I regarded it with the same suspicion as everyone else. None of my subjects were called OR. One of my final papers was called 'Management Information and Quantative Techniques' and another 'Management Principles and Practice'. The blurb on one of my text books 'Mathematics in Management' describes its purpose "to provide a sound basis of knowledge about the methods of OR now being applied in public industries and services". We knew that's what we were studying but no one called it that. Apart from Peter Drucker all my text books were British, which I have to say I now find amazing. Searching the OED for Management Science it says "1954 Amer. Econ. Rev. 44 1030 A new national society, the Institute of Management Sciences, has been established with the objective of unifying scientific knowledge that contributes to the understanding and practice of management. The Institute will publish a journal, *Management Science. 1955 H. KOONTZ & C. O'DONNELL Princ. Managem. I. i. 11 Extension of the frontiers of management science by increasing the efficiency of management, would unquestionably have revolutionary impact on the cultural level of our society. " For Computer Science it reads "1956 N.Y. Times 28 Oct. III. 21 (advt.) Unparalleled opportunities to associate with the prominent pioneers of computer science, at outstanding salaries. Electronic engineers (circuit designers and magnetics engineers), logical designers, [etc.]." While being the same time frame as the Pegasus usage in Sheffield it should be noted that these quotations are all american. I've no idea when the terms might have entered common usage in Britain. Regarding the possible use of the Pegasus by Sheffield University it seems inconceivable that they would have had a department studying management science. Even though Wharton was founded in 1881 there was no equivalent here. I considered the very idea of me studying management, business, or computer science in a British university pretty ridiculous. (I went to Glasgow College of Commerce, now Caledonian Business School.) Looking through my old books I've come across one that must belong to my wife. It was first published by the Org for European Economic Cooperation in 1952 and describes a 'Technical Assistance Mission' to the US. "American universities run schools of business administration" of which there are 166. Presumably worth noting as there were none here. None of my old books refer to computer science but one of them actually has a photograph of a Pegasus! Generally they use the term EDP. Tom may know when computer science was first taught in a British university. The majority of ICL sales in the 70s were still to universities. Eden states that the Pegasus was jointly used by Sheffield University and United Steel. It sounds to me as though Sheffield maths department would have been using it in conjunction with United Steel for OR functions, among other things. It should be possible to discover when United Steel computerised commercial functions but I would guess subsequent to the Pegasus. It seems most likely they were using it to compute some of the processes. kind regards neil Dr Roger Neil Barton Visiting Research Fellow, Institute of Historical Research http://www.uclmail.net/~neil.barton/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Sandra Mols To: Medina, Eden ; Sigcis Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science Interesting debate. I agree with the comments as regards to a necessary caution when it comes to evaluate dedication and use of computers. As regards to the Pegasus claim at the origin of this discussion, two points attract my mind in particular. One is about the extent to which this claim - independently of its veracity - relate to Ferranti's wishes to steal pieces of the managament computing market out of LEO's hands (launched in 1951). In my research, the Pegasus was mostly used towards scientific uses and - as far as this claim gets me to think - it may well be that Ferranti tried to push it forward as an 'administrative' machine - due to its comaprative smaller size - to expand its market outreach towards management 'bureau' issues which had been recently targeted by LEO. The other issue - expanding on Tom Haigh - is about the term of 'management science': what does it mean in 1956 when one takes into account that management was a new fashionable thing in the post-WWII context, being born out of OR WWII practices, with also OR remaining a very unfixed, changing concept (more or less quantified) well until the 1960s? Hope this helps, Sandra ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Medina, Eden" To: "members at sigcis.org" Sent: Friday, 17 July, 2009 19:37:44 Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science I knew this was the right group to ask. I too agree with the comments being made and thank everyone for their thoughts on how best to address the claim. Additional responses can be sent to me off list unless their is extensive interest in this topic. To bring some closure to the topic I may have found a very easy way to address Beer's statement. It seems that the Pegasus machine he referred to was split between United Steel and Sheffield University, thus throwing into doubt claims that it was entirely dedicated to management science. Again, thanks for the help. Eden ________________________________________ From: Joel West [joelwest at ieee.org] Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 1:17 PM To: Medina, Eden; members at sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science Dear Eden, I share many of Gerard's concerns about the unmeasurability of such claims and even how dubious making them might be. (I also agree with Tom that "management science" is too vague -- does he possibly mean operations research?) However, as a positivist (are there any others on this list?) I am inclined to take the claim at face value and see what they might mean. So while "first" is likely unprovable, I do think it would be interesting to say "most computers were bought to do payroll or missile trajectories and this one was bought to do management science." I suspect it would be relatively easy to document the "typical" motivation or application for computers in the era, even if the actual use (post hoc) is not easily measured. (Ideally, you'd want a list of who had login accounts, and if necessary assume each used their account proportionately). But in some ways, the inputs question is less interesting than the outputs question. If Beer was the first boy in the invisible college of his discipline to have a new toy, what did he do with it? Is there any evidence that this strategic foresight (or dumb luck) enabled him to advance his field in ways that his less-endowed rivals could not? I would find it terribly interesting if Beer has the best computing power but the major advances in numerical approaches to management science were being made elsewhere. IIRC, the field's major scientific prize (originally from ORSA, now INFORMS) is named after a mathematician who made his most important contributions before these sorts of computers existed. Joel On 6:25 PM +0200 7/17/09, Alberts, G. hath said: >What in heaven would be the purport of such claim? Computers were not only expensive, they involved major investments, certainly machines the size of Pegasus. Hence, the legitimation for making such investment was seldomly based on the single use for one field of application, or rather for one department in an enterprise or university. Historians usually can trace the considerations leading to the actual purchase in the company archives. Also one may be able to guess where (in which subdepartment) the first initiative to such deep investment in modernizing business originated. >How the machine was in fact used, once installed, is much harder to reconstruct. Did the administrative support staff actually get to use the computer or were they pushed out by the scientific computers from the laboratory departments. Were management scientists favored before the statisticians and the down to earth daily bookkeeping? In the incidental case where a logbook is preserved, or where a very early computing center kept statistics, one may be able to tell something about who was using the machine. >So, what could be the meaning of "dedicated to"? Was that "dedicated" on the level of legitimation of the purchase, or was it "dedicated" in terms of seconds and minutes of use of the system? Let alone that we could judge the claim of "entirely" or even "first". > >Rather, to us historians being aware of inclusion and exclusion mechanisms around the use of computers, simply power struggles if you will, the claim of "dedicated entirely" made in a first person account has a clear intent. Other users, other interested parties, were succesfully made invisible, at least in the account of the "management science" department. Probably bookkkeeping use didnot count, or was counted under management science in the first place, etcetera. > >Rather than investigating the claim, my suggestion would be to investigate the fact that such claim was made, when and by whom. On 11:11 AM -0400 7/17/09, Medina, Eden wrote: >I am hoping that your collective wisdom might help me check out a claim. The British cybernetician Stafford Beer claims that the Ferranti Pegasus 1 machine he bought in 1956 was the only computer at that time dedicated entirely to applications in management science. Do you know of any other examples of computers fully dedicated to management science applications during this time period? -- Joel West, Ph.D. http://www.JoelWest.org/ Professor, Innovation & Entrepreneurship College of Business, San Jose State University BT 555, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192-0070 _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090720/3bfd27be/attachment-0001.htm From rgj at dcs.bbk.ac.uk Tue Jul 21 07:28:16 2009 From: rgj at dcs.bbk.ac.uk (Roger Johnson) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:28:16 +0100 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science In-Reply-To: <28AD85E44C34449E983E4F5125C464B5@GreyBox> References: <1637854CF482594C98D4ADA40F0FCC7A0EA47BF8CF@iu-mssg-mbx01.ads.iu.edu><650699.63659.qm@web25304.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <28AD85E44C34449E983E4F5125C464B5@GreyBox> Message-ID: Dear Colleagues I think it may be useful to look at the career of Stafford Beer - I only know it in outline but the Wikipedia entry seems fairly close to what I remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_Beer From this you will see that Beer was interested in "management cybernetics" rather than management science as more classically defined. This is I think why a machine like Pegasus would have been useful to him since he was interested in Operations Research and Mathematical models. Whatever merit may be given to the original claim about the use of Pegasus it needs to be considered against the type of work Beer was actually doing. At the time when Beer started trying to model whole national economies (eg Chile) not surprisingly he ran out of machine power pretty quickly. In the light of the past few months it seems doubtful that his ideas would actually have worked no matter how powerful the computer! Good wishes Roger Johnson Dept of Computer Science & Information Systems Birkbeck College University of London ________________________________ From: members-bounces at sigcis.org [mailto:members-bounces at sigcis.org] On Behalf Of Roger Neil Barton Sent: 20 July 2009 15:16 To: Sigcis Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science I too have found this a very interesting discussion. I think there's a good paper in this somewhere. Whilst without Sandra or Tom's fundamental research background I did train in the 60s, a decade later than the subject of the question and therefore possibly irrelevant. I have looked back at dusty old text books for this response. I remember in about 1970 when my employer changed from IBM to Univac, both bureau machines. I was responsible for all the commercial applications, which were memory hungry database oriented, while we also used the computer for product design (process plant for petrochemicals such as spheres), which were computation oriented. Even though the compromises were horrendous neither of us separately could justify the expense but combined together we could. As far as I am aware everyone then was in the same position. In the early 70s I was a Leo user which, as Sandra stated below, was very much oriented toward the business user. I worked for the mainframe division of ICL in the 1970s and most sales were oriented toward computation users as it sounds the Pegasus was. This was also true for Ferranti Computers division which survived the ICL merger. Ian Martin gave a very interesting paper at BSHS09 on Martins Bank and Pegasus around about 1960 which sounded much more chaotic than most of my experiences. With regard to "Management Science" in the question I regarded it with the same suspicion as everyone else. None of my subjects were called OR. One of my final papers was called 'Management Information and Quantative Techniques' and another 'Management Principles and Practice'. The blurb on one of my text books 'Mathematics in Management' describes its purpose "to provide a sound basis of knowledge about the methods of OR now being applied in public industries and services". We knew that's what we were studying but no one called it that. Apart from Peter Drucker all my text books were British, which I have to say I now find amazing. Searching the OED for Management Science it says "1954 Amer. Econ. Rev. 44 1030 A new national society, the Institute of Management Sciences, has been established with the objective of unifying scientific knowledge that contributes to the understanding and practice of management. The Institute will publish a journal, *Management Science. 1955 H. KOONTZ & C. O'DONNELL Princ. Managem. I. i. 11 Extension of the frontiers of management science by increasing the efficiency of management, would unquestionably have revolutionary impact on the cultural level of our society. " For Computer Science it reads "1956 N.Y. Times 28 Oct. III. 21 (advt.) Unparalleled opportunities to associate with the prominent pioneers of computer science, at outstanding salaries. Electronic engineers (circuit designers and magnetics engineers), logical designers, [etc.]." While being the same time frame as the Pegasus usage in Sheffield it should be noted that these quotations are all american. I've no idea when the terms might have entered common usage in Britain. Regarding the possible use of the Pegasus by Sheffield University it seems inconceivable that they would have had a department studying management science. Even though Wharton was founded in 1881 there was no equivalent here. I considered the very idea of me studying management, business, or computer science in a British university pretty ridiculous. (I went to Glasgow College of Commerce, now Caledonian Business School.) Looking through my old books I've come across one that must belong to my wife. It was first published by the Org for European Economic Cooperation in 1952 and describes a 'Technical Assistance Mission' to the US. "American universities run schools of business administration" of which there are 166. Presumably worth noting as there were none here. None of my old books refer to computer science but one of them actually has a photograph of a Pegasus! Generally they use the term EDP. Tom may know when computer science was first taught in a British university. The majority of ICL sales in the 70s were still to universities. Eden states that the Pegasus was jointly used by Sheffield University and United Steel. It sounds to me as though Sheffield maths department would have been using it in conjunction with United Steel for OR functions, among other things. It should be possible to discover when United Steel computerised commercial functions but I would guess subsequent to the Pegasus. It seems most likely they were using it to compute some of the processes. kind regards neil Dr Roger Neil Barton Visiting Research Fellow, Institute of Historical Research http://www.uclmail.net/~neil.barton/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Sandra Mols To: Medina, Eden ; Sigcis Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science Interesting debate. I agree with the comments as regards to a necessary caution when it comes to evaluate dedication and use of computers. As regards to the Pegasus claim at the origin of this discussion, two points attract my mind in particular. One is about the extent to which this claim - independently of its veracity - relate to Ferranti's wishes to steal pieces of the managament computing market out of LEO's hands (launched in 1951). In my research, the Pegasus was mostly used towards scientific uses and - as far as this claim gets me to think - it may well be that Ferranti tried to push it forward as an 'administrative' machine - due to its comaprative smaller size - to expand its market outreach towards management 'bureau' issues which had been recently targeted by LEO. The other issue - expanding on Tom Haigh - is about the term of 'management science': what does it mean in 1956 when one takes into account that management was a new fashionable thing in the post-WWII context, being born out of OR WWII practices, with also OR remaining a very unfixed, changing concept (more or less quantified) well until the 1960s? Hope this helps, Sandra ________________________________ From: "Medina, Eden" To: "members at sigcis.org" Sent: Friday, 17 July, 2009 19:37:44 Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science I knew this was the right group to ask. I too agree with the comments being made and thank everyone for their thoughts on how best to address the claim. Additional responses can be sent to me off list unless their is extensive interest in this topic. To bring some closure to the topic I may have found a very easy way to address Beer's statement. It seems that the Pegasus machine he referred to was split between United Steel and Sheffield University, thus throwing into doubt claims that it was entirely dedicated to management science. Again, thanks for the help. Eden ________________________________________ From: Joel West [joelwest at ieee.org] Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 1:17 PM To: Medina, Eden; members at sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] computers and management science Dear Eden, I share many of Gerard's concerns about the unmeasurability of such claims and even how dubious making them might be. (I also agree with Tom that "management science" is too vague -- does he possibly mean operations research?) However, as a positivist (are there any others on this list?) I am inclined to take the claim at face value and see what they might mean. So while "first" is likely unprovable, I do think it would be interesting to say "most computers were bought to do payroll or missile trajectories and this one was bought to do management science." I suspect it would be relatively easy to document the "typical" motivation or application for computers in the era, even if the actual use (post hoc) is not easily measured. (Ideally, you'd want a list of who had login accounts, and if necessary assume each used their account proportionately). But in some ways, the inputs question is less interesting than the outputs question. If Beer was the first boy in the invisible college of his discipline to have a new toy, what did he do with it? Is there any evidence that this strategic foresight (or dumb luck) enabled him to advance his field in ways that his less-endowed rivals could not? I would find it terribly interesting if Beer has the best computing power but the major advances in numerical approaches to management science were being made elsewhere. IIRC, the field's major scientific prize (originally from ORSA, now INFORMS) is named after a mathematician who made his most important contributions before these sorts of computers existed. Joel On 6:25 PM +0200 7/17/09, Alberts, G. hath said: >What in heaven would be the purport of such claim? Computers were not only expensive, they involved major investments, certainly machines the size of Pegasus. Hence, the legitimation for making such investment was seldomly based on the single use for one field of application, or rather for one department in an enterprise or university. Historians usually can trace the considerations leading to the actual purchase in the company archives. Also one may be able to guess where (in which subdepartment) the first initiative to such deep investment in modernizing business originated. >How the machine was in fact used, once installed, is much harder to reconstruct. Did the administrative support staff actually get to use the computer or were they pushed out by the scientific computers from the laboratory departments. Were management scientists favored before the statisticians and the down to earth daily bookkeeping? In the incidental case where a logbook is preserved, or where a very early computing center kept statistics, one may be able to tell something about who was using the machine. >So, what could be the meaning of "dedicated to"? Was that "dedicated" on the level of legitimation of the purchase, or was it "dedicated" in terms of seconds and minutes of use of the system? Let alone that we could judge the claim of "entirely" or even "first". > >Rather, to us historians being aware of inclusion and exclusion mechanisms around the use of computers, simply power struggles if you will, the claim of "dedicated entirely" made in a first person account has a clear intent. Other users, other interested parties, were succesfully made invisible, at least in the account of the "management science" department. Probably bookkkeeping use didnot count, or was counted under management science in the first place, etcetera. > >Rather than investigating the claim, my suggestion would be to investigate the fact that such claim was made, when and by whom. On 11:11 AM -0400 7/17/09, Medina, Eden wrote: >I am hoping that your collective wisdom might help me check out a claim. The British cybernetician Stafford Beer claims that the Ferranti Pegasus 1 machine he bought in 1956 was the only computer at that time dedicated entirely to applications in management science. Do you know of any other examples of computers fully dedicated to management science applications during this time period? -- Joel West, Ph.D. http://www.JoelWest.org/ Professor, Innovation & Entrepreneurship College of Business, San Jose State University BT 555, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192-0070 _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members ________________________________ _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090721/fcb08e4e/attachment-0001.htm From NOVEMBER at mailbox.sc.edu Wed Jul 29 15:46:46 2009 From: NOVEMBER at mailbox.sc.edu (NOVEMBER, JOSEPH) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:46:46 -0400 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] (no subject) Message-ID: Dear SIGCISers, It is my pleasure to report that we received an excellent response to our call for papers for the 2009 workshop, ?Michael Mahoney And The Histories of Computing(s).? It will be held on Sunday, October 18, 2009, at the Hilton Hotel in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. Due to the large volume of good submissions we anticipate a very full and productive day. Attached is the preliminary schedule for the workshop. The session times and lengths are approximate and subject to change. The order of presenters within sessions may change as well. At this point we need chairs and commentators for all of the traditional paper sessions and chairs for the Dissertation Workshop and the Works In Progress Workshop. The chair?s responsibility will be to ensure that presenters adhere to time limits?a crucial duty given that we have so much material to cover in just one day?and to manage question-and-answer sessions following each presentation. Commentators for the traditional paper sessions will offer a 10-15 minute analysis of the papers in that session; typically, presenters will send the commentator a draft of their talk at least a week before the workshop. Anyone who is not presenting at the workshop is eligible to volunteer for one of these positions. To volunteer please email Joseph November [november(at)sc.edu]. Meal information: We plan to eat lunch at one of the cafes or sandwich places near the conference hotel. It will be pay-as-you-go. Dinner will be in a restaurant in Pittsburgh. We look forward to seeing everyone in Pittsburgh! Joseph November, Program Committee Chair for the 2009 SIGCIS Workshop -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090729/ef39994b/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SIGCIS 2009 Workshop Preliminary Schedule.pdf Type: file/pdf Size: 15292 bytes Desc: SIGCIS 2009 Workshop Preliminary Schedule.pdf Url : http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090729/ef39994b/attachment.bin From NOVEMBER at mailbox.sc.edu Wed Jul 29 15:48:44 2009 From: NOVEMBER at mailbox.sc.edu (NOVEMBER, JOSEPH) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:48:44 -0400 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] 2009 Workshop Update Message-ID: Dear SIGCISers, It is my pleasure to report that we received an excellent response to our call for papers for the 2009 workshop, ?Michael Mahoney And The Histories of Computing(s).? It will be held on Sunday, October 18, 2009, at the Hilton Hotel in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. Due to the large volume of good submissions we anticipate a very full and productive day. Attached is the preliminary schedule for the workshop. The session times and lengths are approximate and subject to change. The order of presenters within sessions may change as well. At this point we need chairs and commentators for all of the traditional paper sessions and chairs for the Dissertation Workshop and the Works In Progress Workshop. The chair?s responsibility will be to ensure that presenters adhere to time limits?a crucial duty given that we have so much material to cover in just one day?and to manage question-and-answer sessions following each presentation. Commentators for the traditional paper sessions will offer a 10-15 minute analysis of the papers in that session; typically, presenters will send the commentator a draft of their talk at least a week before the workshop. Anyone who is not presenting at the workshop is eligible to volunteer for one of these positions. To volunteer please email Joseph November [november(at)sc.edu]. Meal information: We plan to eat lunch at one of the cafes or sandwich places near the conference hotel. It will be pay-as-you-go. Dinner will be in a restaurant in Pittsburgh. We look forward to seeing everyone in Pittsburgh! Joseph November, Program Committee Chair for the 2009 SIGCIS Workshop -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090729/8d9c7113/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SIGCIS 2009 Workshop Preliminary Schedule.pdf Type: file/pdf Size: 15292 bytes Desc: SIGCIS 2009 Workshop Preliminary Schedule.pdf Url : http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090729/8d9c7113/attachment-0001.bin From NOVEMBER at mailbox.sc.edu Wed Jul 29 16:53:35 2009 From: NOVEMBER at mailbox.sc.edu (NOVEMBER, JOSEPH) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:53:35 -0400 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Conference Material on the Website Message-ID: For those of you who are having trouble with the PDF attachment containing the preliminary conference schedule, or who simply prefer to read websites instead of email, please head over to the SIGCIS website (http://www.sigcis.org/). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090729/44573f53/attachment.htm From j-laprise at northwestern.edu Wed Jul 29 17:02:48 2009 From: j-laprise at northwestern.edu (John Laprise) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:02:48 -0500 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Graduation Announcement Message-ID: <006601ca108f$ef250930$cd6f1b90$@northwestern.edu> Dear Colleagues, I want to take this opportunity to thank all of you in SIGCIS who have supported my work over the past six years. My dissertation "White House Computer Adoption and Information Policy 1969-1979" has been accepted by my committee and Northwestern University. Interested parties may email me for a copy of the abstract and/or dissertation. Best regards, John P. Laprise Ph.D. Visiting Assistant Professor Department of Communication Studies School of Communication Northwestern University in Qatar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090729/b8da0a89/attachment.htm From evan at snarc.net Thu Jul 30 18:00:32 2009 From: evan at snarc.net (evan at snarc.net) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:00:32 +0000 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Semi-rare John Mauchly document Message-ID: <1912661086-1248991221-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1344979091-@bxe1067.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Hi all. I received this document from Bill Mauchly today. I asked him if it's okay to share freely; he said yes. File is attached. Bill added: "In 1979, just a few months before he died, John Mauchly had a letter published in DATAMATION.? Examples of his writing are rare, but here he clearly wanted to have his say.? In it he laid out very clearly how he and Eckert, in the wee hours of 1944, worked out the stored-program architecture of EDVAC, the successor to ENIAC.? Later they told von Neumann, and he published it as his own work.? He also talks about BINAC.? This was at the time that Burks and Goldstine were trying to drain as much credit away from Eckert and Mauchly and towards von Neumann as they could.I've attached a copy of the letter; it a good read if you like this sort of thing.? This short essay does not seem to be available on the web.? I typed it in from a copy I had that was among my mother's things, apparently a draft from his TRS-80 word processor, on the prompting of Jean Bartik.? Enjoy.Bill Mauchly" -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 34816 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090730/331c7b28/attachment-0001.obj From wmcmillan at emich.edu Fri Jul 31 08:41:51 2009 From: wmcmillan at emich.edu (William McMillan) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:41:51 -0400 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Semi-rare John Mauchly document In-Reply-To: <1912661086-1248991221-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1344979091-@bxe1067.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <1912661086-1248991221-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1344979091-@bxe1067.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <76a0f1d70907310541u34c816c5w1f87306a6a437afa@mail.gmail.com> Very useful document. It's quoted in Richard S. Rosenberg's *The Social Impact of Computers*, 3rd ed., 2004, p. 94, with discussion that basically agrees with Mauchly (though I had been unaware of it until you sent it, Evan). http://books.google.com/books?id=VZ0XBfhbDZMC&lpg=PA94&ots=VBw1kSJ8KW&dq=ONE%20storage%20device%20(with%20addressable%20locations)%20for%20the%20ENTIRE%20EDVAC&pg=PA94#v=onepage&q=&f=false Thanks. On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:00 PM, wrote: > Hi all. I received this document from Bill Mauchly today. I asked him if > it's okay to share freely; he said yes. > > File is attached. > > Bill added: "In 1979, just a few months before he died, John Mauchly had a > letter published in DATAMATION. Examples of his writing are rare, but here > he clearly wanted to have his say. In it he laid out very clearly how he > and Eckert, in the wee hours of 1944, worked out the stored-program > architecture of EDVAC, the successor to ENIAC. Later they told von Neumann, > and he published it as his own work. He also talks about BINAC. This was > at the time that Burks and Goldstine were trying to drain as much credit > away from Eckert and Mauchly and towards von Neumann as they could.I've > attached a copy of the letter; it a good read if you like this sort of > thing. This short essay does not seem to be available on the web. I typed > it in from a copy I had that was among my mother's things, apparently a > draft from his TRS-80 word processor, on the prompting of Jean Bartik. > Enjoy.Bill Mauchly" > > _______________________________________________ > This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list > of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at > http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription > options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090731/b6b14198/attachment.htm From PeterEckstein at comcast.net Fri Jul 31 21:50:15 2009 From: PeterEckstein at comcast.net (PeterEckstein at comcast.net) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 01:50:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Semi-rare John Mauchly document In-Reply-To: <1912661086-1248991221-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1344979091-@bxe1067.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <542807743.8011731249091415235.JavaMail.root@sz0123a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> Evan, Below I am repeating my comment but using the Reply All option to include others. I have since read the Rosenberg summary cited by McMillan, and I think that the part that attempts to counter the myth is a fair--but far too short--summary.? I did interview Goldstine over the phone one time, but I do not offhand remember if we covered this issue.? I hope I transcribed my notes on that interview; if so,?I would be happy to send those, too, to anyone working on this issue seriously. I would also add my agreement with JM's point that the btrief discussion in the Metropolis "Trilogy of Errors" article was far closer to the mark than most other histories.? As I recall, Scott McCartney's more recent book dealt with the issue pretty fairly, too. Peter Eckstein Evan, I am a little rusty on this story, but the oral histories that Nany Stern created--even better than her book itself--make it clear that the specific details?of the stored program concept emerged from (roughly) weekly seminars that included JPE & JM, a couple of Moore School professors including Carl?Chambers and Arthur Burks, and John von Neuman. Don't remember about Goldstine. JVN. wrote up the results of their joint work, to which he, like others, had made substantive contributions, and he did it in a consistent notation system of his own devising, and the typescript became the "First Draft" that was immortalized. Pres Eckert to the end resented that he and JM were working under top secret wartime conditions, but that JVN felt free to make speeches about the coming of the computer age--which created the impression (without saying) that he was its chief inventor--and that Goldstine's distribution of the First Draft with only JVN's name on it was a great injustice.?? Some of the popular histories build on this to make the fantastic sugestion that the engineers who built ENIAC were too stupid to realize that it would need a stored program and that it took JVN to figure this out.? But the need to freeze the design and build a machine to help win the war was what prevented the stored program from being developed for ENIAC. This is a little more complicated story than the summary that Bill Mauchly offers but seems consistent with the John Mauchly letter. I'm not convinced that this story has ever been done full justice.?Most (but unfortunately not all) of the Stern inerviews are in the Babbage collection. My own interviews with JPE and, more briefly, with AB include discussions of this.? I could make those portions available to anyone seeking to tell the accurate story. Peter Eckstein ----- Original Message ----- From: evan at snarc.net To: members at sigcis.org Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 6:00:32 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Semi-rare John Mauchly document Hi all. I received this document from Bill Mauchly today. I asked him if it's okay to share freely; he said yes. File is attached. Bill added: "In 1979, just a few months before he died, John Mauchly had a letter published in DATAMATION.? Examples of his writing are rare, but here he clearly wanted to have his say.? In it he laid out very clearly how he and Eckert, in the wee hours of 1944, worked out the stored-program architecture of EDVAC, the successor to ENIAC.? Later they told von Neumann, and he published it as his own work.? He also talks about BINAC.? This was at the time that Burks and Goldstine were trying to drain as much credit away from Eckert and Mauchly and towards von Neumann as they could.I've attached a copy of the letter; it a good read if you like this sort of thing.? This short essay does not seem to be available on the web.? I typed it in from a copy I had that was among my mother's things, apparently a draft from his TRS-80 word processor, on the prompting of Jean Bartik.? Enjoy.Bill Mauchly" _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090801/92ed39b3/attachment.htm