It's time to revisit the MS degree purpose and curriculum
We first thank Ron Kenett for his comments on the economic meltdown, services computing, management consulting, and quality by design. There is little in his comments that we would disagree with. We would note that a major contribution of Taleb [1], in his discussion of the Black Swan, is that he reminds us that statistical methods based on historic data cannot predict events that have never been witnessed before in history, such as the 911 attacks, the break-up of the former Soviet Union, or the invention of the Internet. While Taleb's knowledge of statistical theory can be challenged, his fundamental point cannot.
Kenett's discussion of services computing fits nicely with the concept of embedding statistical methods into key business processes, another example of using statistical engineering to create useful solutions. Many of the examples mentioned by Kenett would successfully embed statistical thinking and methods into computing processes. Kenett's comments on management consulting remind us that statisticians work in a system, and their contributions will be limited by system constraints. While statisticians work in the system, senior management works on the system. By helping senior management understand statistical thinking concepts, we are ultimately helping our own cause.
We also extend our thanks to Bill Parr for his insightful commentary on our paper. As usual, his comments reflect a deep understanding of the issues and clarity of thought. As with Kenett, we find very little, if anything, in Parr's comments with which we disagree. Parr focuses a considerable amount of his commentary on the Masters Degree program and how it relates to today's needs. We agree with the importance of this issue and focus our rejoinder there.
In short, business and industry need statistical engineering, which should be the main component of the MS degree. It's time to revisit the MS program and to upgrade is purpose and curriculum to match today's needs. MS graduates typically work in business or industry, rather than academia. It is time to take what we have learned about the education of MS students and the needs of their employers and revise the curriculum and approach to MS programs. We believe that a transformation, not an evolution, is needed.
We agree with Parr that two streams of focus are needed. The 'oldies but goodies' methods should continue to be used where appropriate. There is and will continue to be effective uses for these methods. Witness the longevity of Shewhart's control chart and Fisher's design of experiments. The focus now should be the 'embedding' of these methods in how the organization runs its business. MS students should know the meaning and purpose of 'embedding' and what's required to do it.
Parr's second stream of focus is on identifying and solving high impact problems for the organization. These problems are usually complex and have some political hurdles to overcome. Maybe even some new or novel methods will be needed? Making the identification and solution of such problems a part of the MS curriculum will go a long way toward preparing students for