Many of the arguments that are found in the literature on the theme "O.R./M.S. in crisis" stem not just from alternative definitions of O.R./M.S., but from differences in strongly held views about its scope and role in organisations, and these are then reflected in the vehemence with which certain definitions are defended or criticised. It is when the hopes and aspirations of O.R./M.S. are compared with what is being achieved in practice, that we realise the degree to which O.R./M.S. has failed to live up to its original promise. In most organisations, O.R. analysts are expected and are happy to act as technicians and not as advisers, so that technique orientation and concern with tactical problems are constantly reinforced. In addition, managers in various functions have become aware of the potential contribution of analytical modelling in their own spheres and have begun to recruit analysts direct, resulting in the possible fragmentation of O.R. and the loss of its unique identity. The responsibilities of O.R./M.S. obviously relate not only to its organisational status, but also to an examination of and an identification with organisational goals. Many O.R. analysts are plainly more comfortable when these goals are clearly defined for them, an attitude which people from other professions will readily endorse, but if O.R./M.S. has any aspirations to get involved in strategic problems, it will have to pose questions about the validity and appropriateness of organisational goals and try to influence the formulation of problems accordingly.