1. Operations
Operations management management
research: some reflections on research
evolution, models and
655
empirical studies in OM
Roberto Filippini
Istituto di Ingegneria Gestionale, University of Padua, Vicenza, Italy
The first phase of OM research
History, in terms of evolution of research approaches and subjects of interest,
has had its role in helping to frame the right questions to ask when teaching,
researching and/or practising[1]. In his well known work, Buffa[2] suggested
that it is possible to trace three main phases of evolutionary development in the
field of OM during the 30 year period after the Second World War.
For much of the 1950s OM was called industrial management or factory
management. Studies were characterized by their descriptive approach.
Numerous techniques were studied and put forward: time and motion study,
plant layout, production control and descriptions of how production systems
worked. In this period, mathematical techniques, such as queuing theory and
Monte Carlo simulation, also began to be developed and chapters on personnel
management, finance, marketing and organization management appeared in
the textbooks.
During this phase all studies implicitly assumed that:
• the production system both is cut off from the environment and is
strategically neutral;
• it is prevalently characterized by technical features; and
• the final aim is that of maximizing the productivity of labour.
During the 1960s, and for much of the 1970s, management science/operations
Research (MS/OR) studies “provided the scientific methodology that allowed us
to develop something akin to the natural science or physics operating systems.
MS/OR also opened the door to the study of service systems as a natural
broadening of production management into the present scope of operations
management. For at least 20 years we have enjoyed the pleasure of ample,
researchable topics with publishing outlets in the MS/OR journals”[2].
Chase[3] highlighted the fact that during the 1970s, OM research was
dominated by abstract application of techniques and rarely involved empirical
studies; hence, they were of little real use to operations managers. He analysed International Journal of Operations
134 papers which had appeared between 1977 and 1979 in some refereed & Production Management,
Vol. 17 No. 7, 1997, pp. 655-670.
journals (Decision Sciences, AIIE Transactions, Management Science, © MCB University Press, 0144-3577

2. IJOPM International Journal of Production Research) and classified the articles into
17,7 four categories, based on two dimensions: research orientation (micro, which
deals with isolated problems, and macro) and research emphasis (people, i.e.
managerial, and equipment, i.e. technical).
Chase found that 88 per cent of the articles were micro type and 76 per cent
emphasized equipment and were centred on questions of scheduling,
656 aggregate/capacity planning, layout, quality control and inventory control.
Only 12 per cent were macro-oriented. However, it is interesting to note that in
the same period there were books, and in particular textbooks, which adopted a
more general perspective and a more managerial approach. For example, Chase
and Aquilano[4] proposed a more integrated approach for production and
operations management which included a temporal view of the evolution of
production systems. Wild[5] used a systemic approach to study operations.
Whereas Skinner[6], in marked opposition to the dominant tendency of studies
to be micro/technical oriented, emphasized the strategic importance of
manufacturing.
Changes during the 1980s
By the end of the 1970s, OM had begun to be a functional field of study within
management disciplines. 1980 was an important year for OM history. Indeed,
both the Journal of Operations Management, voice of the Operations
Management Association (OMA), and the International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, voice of OMA-UK, were set up. In the first part of the
decade there was a marked development in OM research. Not only the two
newer journals, but also others, dedicated a lot of space to OM.
In 1981, Decision Sciences published a collection of papers dealing with the
state of the art in OM. These papers emphasized the importance of certain
themes such as the development of strategic orientation. Miller and Graham[7],
for example, put forward an agenda for the 1980s which was subdivided into
four main topics or areas. A similar agenda was suggested by Voss, in the UK
in 1984[8].
The main areas on which OM studies were concentrated during the 1980s
were identified as:
• Operations policy, which includes manufacturing strategy, and which
analyses the reasons for success or non-success in operations.
• Operations control where, alongside the traditional techniques, such as
MRP, new techniques, particularly JIT, attracted attention.
• Service operations, it had become clear that the principles underlying
OM could equally well be applied to service[9,10].
• Productivity and technology, here the advent of new technologies posed
important problems of process design and how to use it; this issue
aroused a great deal of interest and the approach was broadened with
respect to earlier studies.

3. In the 1980s, the themes of total quality management (TQM) and of the so-called Operations
Japanese techniques acquired greater importance than had been foreseen in management
research agendas. The concept of total quality, pioneered in the USA by Juran research
and Deming, was rediscovered in response to the pressure of the Japanese
manufacturing approach[11]. The concept of just-in-time (JIT) was approached
both from the descriptive angle of techniques and from their impact on
performance[12-14]. 657
Other signs of the way in which OM was entering the field of management
studies during the 1980s can be found in a variety of texts such as that of
Buffa[15], Hayes and Wheelwright[16] and Skinner[17]. A multiplicity of points
of view were adopted which drew on other areas of management, such as, the
concept of manufacturing capability as a competitive weapon and
manufacturing’s strategic role in corporate strategy.
Some changes in the subjects of interest in refereed journals were also noted.
Amoako-Gyampah and Meredith[18] analysed the articles that had appeared
over the period 1982-1987 in the ten journals in which OM researchers usually
published. They classified these articles into 17 categories with the aim of
seeing whether there had been any change in the direction of OM research.
They then compared the distribution of subjects in the period 1982-1987 with
the analogous distribution carried out by Chase for the period 1977-1979.
The area of operation control continued to be dealt with in more than half the
papers published, the most common topics being MRP and production
planning. Scheduling, while still important (20 per cent of papers), had fallen
from the higher position (36 per cent) it had held in Chase’s study. Work on the
topics of process design/technology and manufacturing strategy had attracted
more attention than in the earlier period, while research on so-called
engineering techniques, work measurement, maintenance/reliability and
facility (plant) location, had lost ground. Other reviews of OM papers published
during the 1980s would seem to confirm these findings[19,20].
Neely[19] examined the papers published in the first ten volumes (1980-1990)
of the International Journal of Operations & Production Management. Using
Chase’s four main categories (micro versus macro and people versus equipment),
Neely found that OM was emerging as a functional field of management. At the
beginning of the decade, in early volumes of IJOPM, micro/equipment topics
were paid the same percentage level of attention as in Chase’s study (over 70 per
cent). However, by mid-decade, they had fallen off considerably, whereas
macro/people topics, with a more managerial emphasis, had increased their
share and stabilized at around 40 per cent.
Recent evolution
Already, by the end of the 1980s, the outlines of the path that OM research
would be taking in the future had been laid down. In the USA, manufacturing
had assumed an important role within the debate about levels of competitivity;
a debate which arose from the comparison of Japanese approaches to
production with the North American approach. In Europe, too, the debate was

4. IJOPM lively: various schools of thought had come into the discussion, which was
17,7 developing both between academics and between practitioners.
The rules for the successful management of operations were changing. New
lines of study and research were being developed and published, spurred on,
above all, by production innovations being carried out by the Japanese. In the
late 1980s and early 1990s, many studies looked at the problem of production
658 models, for example, studies of world class manufacturing[21,22] and the well-
known study carried out by Massachussetts Institute of Technology on the auto
industry[23] which sparked off an international debate on the direction
production systems would take in the future. These studies laid particular
emphasis on organizational aspects and on the role of human resources.
A further contribution to the broadening of the debate came from the interest
shown by some researchers in the theme of organization, particularly from the
economic aspect: MIT research is just one example.
Some topics were approached in new ways and others took on a more
important role:
• manufacturing was recognized as being strategically very important for
companies and manufacturing strategy received more attention[24-26];
• the traditional concept of trade-off tended to be left behind[27] and
attention paid to improvements in performance in the areas of time,
quality and cost[28];
• operations were seen in a broader, yet more integrated manner, upstream
with suppliers and downstream with clients, according to a certain view
of systems of firms and of the relations between them[29,30];
• more importance was attributed to the study of product development
and to its relationships with manufacturing[31,32];
• many studies have been carried out on JIT and TQM; these practices are
now being seen within an integrated setting and their impact on
performance is being studied. Some of these empirical studies are
beginning to use approaches and methods drawn from other managerial
disciplines and from social sciences[33-38].
But precisely what changes did take place in OM studies in the early 1990s?
Some researchers, such as Walton and Handfield[39], maintain that there were
no especially important changes at all. After analysing OM papers which
appeared between 1990 and 1995 in four leading journals (Decision Science,
Journal of Operations Management, Management Science and Production and
Operations Management) they concluded that the primary area studied in the
OM literature is still inventory and scheduling, with an OR/MS approach.
On the other hand, other authors, such as Voss[40], believe that there have
been changes in OM research, both in the core discipline and in the numerous
areas on which OM touches and, furthermore, that there are some differences,
above all in research methods, between the situation in the USA, in Europe and,
markedly, in the UK.

5. We have examined the 1996 conference proceedings of the Decision Science
Institute, which represent, fairly well, current research in the pipeline in the
USA. A total of 244 papers have been analysed and the results compared with
those of the study by Amoako-Gyampah and Meredith[18] which classified the
1986 and 1987 conference proceedings of the Decision Science Institute into 17
OM topic areas. The results of this comparison are summarized in Table I.
Category Pipeline research 1986/87 Pipeline research 1996
Inventory control/MRP/JIT 17.57 7.99
Aggregate planning 4.05 0.84
Forecasting 4.73 0.42
Scheduling/MPS/SFC 16.89 15.55
Capacity planning 0.68 0.42
Purchasing (supply chain) 6.08 3.78
Facility location 2.70 0.84
Facility layout 0.00 0.84
Process design/technology 14.19 16.80
Maintenance 3.38 1.68
Quality 6.08 19.33
Work measurement 0.00 0.84
Strategy 6.76 13.86
Distribution 2.03 0.42 Table I.
Quality of working life 0.00 0.42 Classification by topic of
Project management 0.68 0.42 the DSI proceedings
Services 14.18 15.55 1986/87 and those
Total 100.00 100.00 of 1996
As the Table illustrates, in 1996 some issues were receiving less attention than
in the past: inventory control, cut by more than half, aggregate planning and
forecasting. Less attention was paid to purchasing, too, and papers in this area
emphasized the new issues of the supply chain. There was little change as
regards scheduling and services. Slightly more space was allocated to process
design/technology (from 14.19 per cent to 16.8 per cent). Here, as well as papers
on more traditional themes, there were also papers on product development and
human resource management in the much discussed advanced technologies.
However, there was a marked increase in interest in questions of quality
(from 6.08 per cent to 19.33 per cent) which encompass numerous issues
including quality control, ISO 9000 and TQM. The question of quality was also
taken up from an integrated and interfunctional angle, for example, the study of
the relation between quality and performance, or between quality, suppliers
and product design. Within this topic there were many surveys (47 per cent of
the total) and theoretical, conceptual studies (24 per cent).
The strategy issue attracted more attention than before (from 6.76 per cent to
13.86 per cent) and many papers approached the question from an
interfunctional point of view, for example: best practices and

6. IJOPM performance/competitiveness; manufacturing strategy and environmental
17,7 management; manufacturing strategy and product development.
Many of the papers presented at the 1996 DSI meeting were of an
interfunctional nature. They took up the theme of the relationship between
technological and managerial variables, examining them from both the
operational and the strategic points of view. In some cases this made it difficult
660 to find the most appropriate category for such papers within the traditional 17
topic areas which have, until now, been used to classify research papers. In the
future it may well be worth considering some issues separately, for example:
product development, practice-performance relationship, performance
measurement, management of technology and environmental management.
Thus, comparing of DSI conference proceedings after a ten year interval has
served to highlight some interesting changes that have taken place. Obviously,
it is impossible to foresee when and to what degree such changes will be
reflected in the papers published in journals.
Lastly, it should be mentioned that six papers have been omitted from the
table. These papers dealt with the topic of OM research and methods for
empirical research, including the problems of measuring variables in the field of
operations.
Models, theories and empirical research in OM
However, merely analysing evolution and trends in publication is not enough if
one is seeking to understand fully research requirements and potential
perspectives. Such requirements derive both from the questions that research
itself poses for the future and, given that OM is very much an applied discipline,
from the need to offer answers to the concrete problems that emerge within both
industry and services. The current evolution of competition between firms at
the international level, the search for cost reduction together with time
reduction, the challenge posed by global markets which even SMEs must face
and the development of networks of firms, all pose new problems of strategy
and practice for firms.
Future developments in a discipline must also be evaluated in the light of the
level of models and theories and in the need for them.
Some researchers, in particular Flynn et al.[41], Meredith et al.[42],
Swamidass[43] and Meredith[44], maintain that one of the main problems for
OM research lies in the paradigms, theories and empirical research methods
used.
This opinion is probably not shared by other OM researchers, particularly
those who mainly study the applied aspects of the discipline and do not think
that generating theory is a fundamental task for OM.
However, given that OM is a discipline which is concerned with the selection,
adoption and management of new technologies and socio-technical systems, we
would agree with those who believe that there must be progress at the level of
models and theories, too, especially if these are developed on the basis of
empirical study. It would seem crucial that there be theories available which

7. make it possible to design and manage complex systems and which enable the Operations
existing relationships between the technical and organizational variables to be management
explained. Theory can offer models which help in decision making even in the research
presence of uncertainty and variability, because they help in predicting the
possible consequences of alternatives: for example, theory regarding product
innovativeness and success in the marketplace, or theory about the different
types of manufacturing strategy and the conditions under which they can be 661
applied, or, theory of total quality management in the context of other theories
about the firm.
Just as in other applied sciences, OM could benefit from theories which help
to explain phenomena and the relationships between relevant variables. In
general the characteristics that a theory should have are: it must specify the
variables it considers and their relationships and must offer criteria for defining
its boundaries. It must add to the existing body of knowledge about a
phenomenon[45,46]. The predictive element, intrinsic to a good theory, is
indubitably important but that of explanation is even more crucial. It is
generally accepted that the only valid result of scientific theory is adequate
explanation. This means defining the theory well at the conceptual level
(variable definition must be conceptual, domain specified, relationship
specified) and then checking the theory empirically.
There are three phases involved in developing a theory[44,47]. The
description phase allows the elements that are of interest to be characterized.
Exploratory research, based on preliminary, descriptive research is very useful
in this phase.
The second phase, called the explanation phase, entails the construction of a
framework which defines and justifies the relations between the variables. It
must be constructed and described in such a way as to generate testable
hypotheses and to allow successive empirical studies to be carried out. This
explanation phase has been neglected often in those OM studies where a
complex phenomenon has been simplified and solved with an algorithmic
model, thus ignoring important aspects of the real world. For example, in cost
minimization models the impact of interventions on human resources are often
omitted; hence, different results cannot be explained through such models.
The third phase is that of theory testing, which permits the modification and
development both of concepts and of the model. In the field of OM, especially in
the past, this phase has often been carried out using simulation. If there is no
testing phase, each new explanation will push the field in a new direction and
there is no real, cumulative progress, as in anecdotal literature. Meredith has
likened this to “war stories”.
What theories exist within OM and what type are they? Many theories are of
the deductive type, that is, mathematically deduced theory, for example, those
in the field of inventory control or scheduling. They are normative and not
descriptive and are not testable through empirical observation. They can only
be applied concretely in the context of the confines and limits hypothesized
within the definition of the models themselves.

8. IJOPM In recent years efforts have been made to generate OM theories, even though
17,7 they are still inadequate in terms of what is really required. To cite only three
areas, total quality management, just-in-time and manufacturing strategy,
where some efforts have been made to develop theory using empirical research
as well: areas, that is, other than those such as inventory control or scheduling,
where models have been constructed and tested from the MS/OR perspective.
662 Research efforts have been made along both conceptual and empirical lines
in the field of TQM. There were, and still are, many questions left unanswered
among which are: the components of total quality and their measurements,
relations between these, the impact of different practices on performance,
conditions under which various interventions can be applied and their effects.
To mention just some of the research in this area: the definition of a framework
containing the dimension of quality and their measures[36], the comparison of
total quality and management theory[35] and, the effects of total quality
interventions on performance and competitive advantage[38,48,49]. A lot of
work also remains to be done in terms of theory-driven empirical research on
quality management, but it would seem to us that the way has been opened
towards the construction of models and theories about a phenomenon which
often, in the past, was only studied through an anecdote-type approach with
attention focused on methods and operating techniques. Because of its
inherently interfunctional nature, the issue of TQM has been taken up by
various management disciplines; for example, Hackman and Wageman[50]
have analysed the congruence between TQM practices and behavioural science
knowledge.
In the field of JIT too, research has tried to answer the open questions where
there are still a lack of models and theories. Questions such as: what are the
elements of JIT and under what conditions can it be successfully implemen-
ted[51,52]; what is the relationship between JIT and performance[33,34,37]; and
what relationships are there between JIT and supply policies[53].
Various studies among those cited for TQM and JIT are empirical and have
used surveys as part of their research methods. In these articles the empirical
research has been used for theory building, usually in an initial exploratory
phase.
In the area of manufacturing strategy too, considerable efforts have been
made to improve the range of theories available for two common themes: the
process and the content of a manufacturing strategy. In their recent review of
this question, Swink and Way[24] found that both the formulation and the
implementation of manufacturing strategy have been the subject of various
conceptual and empirical works. However, the development of strategic types is
still lagging behind from both the theoretical and the empirical standpoint[54].
In his study, Voss[40] identified three elements: competing through
manufacturing (order winners, generic manufacturing strategies), strategic
choices (processes and infrastructure, focus, consistency) and best practices
(TQM, WCM, continuous improvement). There are many conceptual type
studies for each of the three elements.

9. Models of manufacturing strategy have been developed from the evidence of Operations
case studies. But there is still a lack of theory development and systematic management
empirical research even though both could be very interesting[55-57]. research
Some of the already existing theories in the area of manufacturing strategy
are well known, for example: Hayes and Wheelwright’s Four Stages Model,
which defines the strategic role of manufacturing within corporate strategy[16],
and Skinner’s Plat Focus Model[58]. 663
This latter theory takes two variables into account: factory focus and
performance, and includes a prediction, which is that focused factories perform
better than their unfocused counterparts. Taking this theory as an example,
Swamidass[43] argued that theories in the OM area are not expressed in such a
way as to be able to formulate propositions and hypotheses that can be tested
empirically. Starting from the concept of the focused factory and using later
studies which further developed it, Swamidass described the concept and the
relationship between the variables and put forward six propositions for
empirical investigation. For example, one of these empirically testable
propositions was formulated as: “In companies requiring low-cost production
with complex processes that are capital intensive, without a need for rapid
introduction of new products, without a need for flexibility in output levels,
process focus will perform better than product focus”.
Existing OM theories are, all too often, implicit or difficult for the researcher
to articulate[40]. Many concepts and models in OM could be translated into
empirically testable propositions. Empirical studies can be used either for
theory building or to verify theory but both cannot be done in the same study.
Theory testing uses data gathered using a structured data collection method,
for hypothesis testing. In theory building research, the goal is to explain the
similarities, if they exist, between different data sets. Obviously, care must be
taken that empirical research does not offer an explanation only for the case in
question. Theory building uses data to enrich/modify the theory, to refine the
definition and the measurement of the variables and, to look for other variables
that can be considered and which may influence the phenomena being studied.
Research approach and methods
Research approaches can be classified into two key dimensions[42]. The first
concerns the approach adopted to generating knowledge which has two
extremes: on the one hand, the deductive approach and, on the other, the
inductive approach. The logical/positivist empiricist perspective is in the
middle. The second dimension concerns the source and kind of information
used in the research which has, on one hand, direct observation and, on the
other, subjectivism (artificial reconstruction of reality). Meredith et al.[42] would
place people’s perceptions of objective reality in the middle.
Normative or descriptive analytical modelling which uses artificial methods
to reconstruct objective reality and a deductive approach (and is commonly
used in operations where simulation is used to test the models) can be put at one
extreme corner. Conceptual modelling (taxonomies and categorizations) can be

10. classified as artificial methods but with an inductive approach; whereas case
studies, in which a company or a plant is studied in detail in its natural setting,
where direct observation of an objective reality and an inductive approach are
adopted, can be put at the other extreme. Usually such case studies are used to
provide examples and, in the earlier stages of research, for describing the
phenomena and related variables.
Many methods fall into the intermediate category, which is based on people’s
perceptions of objective reality and takes a logical/positivist empiricist
approach. Some of these methods are: structured/unstructured interviewing,
historical/archival analysis (sometimes both methods are used together in the
same study) and survey research.
Let us try to understand whether there has been any change and progress in
OM research by analysing which methods and approaches have been used.
When analysing ten journals over the period 1982-1987, Amoako-Gyampah
and Meredith[18] found that the most popular research approach was that of
model formulation and simulation which was usually directed towards theory
testing: 69 per cent in the published research and 66 per cent in the pipeline
research as represented by 1986/87 DSI conference proceedings. They found
that the proportion of case studies and surveys being used in pipeline research
was almost twice that used in journal publications.
We analysed the papers of the 1996 DSI conference proceedings and the
research methods used. We then compared these with the figures from ten years
earlier (see Table II). As the table illustrates, there was a fall-off in the number
of studies based on modelling and simulation, from 66 per cent to 43.8 per cent.
Research approach Pipeline research 1986/87 Pipeline research 1996
Modelling 33.96 27.66
Simulation 32.08 16.17
Survey 13.21 26.81
Case study 7.54 2.13
Table II. Field study 1.89 5.53
Research approaches Laboratory experimentation 1.89 0.85
in DSI proceedings Theoretical/conceptual 9.43 20.85
1986/87 and 1996 Total 100.00 100.00
This drop was matched by an increase in the number of studies of a conceptual
and theoretical nature and by more empirical research, particularly that based
on surveys.
The proportion of conceptual and theoretical studies doubled, increasing
from 9.43 per cent to 20.85 per cent. These studies concentrated on three topics:
process design/technology (22.4 per cent), quality (20.4 per cent) and strategy
(14.3 per cent). The number of studies which used surveys also doubled, (from
13.21 per cent to 26.81 per cent). More than half of the surveys concentrated on

11. the topic of quality (34.9 per cent) and strategy (20.6 per cent). With few Operations
exceptions, all surveys were cross-sectional. management
Voss[40] highlighted another important change that has taken place over the research
past decade. He found that there were differences between the US and the
UK/European environment both in the type of research and in the approach to
research. He compared papers published in the Journal of Operations
Management, which carries mainly US research, and the International Journal 665
of Operations & Production Management, which is an important expression of
the work carried out by UK and European OM researchers. When ranked by
type of research, Voss found that US publications are dominated by modelling
and simulation while UK research is dominated by conceptual, field and survey-
based research. The data highlighted in Table II, concerning trends in
approaches found in pipeline research in the USA would seem to show that US
methods are coming closer to those adopted in the UK and Europe, where, in
relation to modelling and simulation, more emphasis is laid on conceptual
studies and on empirical research based on surveys.
Survey research
The term survey is usually used to mean a collection of data, information and
opinions of a large group of units, referred to as a population. The subject
studied (unit of analysis) may be individuals, groups, plant, companies or, even,
projects and systems. Surveys use structured and pre-defined questions and
data collection on the sample and can be carried out in a variety of ways: mail
questionnaire, face to face structured interview and questionnaire and/or,
telephone interview. Studies are usually cross-sectional, in part because these
require fewer resources than the longitudinal type. However, if data are
collected at only one point in time, then there are limits to the causal analysis
that can be carried out.
Survey research can have three aims[59]:
(1) Investigation in order to determine which concepts are related to the
phenomena and, how to measure them or how to discover new
dimensions of the phenomena themselves. This type of survey can
provide the basis for a more in-depth survey. Most of the above-
mentioned research on the TQM, JIT and manufacturing strategy topics
falls into this category;
(2) Confirmatory, in order to test theory, to seek the relationship and/or
causal relations between variables. Hypotheses must be very clearly
formulated for this type of research, sampling procedures and data
collection must be carefully defined. In this case longitudinal studies are
more useful. Very little OM research falls into this category;
(3) Description of events or opinions and/or their distribution. Unlike in
other types of study, here, the aim is not that of testing, or building, a
theory. Traditionally, most surveys in OM have been used for descriptive
purposes.

12. IJOPM The survey offers a particularly interesting method for empirical studies in OM.
17,7 OM is a relatively new discipline and there is still more need to build theory
than to test it. Hence, the fact that OM surveys are often carried out on small
samples is not so serious because large samples are required for theory testing
since, for theory building, one only has to describe and explain the phenomena
and identify the concepts and the relationships between variables. Surveys can
666 be very helpful for bringing models, theories, concepts and variables into better
focus.
Theory building research seeks to explain why and how similarities exist in
different contexts and various surveys which can be repeated in different
situations would seem to be very useful.
One methodological problem which represents an obstacle both to the spread
of survey research and to comparisons between different studies is the limited
availability of accurate and standardized measures for the concepts that are to
be analysed. If each researcher adopts his/her own measure for a concept, then
it becomes difficult to understand what the validity of these constructs is and
impossible, or nearly so, to repeat the study and compare the results. Hence, one
of the fundamental characteristics for the development of scientific research
within a discipline is missing: the creation of a stock of methods and measures
and shared parameters that can be used in different studies.
Measures have only just begun to be constructed in the field of OM and the
scientific community must make further efforts if it is to have valid and reliable
ones available so as to ensure that empirical research will be reproducible.
However, other important aspects of designing and conducting surveys (e.g.
strategy contact, data collection, sample design, methods for data analysis)
could benefit from the patrimony of knowledge and methods already available
within the social sciences.
This measurement problem was highlighted, in relation to managerial
disciplines, in the 1993 Special Research Forum on Methodological Issues in
Management Research. Introducing the articles from the forum in the Academy
of Management Journal, Bartunek, Bobco and Venkatraman said[60]: “It is
difficult to make new methodological contributions. There are a large number of
components to attend to, such as defining and measuring constructs, linking
hypotheses and testing procedures and, adequately discussing the reliability
and validity of the measures employed”.
The papers published in this special issue have been written by OM
researchers experienced in the use of surveys, and offer examples of several
methodological aspects linked to survey research: measurement, theory
development, combined survey and interview and, use of survey in international
study with transnational comparisons for benchmarking.
Some final considerations
Many researchers have stressed the need to develop empirical research, in
particular that which uses surveys, in order to support theory development.
However, for this to be successful, diverse approaches must be combined and

13. integrated because empirical research risks becoming an end in itself if it is not Operations
accompanied by, and does not interact with, other, theoretical and conceptual management
studies. research
To encourage the development of empirical research in OM, various aspects
should be borne in mind, some of which are described below:
• many concepts, models and prescriptive ideas present in the OM 667
literature should be re-examined in order to extract propositions and
preliminary theories that could be used in explorative empirical studies;
• more attention should be paid to the semantics of the discipline. Use of
more than one term to describe the same variable and phenomenon
should be avoided, as should lack of clarity, or vagueness, in the terms
themselves;
• concepts and reliable and valid measures should be developed within the
field of Operations Management. Particular attention should be paid to
the external validity of the instruments so as to ensure greater validity
for the results obtained by the survey which has used them;
• research should be developed within a broader perspective so as to take
into account the multiplicity of variables that intervene in operations.
One would hope that there could be more contact, and integration with
other disciplines, such as both organizational behaviour, in order to take
more account of the internal environment in relation to human resources
and, industrial organization, in order to consider the external variables of
the business environment. As stated above, there has been a gradual
increase in the number of interfunctional papers, with a broader outlook,
being published;
• the scientific community should be encouraged to appreciate the value
and usefulness of empirical research carried out using existing data
collection methods and statistical analysis techniques. Authoritative
encouragement, such as the calls for papers which use empirical field-
based methodologies which have appeared in some leading journals in
recent years, could help a great deal in this. We have seen how there are
more papers now, than in the past, which discuss OM research problems
and methods;
• more attention should be paid to explaining the phenomena being
observed: to do this methods for analysing causal relationships between
variables should be encouraged; furthermore, longitudinal studies
should be more widely used;
• more attention should be dedicated to comparisons between studies and
the accumulation of knowledge. Two possible ways of doing this would
be through replicating studies and by comparing the results of different
studies (e.g. meta analysis).

14. IJOPM Empirical research can make an important contribution to the development of
17,7 OM knowledge and theories which can bridge the gap between OM research
and practice. However, to a large extent, its usefulness hinges on the rigour of
the methods and instruments used. This special issue is seeking to encourage a
move in this direction.
668 References
1. Wrenn, D.A., “Management history”, Journal of Management, Vol. 13, 1987, pp. 339-50.
2. Buffa, E.S., “Research in operations management”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 1 No. 1, 1980, pp. 1-7.
3. Chase, R.B., “A classification and evaluation of research in operations management”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, 1980, pp. 9-14.
4. Chase, R.B. and Aquilano, N.J., Production and Operations Management, Irwin,
Homewood, IL, 1973.
5. Wild, R., Concepts for Operations Management, Wiley, Chichester, 1977.
6. Skinner, W., Manufacturing in the Corporate Strategy, Wiley, New York, NY, 1978.
7. Miller, J.G. and Graham, M.B. et al., “Production/operations management: agenda for the
’80s”, Decision Science, Vol. 12 No. 4, 1981, pp. 547-71.
8. Voss, C.A., “Production/operations management: a key discipline and area for research”,
Omega International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 12 No. 3, 1984, pp. 309-19.
9. Mabert, V.A., “Service operations management: research and application”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, 1982, pp. 203-9.
10. Sullivan, R.S., “The service sector: challenges and imperatives for research in operations
management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, 1982, pp. 211-14.
11. Garvin, D.A., “Quality problems, policies and attitudes in the United States and Japan: an
exploratory study”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29, 1986, pp. 653-73.
12. Shingo, S., Study of Toyota Production System, Japanese Management Association, Tokyo,
1981.
13. Schonberger, R.J., Japanese Manufacturing Techniques: Nine Hidden Lessons in Simplicity,
The Free Press, New York, NY, 1982.
14. Monden, Y., Toyota Production System: Practical Approach to Production Management,
Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Norcross, 1983.
15. Buffa, E.S., Meeting the Competitive Challenge: Manufacturing Strategy for US Companies,
Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1984.
16. Hayes, R.H. and Wheelwright, S.C., Restoring Our Competitive Edge: Competing through
Manufacturing, Wiley, New York, NY, 1984.
17. Skinner, W., Manufacturing: The Formidable Weapon, Wiley, New York, NY, 1985.
18. Amoako-Gyampah, K. and Meredith, J.R., “The operations management research agenda:
an update”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, 1989, pp. 250-62.
19. Neely, A., “Production/operations management: research process and content during the
1980s”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, 1993,
pp. 5-18.
20. Heylen, K. and Van Dierdonck, R., “The evolution of research in operations management”,
paper presented at the EurOMA First International Conference, Cambridge, 1994.
21. Schonberger, R.J., World Class Manufacturing: The Lessons of Simplicity Applied, The Free
Press, New York, NY, 1986.
22. Giffi, C., Roth, A.V. and Seal, G.M., Competing in World-Class Manufacturing, Business One
Irwin, 1990.

15. 23. Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Ross, D., The Machine that Changed the World, Rawson and Operations
Associates, New York, NY, 1990.
24. Swink, M. and Way, M.H., “Manufacturing strategy: propositions, current research,
management
renewed directions”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. research
15 No. 7, 1995, pp. 4-26.
25. Hill, T., Manufacturing Strategy – Text and Cases, Macmillan Press, New York, NY, 1995.
26. Voss, C.A., “Alternative paradigms for manufacturing strategy”, International Journal of 669
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, 1995, pp. 5-16.
27. New, C., “World class manufacturing versus strategic trade-off”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 11 No. 8, 1993, pp. 6-22.
28. Corbett, C. and Van Wassenhove, L., “Trade-offs? What trade-offs? Competence and
competitiveness in manufacturing strategy”, California Management Review, Summer,
1993, pp. 107-22.
29. Lamming, R., Beyond Partnership – Strategies for Innovation and Lean Supply, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1993.
30. Schonberger, R.J., Building a Chain of Customers, The Free Press, New York, NY, 1990.
31. Clark, K.B. and Fujimoto, T., New Product Development Performance, Harvard Business
School Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991.
32. Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K., Revolutionizing Product Development, The Free Press,
New York, NY, 1992.
33. Davy, J.A., White, R.E., Merritt, N.J. and Gritzmacher, K., “A derivation of the underlying
constructs of just-in-time management systems”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35
No. 3, 1992, pp. 653-70.
34. Sakakibara, S., Flynn, B.B. and Schroeder, R.G., “A just-in-time manufacturing framework
and measurement instrument”, Production and Operations Management, Vo. 1 No. 4, 1993.
35. Dean, J.W. and Bowen, D.E., “Management theory and total quality: improving research
and practice through theory development”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3,
1994, pp. 392-418.
36. Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G. and Sakakibara, S., “A framework for quality management
research and an associated measurement instrument”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 11 No. 4, 1994, pp. 339-66.
37. Lawrence, J.J. and Hottenstein, M.P., “The relationship between JIT manufacturing and
performance in Mexican plants affiliated with US companies”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 13, 1995, pp. 3-18.
38. Powell, T.C., “Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical
study”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16, 1995, pp. 15-37.
39. Walton, S. and Handfield, R., “Recent trends in operations management research”,
Proceedings of the 1996 Annual Decision Sciences Institute Conference, 1996.
40. Voss, C.A., “Operations management – from Taylor to Toyota – and beyond?”, British
Journal of Management, Vol. 6, Special Issue, 1995, pp. 17-29.
41. Flynn, B.B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R.G., Bates, K.A. and Flynn, E.J., “Empirical
research methods in operations management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 9
No. 2, 1990, pp. 250-84.
42. Meredith, J.R., Raturi, A., Amoako-Gyampah, K. and Kaplan, B., “Alternative research
paradigms in operations”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, 1989, pp. 297-
326.
43. Swamidass, P.M., “Empirical science: new frontier in operations management research”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, 1991, pp. 793-813.

16. IJOPM 44. Meredith, J., “Theory building through conceptual methods”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, 1993, pp. 3-11.
17,7 45. Dubin, R., Theory Building, The Free Press, New York, NY, 1969.
46. Whetten, D.A., “What constitutes a theoretical contribution?”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, 1989, pp. 490-5.
47. Emory, W.C., Business Research Methods, Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1985.
48. Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G. and Sakakibara, S., “The impact of quality management
670 practices on performance and competitive advantage”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 26, 1995, pp.
659-78.
49. Forker, R.J., Vickery, S.K. and Droge, C.L., “The contribution of quality to business
performance”, Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Decision Sciences Institute Conference,
1995.
50. Hackman, J.R. and Wageman, R., “Total quality management: empirical, conceptual, and
practical issues”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, 1995, pp. 309-42.
51. Millar, I., “Total just-in-time”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 90 No. 3, 1990,
pp. 3-10.
52. Spencer, M.S. and Guide, V.D., “An exploration of the components of JIT – case study and
survey results”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 15
No. 5, 1995, pp. 72-83.
53. Handfield, R.B., “A resource dependence perspective of just-in-time”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 11, 1993, pp. 289-311.
54. Miller, J.G. and Roth, A.V., “A taxonomy of manufacturing strategies”, Management
Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, 1994, pp. 285-304.
55. Skinner, W. (Ed.), Special issue on manufacturing strategy, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, 1996.
56. Swamidass, P.M. and Newell, W.T., “Manufacturing strategy, environmental uncertainty
and performance: a path analytical model”, Management Science, Vol. 33 No. 4, 1987, pp.
509-24.
57. Kotha, S. and Vadlamani, B.L., “Assessing generic strategies: an empirical investigation of
two competing typologies in discrete manufacturing industries”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 16, 1995, pp. 75-83.
58. Skinner, W., “The focused factory”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 52 No. 3, 1974, pp. 113-
21.
59. Babbie, E.R., Survey Research Methods, Wadsworth, Belmont, 1973.
60. Bartunek, J.M., Bobco, P. and Venkatraman, N., “Toward innovation and diversity in
management research methods”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 6, 1993, pp.
1362-73.