Despite many calls for case‐based operations management research, the successful publication rate of such articles in top‐tier journals has been less than stellar. A five step case‐based research and dissemination process is presented. Guidance is given to future researchers for each step in the process. In addition, areas of weakness are examined and discussed in detail. Future potential research questions in operations management considered to be appropriate for the case‐based method are highlighted.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to advance thought and practice on supply chain relationship building, in the context of humanitarian logistics, drawing on lessons from leading practitioners.Design/methodology/approachThe presentations were treated like data, enabling grounded research concerning practitioners. The presentations were recorded, transcribed, vetted, and imported into qualitative software (NVivo8) to facilitate further analysis, which led to testable propositions.FindingsThree themes emerged, centered around relationship benefits, challenges, and advice on relationship building. Advice from the practitioners led to 11 propositions.Research limitations/implicationsWhile the presentations were treated as interview data, there was no opportunity to probe statements made by the speakers. Also, speakers were the sole representatives for their organizations. Finally, the findings cannot be generalized beyond the types of situations and organizations represented at the conference.Practical implicationsThe propositions represent advice from experienced humanitarian practitioners on building supply chain relationships.Social implicationsSupply chains are economic entities. They are also social entities. Humanitarian supply chains involve people working together to help other people in need.Originality/valueThere are few published articles on supply chain relationship building, and only several pieces on humanitarian partnerships or relationships. This paper contributes to the literature in a novel way, by drawing on expert speakers at a humanitarian conference.

Numerous benefits have been claimed for firms that implement just‐in‐time (JIT) approaches to manufacturing. While a fair number of Western firms have been successful at such implementations, other firms that could benefit appear to be addressing only a few features rather than the overall philosophy and system. This paper considers whether each of a number of management initiatives is necessary for the implementation of just‐in‐time manufacturing. A case‐based research methodology was used for theory testing at six plants, each which claimed to be implementing just‐in‐time manufacturing. Data were obtained via interviews, questionnaires, direct observation, and collection of documents. Of six management initiatives considered, four were supported as necessary conditions for both JIT flow and JIT quality, as well as for employee involvement. These four are: (1) promotion of employee responsibility, (2) provision of training, (3) promotion of teamwork, and (4) demonstration of visible commitment. The other two management initiatives were rejected as necessary conditions. These are: (1) provision of workforce security, and (2) use of group performance measures. The results also indicated that employee involvement plays a central role in JIT implementation.

Clients engage consultants for many reasons, not always successfully. Based on a literature review and client and consultant interviews, this paper suggests six universal factors ‐‐ stated as testable propositions ‐‐ to help explain consulting engagement success. The factors are consultant integrity ‐‐ in particular in putting the client’s interests first, client involvement and readiness to change, a clear agreement concerning requirements and expectations, client control of the engagement ‐‐ partly via clear and limited assignments, consultant competence, and a good fit along a number of dimensions ‐‐ including models of consultancy, client expectations, consultant capabilities, and consultant type. The paper also addresses the distinction between organisation development consultation and other types of management consulting and concludes that the distinction need not be so sharp.

There are various views about the nature of service quality in a consulting engagement. This paper utilises literature from a number of disciplines, along with exploratory interviews with seven consultants and one client, to address one question, namely,``What is engagement success in consulting, from both the client and consultant points of view?''. In addressing this question, the paper considers distinctions between types of consulting, client expectations and needs, and short-and long-term revenue streams. It concludes by suggesting that a consulting engagement is successful if the consultant has met client expectations (by improving one or more of client performance, client capabilities, or organisational culture, without making any category worse) ± whether or not a core need has been addressed ± and the consultant has enhanced his/her reputation, with expectations of future revenue streams ± whether or not any immediate income has been received.