The Crucial Importance of Production and Operations Management

Andrew, Charles G.; Johnson, George A.

doi:10.5465/amr.1982.4285518

Cited by 19 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Originally, the research orientation of operations was entirely pragmatic: What procedures should be used in what situations? The presentation in early textbooks on production (e.g., Mitchell (1939)) focused on the organization and transformation process through a combination of descriptive and prescriptive discussion (Andrew and Johnson (1982)). The unit of analysis was the production manager and the definition of production management centered around what the production manager did.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Operations research (OR) was moving from war applications into the business and industrial arena and with it, the opportunity for business schools to gain academic respectability. OR quickly developed into a favorite tool (e.g., Holt, Modigliani, Muth, and Simon (1960)) for conducting research in operations (Buffa (1965, p. v.), Nistal (1979-80); Andrew and Johnson (1982)). It also allowed, for the first time, the development of a systematic body of knowledge in operations based on a consistent and rigorous framework.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But OM researchers were having great success with the new algorithmic modeling tools and found no need to explore other paradigms (Andrew and Johnson (1982)). The new area of operations research/management science (OR/MS) was steadily replacing the function of operations in academia and operations was becoming seen as an applied portion of the OR/MS field.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The attention and resources of firms were thus directed to marketing and finance instead of "toward improving manufacturing capabilities" (Hayes and Wheelwright (1984, p. 20)). In response, operations academics began to feel an "identity crisis" (Andrew and Johnson (1982)) reflecting the nature of those teaching in the field as well as the content of the courses. Raiszadeh and Ettkin (1988), in their survey of operations curricula, found a preponderance of "diversity" in the faculty teaching operations and, therefore, also in the course content.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Alternative research paradigms in operations

Meredith

Raturi

Amoako‐Gyampah

et al. 1989

J of Ops Management

428

298

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

EXECUTIVESUMMARYDue to the heritage and history of operations management, its research methodologies have been confined mainly to that of quantitative modeling and, on occasion, statistical analysis. The field has been changing dramatically in recent years. Firms now face numerous worldwide competitive challenges. many of which require major improvements in the operations function. Yet, the research methodologies in operations have largely remained stagnant. The paradigm on which these methodologies are based, while useful, limits the kinds of questions researchers can address.This paper presents a review and critique of the research in operations, itemizing the shortcomings identified by researchers in the field. These researchers suggest a new research agenda with an integrative view of operations' role in organizations, a wider application of alternative research methodologies, greater emphasis on benefit to the operations manager, cross-disciplinary research with other functional areas, a heavier emphasis on sociotechnical analysis over the entire production system, and empirical field studies. Some of the alternative research methodologies mentioned include longitudinal studies, field experiments, action research, and field studies.Following a description of the nature of research, three stages in the research cycle are identified: description, explanation, and testing. Although research can deal with any stage in this cycle, the majority of attention currently seems to focus on the explanation stage. The paper then discusses historical trends in the philosophy of science, starting with positivism, expanding into empiricism, and then leading to post-positivism.The impacts of each of these trends on research in operations (which remains largely in the positivist mode) are described. Discussion of the importance of a plurality of research methods concludes the section.A framework for research paradigms is then developed based on two key dimensions of research methodologies: the rational versus existential structure of the research process and the natural versus artificial basis for the information used in the research. These dimensions are then further explored in terms of thirteen characteristic measures. Next, research methodologies commonly used in other fields as well as operations are described in reference to this framework. Methodologies include those traditional to operations such as normative and descriptive modeling, simulation, surveys, case and field studies as well as those more common to other fields such as action research, historical analysis, expert panels, scenarios, interviewing, introspection, and hermeneutics. Examples from operations or allied fields are given to illustrate the methodologies.Past research publications in operations are plotted on the framework to see the limitations of our current paradigms relative to the richness of other fields. We tind that operations methodologies tend to ManuscriptJournal of Operations Management lie on the more rational end of the framework while s...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Alternative research paradigms in operations

Meredith

Raturi

Amoako‐Gyampah

et al. 1989

J of Ops Management

428

298

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As OR researchers continued to work on more challenging but less relevant problems, cries for relevancy (Lee 1966;Miser 1987;Shubik 1987) eventually led to calls for more empirical research, based on the assumption that studies grounded in data would likely have more relevance than studies grounded in mathematics (Buffa 1980;Andrew and Johnson 1982;Meredith, Raturi, Amoako-Gyampah and Kaplan 1989;Flynn, Sakakibara, Schroeder, Bates and Flynn 1990;Swamidass 1991). The call for empirical research was not met however with an immediate increase in empirical publications (Corbett and Wassenhove 1993); the birth of two journals specializing in empirical research helped change that and bring legitimacy to empirical research in the discipline.…”

Section: Introduction: a Field Divided?mentioning

confidence: 99%