The scientific theory‐building process: a primer using the case of TQM

Handfield, Robert; Melnyk, Steven A.

doi:10.1016/s0272-6963(98)00017-5

Cited by 357 publications

(285 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

281

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hicks and McGovern 2009), not much research has been undertaken on engineering change management at firms that produce complex capital goods, particularly when it comes to the question how engineering changes flow between specific product designs and what type of product delivery strategies are in use. Handfield and Melnyk (1998) distinguish five steps in the theory building process: (1) discovery and description, (2) mapping, (3) relationship building, (4) theory validation and (5) theory extension and refinement. Since the first step (in which questions as 'is there something interesting enough to justify research?'…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing design variety, process variety and engineering change: a case study of two capital good firms

Veldman

Alblas

2012

Res Eng Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many capital good firms deliver products that are not strictly one-off, but instead share a certain degree of similarity with other deliveries. In the delivery of the product, they aim to balance stability and variety in their product design and processes. The issue of engineering change plays an important in how they manage to do so. Our aim is to gain more understanding into how capital good firms manage engineering change, design variety and process variety, and into the role of the product delivery strategies they thereby use. Product delivery strategies are defined as the type of engineering work that is done independent of an order and the specification freedom the customer has in the remaining part of the design. Based on the within-case and cross-case analysis of two capital good firms several mechanisms for managing engineering change, design variety and process variety are distilled. It was found that there exist different ways of (1) managing generic design information, (2) isolating large engineering changes, (3) managing process variety, (4) designing and executing engineering change processes. Together with different product delivery strategies these mechanisms can be placed within an archetypes framework of engineering change management. On one side of the spectrum capital good firms operate according to open product delivery strategies, have some practices in place to investigate design reuse potential, isolate discontinuous engineering changes into the first deliveries of the product, employ 'probe and learn' process management principles in order to allow evolving insights to be accurately executed and have informal engineering change processes. On the other side of the spectrum capital good firms operate according to a closed product delivery strategy, focus on prevention of engineering changes based on design standards, need no isolation mechanisms for discontinuous engineering changes, have formal process management practices in place and make use of closed and formal engineering change procedures. The framework should help managers to (1) analyze existing configurations of product delivery strategies, product and process designs and engineering change management and (2) reconfigure any of these elements according to a 'misfit' derived from the framework. Since this is one of the few in-depth empirical studies into engineering change management in the capital good sector, our work adds to the understanding on the various ways in which engineering change can be dealt with.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing design variety, process variety and engineering change: a case study of two capital good firms

Veldman

Alblas

2012

Res Eng Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Goffin et al, 2006). This can be explained by the lack of qualitative theory building research on the topic (Handfield and Melnyk, 1998) and hence the necessity for more exploratory research that proposes models and frameworks that can be further tested and modified (Burgess et al, 2006;Olsen and Ellram, 1997a).…”

Section: Unit Of Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Using grounded theory method for theory building in operations management research

Binder

Edwards

2010

Int Jrnl of Op & Prod Mnagemnt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Qualitative theory building approaches, such as Grounded Theory Method (GTM), are still not very widespread and rigorously applied in Operations Management (OM) research. Yet it is agreed that more systematic observation of current industrial phenomena is necessary to help managers deal with their problems. Hence, the aim of this paper is to provide an example to help guide other researchers on using GTM for theory building in OM research.Design/methodology/approach A GTM study in the German automotive industry consisting of 31 interviews was followed by a validation stage comprising a survey (110 responses) and a focus group. FindingsThe result is an example of conducting GTM research in OM, illustrated by the development of the novel Collaborative Enterprise Governance framework for inter-firm relationship governance in the German automotive industry.Research limitations GTM is appropriate for qualitative theory building research, but the resultant theories need further testing. Research is necessary to identify the transferability of the Collaborative Enterprise Governance concept to other industries than automotive, to other organisational areas than R&D and to product and service settings that are less complex and innovative.Implications The paper helps researchers to make more informed use of GTM when engaging in qualitative theory building research in OM. Originality/valueThere is a lack of explicit and well-informed use of GTM in OM research because of poor understanding. This paper addresses this deficiency. The Collaborative Enterprise Governance framework is a significant contribution in an area of growing importance within OM.2

show abstract

“…Applying case methods research in a rigorous manner can contribute to theory building and it needs to pass the 'tests of good theory' as Eisenhardt (1989) argues. Handfield and Melynk (1998) suggest and outline potential matching research strategies to theory building when using case based methods. For example, they suggest using unfocused indepth case studies and longitudinal case studies when the purpose of the research is focused on discovery, yet where the research purpose is mapping then focused case studies, in-depth field studies multiple cases studies constitute more appropriate data collection approaches.…”

Section: Challenges and Benefits Of Qualitative Case Methods Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of qualitative case methods trends and themes used in technology transfer research

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The focus of this paper is to review the qualitative case methods that have been used in technology transfer research over the last 20 years from 1996 to 2015. Qualitative case methods allow for more in-depth analyses and provide the opportunity to place research into a certain context due to the selection of e.g. specific sectors, institutions, countries, etc. Using a systematic literature review of five of the top journals in the field of technology transfer research, namely Journal of Technology Transfer, Research Policy, Science and Public Policy, R&D Management and Technovation, it yielded 107 articles using the search terms: "Technology Transfer" AND ("Case Study" OR "Case Method" OR "Qualitative"). Our findings found a clustering of themes using qualitative case methods around technology transfer mechanisms and TTOs, academic entrepreneurship, university-industry collaboration, commercialization as well as R&D and firm knowledge transfer. We also identify trends in case method technology transfer research with respect to authorship, location of papers, sectoral contexts, data collection, numbers of cases and data analysis software. We conclude our paper discussing the implications of trends and themes and suggest that researchers need to reflect on used terminology to describe qualitative case methods and their utilization. We conclude by postulating a to advance technology transfer researcher further there is a need for more plurality of data collection methods for qualitative case methods research.

show abstract

The scientific theory‐building process: a primer using the case of TQM

Cited by 357 publications

References 33 publications

Managing design variety, process variety and engineering change: a case study of two capital good firms

Managing design variety, process variety and engineering change: a case study of two capital good firms

Using grounded theory method for theory building in operations management research

A review of qualitative case methods trends and themes used in technology transfer research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About