I was browsing throug the list of content of the 1/2008 issue of International Journal of Operations and Production Management and found it quite interesting to see how purchasing (or supply management in more recent terms) is represented in the kewords of the articles.
Least square approximation, Operations management, Productivity rate, Research
Business-to-business marketing, Buying behaviour, Internet, Process analysis, Procurement
Automotive industry, Sourcing, Suppliers
Customers, Financial performance, Quality improvement, Service failures
Point being that this helps disciplines to break out of their functional orientation, in this case purchasing and operations management. The domain of these two disciplines does overlap to some extent, but very often, purchasing papers are a target for purchasing journals (and conferences!), OM papers for OM journals (and conferences!), etc.
By considering the evolvement of topics presented at academic conferences, changes of professional organisations (both name and content) and how textbooks have developed, it is fair to say that supply chain management is today a common denominator for the three amigos of purchasing-logistics-and-operations management. We still remain to discuss whether SCM is an appropriate denominator or not.
Will more dialogoue between disciplines break the ‘functional silo’ mentality? Put more strongly, has the rather clear distinction between purchasing, operations management and logistics (departments at business schools, textbooks, programme structure and course content) been one of the major driving forces behind the functional silo mentality? Instead of requesting managers to break down the functional silo mentality, perhaps academia should have a look at their domains?
Árni
