POMS is another one of this incredibly huge conferences where you need to be lucky – or plan it well – to actually meet people outside of the main track you are attending. The quality overall is impressive, pity that most presentations are based on abstracts only.
Different from many other conferences is all the career advice – there are lots of teaching-related tracks, actual career advice tracks, and probably best, there was even a one for women in operations management on how to manage life and career together. More of these, please! (Luckily, also INFORMS has a similar community already, though I am not too convinced of the name “WORMS“.)
If there is anything to complain about, it’s the scam with the mini-conferences that everyone thinks they paid for but are then asked to pay for even more. Apparently even the organisers of these were ripped off! It’s not as if the conference hadn’t been pricy already without that… and the catering is, well:
Posted in Conferences, Humanitarian supply chains, Innovation, Operations management, Research & Methodology, Reverse Logistics, Service management, Supply Chain Management, Sustainability
Tagged career advice, conference, operations, Operations management, poms
No, this is not to add to the theories debate, though the doctoral course we are running right now in Turku may do that. There is an astonishing variety of topics among the participants, anything from public procurement to lean manufacturing to assessing logistics costs on the national level to environmental issues in food supply chains… And yet they all face the same challenges:
- What is theory?
- Which one to select for my thesis?
- How to contribute to it?
With the help of Árni Halldórsson (from this blog) and Craig Carter, the course may shed light on some of these questions – though I ask myself if wondering about them isn’t a perpetual quest in (SCM) research.
There are lots of literature reviews and conceptual papers out there so this is not the thing. This “ListAssist” is making the start easier listing key articles and book chapters in particular areas denoting their content but also their methods. There are three within the area of “operations and logistics management”: logistics and supply chain management, humanitarian logistics, and sustainable technology management. A good start making research – and teaching – somewhat easier.
Ethics committees guard more and more types of research at universities and in different countries. Even student papers are routinely checked for plagiarism. There have been many infamous cases in which academic titles were stripped from people and several companies lost their licences to operate upon a scandal related to breaching some aspect of research ethics.
But what will happen to politicians plagiarising each others’ statutes? This is exactly what happened between two parties in Sweden. And the parties aren’t even close in ideology…
PS There is enough material in this for another John Le Carré novel after the Constant Gardener having looked into big pharma’s research ethics.
Talking about co-authoring is a bit like opening Pandora’s box. Approaches differ largely across universities and countries. Yet there are actually international agreements determining who should be named as an author vs. who should be thanked in acknowledgements (only). Even the order of authors has been regulated. Here’s a link to the “Vancouver protocol” on the matter, and the text in brief:
“The Vancouver Protocols state that in order to be credited as an author, each and every author on a publication needs to have been involved in the:
1. Conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data
2. Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content
3. Final approval of the version to be published.”
Note all the AND-s in the requirements.
So why bother? Statistics on the matter show an increase in domestic and international co-authoring, thus the topic should be of rising interest.
Trends in the co-operation in science, 1985-2007
For this and more see the OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2009.
Few groups see the benefit of social networks for research as clearly as the BDOM network (standing for behavioral dynamics in operations management). They haven’t just added a list of publications or a bibliography of relevant publications on their website but an archive (including classifications á la content analysis) of publications on google docs – hence one should be able to extend the list. Some (learning) models may be right
PS. Here’s the link to Sterman’s (2002) article claiming that “all models are wrong“.
Those who are interested in the development of research in Operations Management will find this paper by Andrew Taylor and Margaret Taylor (editors of IJOPM* during the last 5 years) relevant to their collection:
Operations management research: contemporary themes, trends and potential future directions
The paper identifies main research themes, use of research methods, and reasons for rejecting manuscripts.
The analysis of 310 articles published in IJOPM from 2004-2009 identified these as amongst the top-five themes in the journal:
1. Supply Chain Management
2. Operations Strategy
3. Performance Management
4. Service Operations
5. Lean Methods
What is in particular of interest in this paper is the insight the editors provide into the publication process; main reasons for rejection of manuscripts are presented and discussed. In addition, the paper provides overview on the use of various research methods, which indicates a relative balanced use of surveys and the case study method.
*International Journal of Operations & Production Management
Authors are well advised to check out editorial policies on review processes. While you may assume sending a paper to a international “peer reviewed” journal assures you of a blind review process, some even “better” journals (such as the International Journal of Production Economics) only subscribe to a single-blind review – i.e. authors do not know who their reviewers are but reviewers certainly do know who the authors are. This is not to say there wouldn’t be good arguments to present for single-blind or even open reviews, the question is just why this is not openly stated in the journal’s editorial policy… So this is not blind, it’s just candid. More room for ring-a-ring-o’-roses. Nobody said it was easy to be a scientist
The Journal of Business Logistics is seeking a new editor – see CSCMP’s call here. Deadline for applications: May 1, 2009