Remember when Árni suggested to debate articles in public, as a sort of open source review? The Journal of Operations Management has indeed taken on the idea and publishes articles, and ideas for articles, in their operations and supply management forum. Some of the articles did already generate quite a number of (high quality) comments. Today’s topic is “too much theory, not enough understanding”. Time to log on and contribute to the debate!
Gyöngyi
Categories: Academic journals · Academic publications · Operations management · Popular science · Research & Methodology · Supply Chain Management · Theory
The latest issue of IJPDLM contains a paper by Jesper Aastrup, Copenhagen Business School, and Arni Halldorsson, University of Southampton. This is a Special Issue from the Nofoma 2008 conference, edited by Gyöngyi Kovács and Karen Spens, Hanken, Finland.
We presented this paper at the 2008 Nofoma conference in Helsinki Finland (and received the Schenker Best Paper award). We have been struggling with some issues of justification of our research approaches and types of scientific explanations, and decided to mix our thoughts about this. Although the paper is written in the context of logistics, the implications may also apply for other disciplines such as marketing, purchasing and operations management. We will hopefully come back to this context later.
From the abstract:
The purpose of this paper is to develop the paradigmatic justification for the use of case studies in logistics research. The argument is based on a critical realist (CR) ontology and epistemology. The current logistics paradigm’s flat ontology – based on regularity – is replaced by an ontology emphasising structures and mechanisms underlying actual events in the form of logistics practice and performance.
…Based on this CR view of the logistics domain it is argued that the justifications for conducting case studies lie in their ability: to reach the causal depth required for revealing the real domain of logistics activities and performance: to reveal the working of mechanisms in loosely coupled structures showing open systems characteristics through a constant alternation between abstract and concrete reasoning and; to include the causal powers and effects of agents’ ascribed meanings. Also, it is argued, in contrast with Yin’s work which refers to the possibility of generalising case studies, that the justification of case studies not only must refer to their complementary role in research but also must build on groundings that allow this form of research to take a primary role in knowledge creation.
…The arguments have direct implications primarily for the scientific justification for case studies in logistics.
Árni
Full reference:
Aastrup, Jepser and Halldorsson, Arni (2008): “Epistemological role of case studies in logistics: A critical realist perspective”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Volume 38, Issue 10, pp. 746-763.
Categories: Logistics · Research & Methodology · Scientific explanation · Supply Chain Management · Theory · critical realism · philosophy of science
Few thoughts about the dominant position of causal explanations in logistics (and supply chain management) research.
Do causal explanations have their origin in the chain metaphor?
What is the origin of the supply chain metaphor? We probably don’t know.
Ramsay and Caldwell (2004:81)* suggest that the origins of the supply chain as metaphor is by no means clear and that “…any appearance of clarity and stability is imaginary”. The origins are lost, but conceptually, it may refer to human bucket chain (buckets of water moving along from hand to hand to put out fire) becoming a literal reference to a process.
To this observation I want to add Henry Ford’s assembly line – it has been a key reference in textbooks and journals. What is of interest for me is to consider how the ideas of sequence and the quest for regularity and stability as basis for efficient and effective flow (of materials…). Have these traits, that can be associated with the assembly line, had influence on the methodologies of research within logistics (and perhaps also related disciplines such as operations management)?
Is the quest for stability of the assembly line informing the quest for law like regularity as explanation in logistics research?
If that is the case, will we ever be able to address other types of scientific explanation but the causal one in logistics without disregarding (or perhaps rejecting) the “supply chain” as metaphor?
Árni
*Ramsay, John and Caldwell, Nigel (2004): If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail: the risks of casual trope usage in purchasing discourse, Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 10 (2004) 79–87.
Categories: Research & Methodology · Supply Chain Management · Theory
What is supply chain management? And where is it? is an old question posted by Paul Larson and Árni Halldórsson (in fact, the title of one of their articles). At some point SCM followed the evergreen question of logistics research about theory, and logistics theory building, and articles started to appear on this topic. But the time is not always right for such big questions – except, it appears to have been right now. The Journal of Business Logistics, Journal of Supply Chain Management and International Journal of Logistics Management all dedicated their recent issues to SCM theory. The only questions that remain are, what is it, and where is it?
Gyöngyi
PS. Another SCM theory related CFP is out right now – the Journal of Supply Chain Management calls for papers on “Supply networks: theories and models“. Deadline Dec 31, 2008
Categories: Supply Chain Management · Theory
Three amigos revisited? Think again. SCM has many more amigos that want to join, at least according to JBL’s first ever special issue (Vol.29 No.1). First Frankel et al. discuss SCM as a domain stemming from the four disciplines purchasing, operations management, logistics and marketing channels, but then Mentzer et al. instantly counter with an article evaluating SCM’s relationships to logistics, marketing, production, and operations management. Hm. Contrary to the separation of these disciplines when it comes to journal rankings, I believe the differences between all of these amigos are kind of blurry. Therefore I would like to join in Atle Nordli’s call for a blind-taste test (not unlike the Pepsi Challenge case), presenting scholars from all of these disciplines with forthcoming articles in any of the SCM-related journals, letting to guess them which journal is going to publish it. Atle’s hypothesis is that there is little to no difference between, say, JOM and SCM:IJ, TR:E, IJPE and JBL etc. (spin it further as you wish), as all the amigos nowadays refer to the concept of supply chain management, and claim to be in this “new” field. Anyone up for the challenge?
Gyöngyi
Categories: Academic journals · Logistics · Operations management · Supply Chain Management · Theory
SCM scholars refer frequently to the work of Oliver E. Willamson on transaction cost economics (for example this one in SCM:AIJ).
The latest issue of Journal of Supply Chain Ma Management (2008, Vol. 44, Number 2) contains an interesting surprise: Outsourcing: Transaction Cost Economics and Supply Chain Management by Oliver E. Williamson.
This paper, that can be downloaded via the link provided here, is interesting for several reasons. First, it is (hopefully) a startingpoint of dialogue between SCM and economics. Many SCM scholars have been using the terminology of TCE for several years, but they are now getting a response. Second, my concern is that the list of references does not necessarily reflect upon this application but builds on selected references to the SCM literature. Third, and perhaps most importantly, Williamson finishes his paper by suggesting nine “TCE Queries for SCM”. You can find theme here by scrolling down this html format of the paper. These suggestions, or questions, are much needed, and will hopefully be discussed in the near future. A lack of interest or ability to do so may leave an impression that is not in favour of further development of SCM?
However, there is no reason to be pessimistic, here is the first of nine questions raised by Williamson:
(1) TCE subscribes to pragmatic methodology. What is the methodology of SCM?
Now, the floor is yours! It would be interesting to discuss this and the other eight suggestions.
Árni
Categories: Research & Methodology · Supply Chain Management · Theory
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
Categories: Academic journals · Theory
The abstract deadline for NOFOMA 2008 is approaching soon – note Jan 15 in your calendars! Uniquely, the conference is co-organised by four different universities, actually, ALL of those that have logistics education in the Helsinki region (and yes, I say Helsinki region, because oddly enough, the Helsinki University of Technology is actually located in Espoo, not in Helsinki). The big four are Hanken, the Helsinki School of Economics, Helsinki University of Technology, and the National Defence University. Just in time that they’ve started to co-operate, after all this is nothing smaller than the 20th anniversary conference! So you can be sure of a great celebration in Helsinki during Jun 4-6.
While the website is migrating (we are still waiting for access rights), here are the crucial dates to note. And a link to the call for papers. UPDATE: you’ll find the CFP on the Nofoma 2008 page of this blog!
First to the dates:
- Deadline for structured abstracts (for Nofoma and Educators Day): Jan 15, 2008
- Full paper deadline (for Nofoma and Educators Day): Mar 28, 2008
- Revisions, WIP papers, poster sessions, and papers for the NORDLOG doctoral workshop: May 2, 2008
- Early bird registration: May 2, 2008
- NORDLOG Doctoral Workshop: Jun 4, 2008 (at the Helsinki University of Technology)
- NOFOMA Educators Day: Jun 4, 2008 (at the Helsinki School of Economics)
- NOFOMA main conference: Jun 5-6, 2008 (at HANKEN)
As you’ll note from the CFP, there are a couple of new features coming up with the conference.
- First of all, the educators day has a call for papers! I.e. please submit your teaching-relevant publications to the conference! They’ll be reviewed, and the ones that make it as a full paper will be included in the conference proceedings.
- Secondly, there is a poster session with a special deadline.
- And… lots of surprise elements to come. But they wouldn’t be surprises if I were to post them here, would they? 
So, note the dates and have a look at the CFP. You’ll find all traditional logistics/SCM themes on it (from theoretical developments, modelling and simulation tracks, to TPL-related issues, ICT in logistics etc.). And a couple of new ones: humanitarian logistics, security & safety in traffic and transport (greetings to the EU’s 7FP), and healthcare supply chains.
Most importantly, this is a conference with a full paper review. And, best papers will be selected for the International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management.
Welcome to Helsinki in June!
Gyöngyi
Categories: Academic publications · Call for papers · Conferences · Humanitarian supply chains · PhD · Research & Methodology · Supply Chain Management · Theory
In this entry on Academic Journals and Functional Silos, I hinted at the idea that academic journals are centred traditional business functions such as operations, marketing, logistics, and purchasing.
Does this translate into a ‘functional silo’ thinking among academics and/or practitioners? That is, does this reproduce the ‘individual organisation’ as level of analysis rather than break out into other levels of analysis, such as teh the dyad, a set of three or more companies (a.k.a. supply chains), or a comprehensive network of companies?
Extending the level of analysis does not come without confusion. The term ’supply chain’ is often used to denote a variety of situations related to the boundaries of the firm; supply chain performance measurement, supply chain innovation, supply chain relationships, and improving the supply chain. The danger is that the label of ’supply chain’ is used to situations of everthing from relationships in dyads to comprehensive networks.
Take the concept of supply chain performance as an example; where does it start, and where does it end? Who should measure the performance? And what supply chain should be measured?
Adding supply chain to concepts such as management, performance, impact, competition, and improvement does not come without challenge.
Árni
Categories: Supply Chain Management · Theory · supply chain
Abbreviations summarise a set of ideas and concepts, that when added together, become laden with positive attributes, regarded as ’strategies’, ’solutions’, or ‘visions’. Take VMI, SCM, BPR, and 3PL for example. In other cases, metaphors take over: lean, agile, chain, silos.
Almost a decade ago, the common understanding and ability of ‘3PL’ was challenged – 4PL was introduced. The following discussion included an interesting development in the logistics service industry – but has 4PL taken over as a label? Considering article titles of journal articles, 3PL is still used as the main label for the operations and services of logistics firms.
Árni
Categories: Socks and sandals · Theory
