Journal of Operations Management 53-56 (2017) 1e8

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Operations Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jom

Strategy and organization research in operations management

Gopesh Anand a, *, John V. Gray b
a
College of Business, University of Illinois, United States
b
Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Available online 28 September 2017
Handling Editor: Mikko Ketokivi
In a September 2015 editorial (Guide and Ketokivi, 2015), the co-editors-in-chief of the Journal of Op-
erations Management restructured the management of submissions into departments by substantive
domain. This essay expands upon their brief description of the Strategy and Organization Department.
While chiefly seeking to clarify what we see as the department's content domain, we also offer insights
on how to maximize the contribution of operations management research to the strategy and organi-
zation literature.
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction OM topics that have utilized strategy and organization perspectives

The co-editors of the journal describe the Strategy and Organi-
zation Department as follows1:
The Strategy and Organization Department focuses on two
inter-related topics. One is strategy, which covers all research
related to how firms seek to compete in the marketplace. More
specific topics include operations strategy (although we prefer
Wickham Skinner's term “operations in the corporate strategy”),
competitive advantage (rents), market positioning, barriers to
entry, and other topics that link directly to how firms compete
with their operations. We encourage authors to address
competition explicitly in their manuscripts. The second topic is
organization, which in this context means the internal organi-
zation of the firm. Research within this topic includes classic
themes of organization design, organizational differentiation
and integration, organization and management of geographi-
cally dispersed operations, as well as general organizing prin-
ciples such as coordination and control.
We are honored to serve as the first co-editors of the Strategy
and Organization Department and to contribute this essay, which is
organized as follows: In Section 2, we provide our perspective of
what “strategy and organization” means (and does not mean) in the
context of operations management (OM). In Section 3, we identify
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: gopesh@Illinois.edu (G. Anand), gray.402@osu.edu (J.V. Gray).
1 3
https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-operations-management/
strategy-and-organization.
and attempt to clarify this department's domain in hopes of
motivating further research on listed and new topics. In Section 4,
we briefly articulate what we will be looking for in submissions,
touching on methodology and rigor and discussing how to increase
contributions to theory and practice. Section 5 presents our
conclusions.
2. The domain of strategy and organization in the context of
operations management
Although strategy and organization can be differentiated from
each other, both domains are closely related, especially in opera-
tions management (Guide and Ketokivi, 2015). Indeed, operations
strategy could be described as the interplay between the firm's
strategic direction (while we use “firm,” the unit of analysis could
be a business unit, not-for-profit, etc.) and the organization of its
resources for developing, producing, and delivering goods and
services. As further evidence of this close linkage, consider that the
domain statement of Organization Science includes “the fields of
strategy, management, and organization theory.”2 Likewise, the
aims and scope of Strategic Management Journal3 include “major
topics such as strategic resource allocation, organization structure
…” Clearly, management journals in organization consider strategy
a key part of their domain, and vice-versa.
Given the distinction, we first describe and trace the roots of the
strategy and organization OM research domains in sections 2.1 and
2
http://pubsonline.informs.org/journal/orsc#.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266/homepage/
ProductInformation.html.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2017.09.001
0272-6963/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 G. Anand, J.V. Gray / Journal of Operations Management 53-56 (2017) 1e8
2.2, respectively. Given the close relation of the two domains, we
present in Section 3 a combined list of topics in OM research
covering both.
2.1. Strategy in OM
Porter (1996) described strategy as the assembly of a unique
combination of resources, noting: “It means deliberately choosing a
different set of activities to deliver a unique mix of values” (Porter,
1996, p.64). Skinner (1969) first noted that manufacturing lacked
a seat at the table where corporate strategy was developed, causing
its relegation to a reactionary role in strategy implementation.
(Although Skinner focused on manufacturing, the concepts in the
article readily transfer to operations strategy in all contexts,
including services, and can be extended to consider supply chains).
Calling manufacturing a “missing link” in corporate strategy,
Skinner urged managers to consider the reciprocal relationship
between operations strategy and corporate strategy. He further
cautioned against the fallacy of focusing solely on low costs and high
efficiencies as key tactical objectives for operations; operations
managers are prone to do this if not directed otherwise. Skinner
noted that firms that failed to recognize the strategic potential of
operations and the stickiness of investments in operations were left
with operations inadvertently unable to deliver on their strategy.
Skinner’s (1969) seminal article served as a wakeup call for the
recognition of operations in the corporate strategy in research and
practice (Skinner, 1978). Operations subsequently gained promi-
nence as a function in the 1980s and ’90s (Ketchen and Hult,
2007a), with more newly appointed CEOs coming from that func-
tion than any other between 1992 and 2005 (Koyuncu et al., 2010).
Today, prominent consulting firms such as Accenture, Deloitte, EY,
KPMG, and PricewaterhouseCoopers offer advisory services
focusing on strategic operations and supply chain management.
On the academic front, the literature on the strategic manage-
ment of operations (often called “operations strategy”) exploded in
the 1980s, ’90s, and 2000s, with much of its rich history published
in the Journal of Operations Management (JOM). Indeed, the body of
research was large enough in the late 1980s to merit a literature
review from Anderson et al. (1989) and a bibliography from
Swamidass (1989). Subsequent literature reviews included Leong
et al. (1990), Swink and Way (1995), Dangayach and Deshmukh
(2001), Boyer et al. (2005), and Chatha et al. (2015). A number of
complete textbooks have focused on operations strategy (e.g., Slack
and Lewis, 2015; Van Mieghem and Allon, 2015; Hill, 1999), while
core operations and supply chain management textbooks have
made it the subject of introductory chapters (e.g., Krajewski et al.,
2015; Jacobs and Chase, 2016; Chopra and Meindl, 2015;
Fitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons, 2013). As a result, operations
strategy is nearly always an early topic in business schools’ core
operations management courses.
2.2. Organization in OM
While the strategy theme mainly focuses on deliberate decisions
for strategic positioning of organizations, the organization theme
focuses more on structures and processes within the firm, and
behaviors of individuals and groups in the firm. This theme also
explores how firms make changes to resources reflecting the
external contextual and internal task environments while allowing
for variability and uncertainty in both. While the external contex-
tual environment consists of elements such as competitors, sup-
pliers, regulators, and available technologies, the internal task
environment includes decisions about product portfolios, infor-
mation technologies, employee incentives, and production
methods. As both environments are typically the product of
strategic choices about where and how to compete, we again see
the organization theme intertwining with that of strategy.
OM topics have been of natural interest to organization re-
searchers, as seen by their studies on structuring work for efficiency
(Taylor, 1911) and the impacts of work-environment and social
contexts on employee performance (Roethlisberger et al., 1939). A
notable example is quality management, which organization re-
searchers have studied extensively (see, e.g., Cole and Scott, 2000
for a compilation of research articles on the topic). Organization-
centric concepts of contingencies and configurations, as seen in
studies of the product-process matrix (Safizadeh and Ritzman,
1996; Hayes and Wheelwright, 1979 a,b), have long been part of
the OM literature.
Articles employing organization concepts in OM increased in
the 1990s, perhaps because of growing interest in process
improvement initiatives such as total quality management and lean
operations (Mukherjee and Lapre, 1998, Ahire et al., 1995; Adam,
1994; Flynn et al., 1994; Benson et al., 1991). A conceptual note in
JOM reviewed the use of organization (the authors used “man-
agement theory”) concepts in quality management research (Sousa
and Voss, 2002). These concepts have been employed for research
in other OM topics such as cellular manufacturing (Huber and Hyer,
1985), infrastructure for operations (Boyer et al., 1996; Maffei and
Meredith, 1995), supply chain management (Ketchen and Hult,
2007b; Miles and Snow, 2007), OM practices (Sousa and Voss,
2008), and managing innovations (Benner and Tushman, 2003).
JOM released a special issue on organization theory and supply
chain management in 2007 (Ketchen and Hult, 2007a).
3. OM research areas in strategy and organization
The essential role of operations is to provide goods and services
by effectively and efficiently converting inputs into outputs (Adam,
1983). Our aim as co-department editors is to publish research
focusing on strategy and organization relating to this role. In this
section, we articulate what we consider broad topics of research in
OM strategy and organization. Here we combine strategy and or-
ganization, recognizing that each topic may lean more toward one
or the other.
The topics we list are not mutually exclusivedthey contain
considerable overlap, with most related OM papers falling under
more than one. Also, while we have tried to be comprehensive, this
list is not collectively exhaustive; there may be papers in organi-
zation and strategy in OM beyond these topics.
The topics we envision under strategy and organization are:
1. Alignment: Match between the strategy and organization of the
operation and (1) strategy of the firm and/or other functions, (2)
task characteristics, and/or (3) external environment.
2. Formulation Process: Development and implementation of an
operations strategy.
3. Configurations: Menus of practices and/or performance di-
mensions (e.g., cost, quality, delivery, flexibility)4; bundles of
operations capabilities5 that define specific operation strategies.
4
Note that such performance dimensions are often referred to in OM research as
desired or achieved “capabilities.” Given the myriad meanings of the word capa-
bilities in the strategy and organization literature (see next footnote), we prefer the
term “performance dimensions.”
5
Across all domains of research in business, the term “capabilities” has been
used to imply different things (Helfat and Winter, 2011). We do not intend to
resolve that here, but only request that authors carefully define their conceptual-
ization of capabilities and avoid obvious hypotheses relating capabilities to
performance.
 G. Anand, J.V. Gray / Journal of Operations Management 53-56 (2017) 1e8 3

4. Tradeoffs and Combinations: Substitution versus simultaneous
development of different operational performance dimensions.
5. Learning and Knowledge Management: Generation, mainte-
nance, and renewal of operations capabilities; transfer of
knowledge within and among organizations.
6. Incentives: Role of incentives at all organizational levels in
connection with strategic objectives.
7. Team Dynamics: Formation and structure of finite-term project
teams as well as longer-duration production and management
teams.
8. Design of Operations: Structure and location of operations and
these decisions' relationship with other infrastructure and
structure areas of strategy.
9. Technologies: Selection of technologies, integration among
technologies, and integration with other aspects of strategy and
organization.
In Table 1, we cite examples of OM papers that address each of
these topics.
Research in these topics can be conducted at all levels of anal-
ysis: 1) individual (Croson et al., 2013; Wu and Katok, 2006); 2)
“operating unit,” such as team (Edmondson and Nembhard, 2009;
Hyer et al., 1999), department (Tucker et al., 2007; Safizadeh
et al., 2003), establishment (Sousa and Voss, 2007; Schmenner
and Cook, 1985), or firm (Roh et al., 2016; Salvador et al., 2014);
3) “super-unit,” such as plant network (Ferdows et al., 2016;
Schmenner, 1982) or multi-function network (Gray et al., 2015;
Swink and Song, 2007); and 4) “industries and countries” (Spring
et al., 2017; Albuquerque et al., 2007).
We note that some of the above topics and levels of analysis can
easily overlap with the journal's “sister” department of Inter-
Organizational Relationships. This is because decisions related to
these topics will be intertwined with the characteristics and be-
haviors of upstream (e.g., suppliers and vendors), horizontal (e.g.,
competitors), and downstream (e.g., customers) entities. These
characteristics and behaviors are important as a firm's managers
decide how to organize its operations, ranging from the network
footprint down to line-employee incentives. A make-vs.-buy deci-
sion, for example, considers the implications of choosing “buy” and
requires evaluation of resultant benefits, costs, and risk of the
resulting inter-organizational relationship. Nonetheless, such a
study would generally fall under the realm of the strategy and or-
ganization department because make-vs.-buy is considered a
strategic decision. Studies focusing on the design of and/or man-
agement across internal firm boundaries (e.g., geographic, func-
tional) also would fall under this department's purview. By
contrast, studies focusing entirely on managing relationships across
firm boundaries (e.g., with vendors, suppliers, customers, or any
other third-party providers) would fall under the inter-
organizational relationships department.
It is also worth evaluating what distinguishes “operations
strategy” from “business/corporate strategy.” From our perspective,
research focused on overall firm competitive positioning, industry
dynamics (and their effect on firm strategy), and firm-level strategy
formulation does not belong in JOM. The exception would be
research with a clear link to decisions involving, or the current state
of, the firm's operation or supply chain. Work on those “pure
strategy” topics should be submitted to a general management
publication such as the Strategic Management Journal.
4. Methodology, rigor, and contribution
In this section, we present our thoughts on methodology, rigor,
and contribution, and try to relate these to important strategy and
organization topics. While largely applicable to any submission at
this or arguably any top journal, these thoughts simply represent
our view as co-department editors, informed by perspectives cited
here from previous literature as well as the journal's overall
editorial philosophy.
4.1. Methodology
Virtually any methodology can facilitate strategy and organiza-
tion research in OM. Multiple methodologies can inform a single
research question, as articulated in previous editorials in this
journal (Singhal and Singhal, 2012a,b; Boyer and Swink, 2008) and
elsewhere (Choi et al., 2016; Roth et al., 2016; Carter et al., 2008). As
such, this department welcomes submissions of any methodology
that is rigorously applied (as briefly discussed in the next sub-
section) and appropriate for the research question and current
state of the research. It is important for researchers to resist force-
fitting their preferred approach to the research question. Sodhi and
Tang (2014), Handfield and Melnyk (1998), and many others within
and outside the OM discipline have offered guidance on matching
method with research objective. Authors of submitted papers
should consult such resources at the beginning of their research. In
the methodology discussion of submissions to this department, we
expect authors to transparently explain and explicitly justify why
the method employed was chosen, given the research question at
hand.
4.2. Rigor
Strategy and organization research often strives for causal
inference, not simply description. Paraphrasing Mantere and
Ketokivi (2013), an evaluation of rigor is an evaluation of the

Table 1
Strategy and organization topics in OM.

Topic Areas Example Papers

Alignment
Formulation Process
Configurations
Tradeoffs and Combinations
Learning and Knowledge
Management
Incentives
Team Dynamics
Design of Operations
Selection of Technologies
Anderson and Lewis 2014, Sousa and Voss 2001, Anand and Ward 2004, Devaraj et al., 2001, Ettlie 1995, Swamidass and Newell 1987,
Skinner 1969
Kim et al., 2014, Krause et al., 2014, Kaplan and Norton 2008, Menda and Dilts 1997, Marucheck et al., 1990, Hayes 1985
Peng et al., 2008, Boyer and Frohlich 2006, Menor et al., 2001, Bozarth and McDermott 1998, Ward et al., 1996, Miller and Roth 1994
Tatikonda et al., 2013, Rosenzweig and Easton 2010, Lapre
and Scudder, 2004, Ferdows and De Meyer, 1990, Adler et al., 1999, Corbett and
van Wassenhove, 1993, Skinner 1974
Gray and Massimino 2014; Anand et al., 2012, Azadegan and Dooley 2010, Benner 2009, Choo et al., 2007a, Stratman et al., 2004, Uzumeri
and Nembhard 1998
Tucker 2016, McFadden et al., 2014, Bendoly et al., 2010, Browning 2010, Siemsen et al., 2008, Sarin and McDermott 2003,
Chandrasekaran and Mishra 2012, Edmondson and Nembhard, 2009, Tucker et al., 2007, Gardner et al., 2012, Hyer et al., 1999
Ketokivi et al., 2017, Steven et al., 2014, Gray et al., 2011, Ketokivi and Ali-Yrkko€ 2009, Vereecke et al., 2006, Safizadeh and Ritzman, 1996,
Hayes and Schmenner 1978
Sharma et al., 2016, Queenan et al., 2011, Hozak and Collier 2008, Stratman 2007, Boyer et al., 1997, Lefebvre et al., 1997
4 G. Anand, J.V. Gray / Journal of Operations Management 53-56 (2017) 1e8
credibility and the transparency of the reasoning that led to the
causal inferences that the researcher made. Several things can
invalidate the claims. In strategy and organization, common can-
didates are poor sample selection, biases in the measurement of
constructs, and plausible valid alternative explanations due to
omitted variables. Such problems can be present in any research
design,6 from ethnographic case studies to cutting-edge econo-
metric analysis of secondary data. Some survey research in OM has
been accused of ignoring and failing to test for alternative expla-
nations of posited relationships (Shah and Goldstein, 2006). This is
often compounded by common method bias when the same
respondent concurrently reports practices and performance
(Siemsen et al., 2010). Further, because researchers in strategy and
organization often are trying to claim a particular managerial lever
affects some type of performance, any research design must care-
fully consider endogeneity. This was well articulated by Hamilton
and Nickerson (2003) 7 and, in this journal, Ketokivi and
McIntosh (2017), who also proposed reasonable criteria for evalu-
ating and dealing with endogeneity in observational research. A
critical threshold for rigor in any research article is whetherdbased
on the sample, measures, and analysesdthe claims are sufficiently
warranted.
4.3. Maximizing contribution to research and practice
Based on the definition of rigor presented above, and consistent
with similar observations made by Toffel (2016), Gallien et al.
(2016), and Van Mieghem (2013), we believe there is no compro-
mise between rigor and relevance. However, to make a contribu-
tion, research must not only be rigorous in the above-defined sense
but have findings that further the field's understanding of the
phenomenon under study (Davis, 2015).8 This typically occurs by
providing insight into theories of strategy and organization (see
discussions, for example, by Shaw, 2017; Sutton and Staw, 1995;
Wacker, 1998; Whetten, 1989). Both the strategy and organization
literature are rich in theories, many of which are drawn from
economics, sociology, or psychology. In Table 2, we list several
established theories in strategy and organization, a seminal paper
for each approach, and two papers that serve as example uses of
each theoretical approach in OM. This list is not intended to be
exhaustive.
Prominent empirical OM scholars have lamented the lack of
theory developed within the discipline (Boer et al., 2015; Schroeder,
2008; Melnyk and Handfield, 1998; Flynn et al., 1990; Anderson
et al., 1989; Chase, 1980). Schmenner and Swink (1998) provided
a more optimistic view, outlining a pair of theories addressing two
questions highly relevant to strategy and organization research:
drivers of cross-factory productivity differences (swift, even flow)
and cross-factory performance differences, including non-
productivity dimensions (the theory of performance frontiers; see
also Vastag, 2000). Other theories relevant to strategy and
6
While we focus on empirical research here, these problems also can manifest
themselves in analytical models.
7
Note that while Hamilton and Nickerson (2003) state the problem as it pertains
to strategic decisions extremely lucidly, they do not represent the last word
methodologically; see, for example Certo et al. (2016). There are many other dis-
cussions, which we will not attempt to list here, about the pros and cons of different
approaches to deal with endogeneity under different conditions.
8
We explicitly note that we welcome careful replication research of important
phenomena in our field. Such efforts nonetheless would be “quasi-replications”
(Ethiraj et al., 2016) in that they would test existing results in new geographic re-
gions, industries, or time periods. But even pure replications are a necessary and
important part of the scientific process (The Economist, 2016 [https://www.
economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21690020-reproducibility-should-
be-sciences-heart-it-isnt-may-soon], Smith, 1970).
organization have been proposed in OM (see, e.g., Sampson and
Froehle, 2006; Rosenzweig and Roth, 2004; Anderson and
Rungtusanatham, 1994, Cleveland et al., 1989).
We believe much strategy and organization OM research is
motivated by problems of interest to practitioners (Hayes, 2000)
rather than a simple examination of relationships a single theory
posits. Two examples of such questions are: 1) How do firms ensure
their offshore operations are operating in compliance with regu-
lations? and 2) Under what conditions is the implementation of a
specific practice appropriate? While such a practical motivation
may seem counter to the ability to contribute to theory, this
phenomenon-driven approach unleashes researchers' creativity
and prevents their ideas from being forced under a single theory's
umbrella (Schaubroeck, 2013; Mahoney, 2004), possibly enabling
the articulation of boundaries, overlaps, and contradictions in
existing theories. Mayer and Sparrowe (2013) articulated elegant
ways of combining multiple theories into a single study. In OM,
researchers have combined the resource-based view with trans-
action cost economics (TCE) (Handley, 2017; McIvor, 2009;
Holcomb and Hitt, 2007) and contingency theories (Narayanan
et al., 2015; Mahapatra et al., 2012; Tatikonda and Montoya-
Weiss, 2001), even explaining the same phenomenon using stra-
tegic, structural, and institutional theoretical approaches (Ketokivi
and Schroeder, 2004).
A potential drawback of such a problem- or phenomenon-
driven approach renders authors more likely to engage in “HARK-
ing” (Hypothesizing After the Results are Known) as described in
Shaw (2017). Our advocating for phenomenon-driven research
comes with the expectation that logic and hypotheses be developed
before results of the analysis are known. If interesting but unex-
pected results are found, however, “THARKing” (Transparent Hy-
pothesizing After the Results are Known; Hollenbeck and Wright
(2017)) is welcome, even encouraged. Such “post hoc” analyses of
unexpected findings can sometimes serve as groundwork for the-
ory development, such as the discovery of moderators. As such, we
encourage authors tempted to engage in HARKing to, instead,
engage in THARKing.
Finally, research in some instances may not be theory-driven at
all. Schmenner et al. (2009) critiqued as problematic the need to
link all hypotheses to theory because it may “stifle the inspired
guess” (Schmenner et al., 2009, p. 340), calling for more detailed
and careful observation. In Boer et al. (2015), Schmenner (p.
1237e9) and Pagell (p.1244e6) argued convincingly that important
and well-collected “facts” have value even if not yet a theoretical
contribution. Pagell alluded to an analogy in medicine: If something
seems related to curing a disease, it should be published before we
know why (assuming the causal inference was rigorous).
Schmenner (in Boer et al., 2015, p.1237) has argued that the sci-
entific method does not require theory, only careful observation
and “formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses,”
asserting that “by being less tied to theory, OM might just become
more scientific” (p. 1239). The careful collection and reporting of
facts has a place in the OM literature. But those facts still must be
properly couched in the literature.
4.4. Examples of areas for OM to contribute to mainstream theories
This journal recently featured a discussion regarding one
mainstream theoretical perspective: the resource-based view (Hitt
et al., 2016 a b, Bromiley and Rau, 2016). The articles provide a
critical view of how the theory has been applied in OM, “chal-
lenging OM researchers to think carefully about the theoretical
foundation of their work” (Ketokivi, 2016, p.75). We refer readers to
that discussion about how OM could better contribute to this
perspective.
 G. Anand, J.V. Gray / Journal of Operations Management 53-56 (2017) 1e8
Table 2
Theories from organization and strategy adopted in OM.
Theory Key Papera
Transaction Cost Economics Williamson, 1975
Competitive Positioning Porter, 1979
Resource Based View Barney, 1991
Dynamic Capabilities Teece et al., 1997
Ambidexterity Duncan, 1976
Absorptive Capacity Cohen and Levinthal, 1990
Decision Making Simon, 1957
Sociotechnical Systems Trist, 1978
Contingency Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967
Information Processing Galbraith, 1973
Agency Jensen and Meckling, 1976
Institutional Meyer and Rowan, 1997
Administrative Structures Mintzberg, 1979
Evolutionary Economic Theory Nelson and Winter, 1982
Knowledge Creation Nonaka, 1991
a
Some scholars would assign a different “Key Paper” than the one we list (e.g., some would list Coase (1937) as the “Key Paper” for Transaction Cost Economics).
To stimulate thought about how OM research could contribute
directly to another important theory of strategy and organization,
consider the well-studied area of TCE. Since the theory was
developed (Williamson, 1975; Coase, 1937), many researchers have
further refined it and performed empirical tests (Macher and
Richman, 2008). A key objective of TCE was to understand why
firms exist (and why they vertically integrate) given the virtues of
the market. According to TCE, assuming that humans are boundedly
rational and subject to opportunistic behavior, contracts cannot be
completedand actors can take advantage of this. The most
important construct is asset specificity, or the degree to which in-
vestments needed for transaction execution “have much less value
when used outside the context of the specific relationship” (Hayes
et al., 2005, pp.128e9). Uncertainty and frequency are also
considered.
TCE can address many questions beyond the make-vs.-buy de-
cision, including those related to how firms should organize
internally. As Williamson (1994, p. 86) put it, TCE applies “to a wide
range of phenomena … to any issue that can be posed directly or
indirectly as a contracting problem. As it turns out, large numbers
of problems that on first examination do not appear to be of a
contracting kind turn out to have an underlying contracting
structure.” Much of the OM literature on buyer-supplier relation-
ships, contracting, and internal organization can be effectively
examined with a TCE lens.
OM research employing TCE must first carefully draw from the
theory's logic but ideally would also contribute to it. OM re-
searchers could, for example, think through whether and how the
actual operation changes depending on whether it is a contractor,
franchisee, or wholly owned facility. For example, if a brand-
owning firm (e.g., Pfizer) sells an internal pharmaceutical plant to
a contract manufacturer (e.g., Patheon), does the operation itself
have a tendency to fundamentally change over time? Sousa and
Voss (2007) studied a related question in the electronics industry,
examining how the shop floor differs between the typical contract
manufacturer and the typical wholly owned plant. While partially
captured under TCE in that contractors may have different in-
centives and capabilities, we believe OM is well positioned to
contribute to TCE by studying whether and how the day-to-day
functioning of the operation differs, and any implication to the
theory.
A related possibility involves examining how internal trans-
action costs vary with asset specificity and uncertainty; the primary
focus of the theory has been how these factors drive the costs of
transacting in the market. The literature has called for this.
Williamson (1985, p.153) noted that “[t]he main costs of vertical
5
Example OM Papers
Handley and Benton, 2013, Grover and Malhotra, 2003
Ward and Duray, 2000, St. John and Young, 1992
Lieberman and Dhawan, 2005, Schroeder et al., 2002
Argote and Hora, 2017, Brown and Blackmon, 2005
Salvador et al., 2014, Kristal et al., 2010
Setia and Patel, 2013, Ferdows, 2006
Demeester et al., 2014, Huckman and Zinner, 2008
Spohrer and Maglio, 2008, Liu et al., 2006
Roh et al., 2016, Ketokivi, 2006
Stock and Tatikonda, 2000, Flynn and Flynn, 1999
Staats, 2012, Goodale, et al., 2011
Liu et al., 2010, Benner and Veloso, 2008
Kim et al., 2014, Bozarth and McDermott, 1998
Pathak et al., 2007, Dyer and Hatch, 2006
Choo et al., 2007b, Field and Sinha, 2005
integration are more difficult to discern,” and Gibbons (2010, p.277)
observed that “TCE theory does not provide as clear an explanation
for variations in the costs of integration as it does for the costs of
non-integration.” Further, Lajili et al. (2007, p.355) asserted that “[i]
nternal costs of organization may play a significant role in inte-
gration decisions.” Strategy and organization research in OM seems
well positioned to assess how asset specificity, uncertainty and
frequency impact internal transaction costs when the activity is
organized within the firm, making a possible contribution to TCE.
These are but a few partially developed ideas and examples of
how strategy and organization research in OM can make greater
theoretical contributions to TCE. We hope to see research that seeks
to contribute to TCE as well as other theories of strategy and or-
ganization such as those listed on Table 2. Examples include
research that can articulate moderators, boundary conditions, and
magnitudes (e.g., economic significance) of such mainstream the-
ories. We believe OM researchers are well positioned to do so. A
sign of success would be more OM papers cited by top journals in
mainstream management, strategy, and organization.
5. Conclusion
We believe OM researchers have the potential to make greater
contributions to the literature on strategy and organization as well
as meaningfully impact the strategic management and organiza-
tion of firms' operations. The tendency of OM researchers to
perform phenomena-driven research and their openness to ex-
changes with other disciplines (Linderman and Chandrasekaran,
2010), in particular, provide opportunities to make substantial
contributions to both theory and practice. We look forward to
receiving and publishing articles that do so.
References
Adam Jr., E.E., 1994. Alternative quality improvement practices and organization
performance. J. Oper. Manag. 12, 27.
Adam Jr., E.E., 1983. Towards a typology of production and operations management
systems. Acad. Manag. Rev. 8, 365e375.
Adler, P.S., Goldoftas, B., Levine, D.I., 1999. Flexibility versus Efficiency? A case study
of model changeovers in the toyota production system. Organ. Sci. 10, 43e68.
Ahire, S.L., Landeros, R., Golhar, D.Y., 1995. Total quality management: a literature
review and an agenda for future research. Prod. Oper. Manag. 4, 277e306.
Albuquerque, P., Bronnenberg, B.J., Corbett, C.J., 2007. A spatiotemporal analysis of
the global diffusion of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 certification. Manag. Sci. 53,
451e468.
Anand, G., Gray, J., Siemsen, E., 2012. Decay, shock, and renewal: operational rou-
tines and process entropy in the pharmaceutical industry. Organ. Sci. 23,
1700e1716.
Anand, G., Ward, P.T., 2004. Fit, flexibility and performance in manufacturing:
coping with dynamic environments. Prod. Oper. Manag. 13, 369e385.
6 G. Anand, J.V. Gray / Journal of Operations Management 53-56 (2017) 1e8
Anderson Jr., E.G., Lewis, K., 2014. A dynamic model of individual and collective
learning amid disruption. Organ. Sci. 25, 356e376.
Anderson, J.C., Cleveland, G., Schroeder, R.G., 1989. Operations strategy: a literature
review. J. Oper. Manag. 8, 133e158.
Anderson, J.C., Rungtusanatham, M., 1994. A theory of quality management un-
derlying the deming management method. Acad. Manag. Rev. 19, 472e509.
Argote, L., Hora, M., 2017. Organizational learning and management of technology.
Prod. Oper. Manag. 26, 579e590.
Azadegan, A., Dooley, K.J., 2010. Supplier innovativeness, organizational learning
styles and manufacturer performance: an empirical assessment. J. Oper. Manag.
28, 488e505.
Barney, J., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 17,
99e120.
Bendoly, E., Perry-Smith, J., Bachrach, D.G., 2010. The perception of difficulty in
project-work planning and its impact on resource sharing. J. Oper. Manag. 28,
385e397.
Benner, M.J., 2009. Dynamic or static Capabilities? Process management practices
and response to technological change. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 26, 473e486.
Benner, M.J., Tushman, M.L., 2003. Exploitation, exploration, and process manage-
ment: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28, 238e256.
Benner, M.J., Veloso, F.M., 2008. ISO 9000 practices and financial performance: a
technology coherence perspective. J. Oper. Manag. 26, 611e629.
Benson, P.G., Saraph, J.V., Schroeder, R.G., 1991. The effects of organizational context
on quality management: an empirical investigation. Manag. Sci. 37, 1107e1124.
Boer, H., Holweg, M., Kilduff, M., Pagell, M., Schmenner, R., Voss, C., 2015. Making a
meaningful contribution to theory. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 35, 1231e1252.
Boyer, K., Swink, M., 2008. Empirical elephantsdwhy multiple methods are
essential to quality research in operations and supply chain management.
J. Oper. Manag. 26, 338e344.
Boyer, K.K., Frohlich, M.T., 2006. Analysis of effects of operational execution on
repeat purchasing for heterogeneous customer segments. Prod. Oper. Manag.
15, 229e242.
Boyer, K.K., Keong Leong, G., Ward, P.T., Krajewski, L.J., 1997. Unlocking the potential
of advanced manufacturing technologies. J. Oper. Manag. 15, 331e347.
Boyer, K.K., Swink, M., Rosenzweig, E.D., 2005. Operations strategy research in the
POMS journal. Prod. Oper. Manag. 14, 442e449.
Boyer, K.K., Ward, P.T., Leong, G.K., 1996. Approaches to the factory of the future an
empirical taxonomy. J. Oper. Manag. 14, 297e313.
Bozarth, C., McDermott, C., 1998. Configurations in manufacturing strategy: a re-
view and directions for future research. J. Oper. Manag. 16, 427e439.
Bromiley, P., Rau, D., 2016. Operations management and the resource based view:
another view. J. Oper. Manag. 41, 95e106.
Brown, S., Blackmon, K., 2005. Aligning manufacturing strategy and business-level
competitive strategy in new competitive environments: the case for strategic
resonance. J. Manag. Stud. 42, 793e815.
Browning, T.R., 2010. On the alignment of the purposes and views of process models
in project management. J. Oper. Manag. 28, 316e332.
Carter, C.R., Sanders, N.R., Dong, Y., 2008. Paradigms, revolutions, and tipping
points: the need for using multiple methodologies within the field of supply
chain management. J. Oper. Manag. 26, 693e696.
Certo, S.T., Busenbark, J.R., Woo, H., Semadeni, M., 2016. Sample selection bias and
Heckman models in strategic management research. Strateg. Manag. J. 37,
2639e2657.
Chandrasekaran, A., Mishra, A., 2012. Task design, team context, and psychological
safety: an empirical analysis of R&D projects in high technology organizations.
Prod. Oper. Manag. 21, 977e996.
Chase, R.B., 1980. A classification and evaluation of research in operations man-
agement. J. Oper. Manag. 1, 9e14.
Chatha, K.A., Butt, I., Tariq, A., 2015. Research methodologies and publication trends
in manufacturing strategy. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 35, 487e546.
Choi, T., Cheng, T.C.E., Zhao, X., 2016. Multi-Methodological research in operations
management. Prod. Oper. Manag. 25, 379e389.
Choo, A.S., Linderman, K.W., Schroeder, R.G., 2007a. Method and psychological ef-
fects on learning behaviors and knowledge creation in quality improvement
projects. Manag. Sci. 53, 437e450.
Choo, A.S., Linderman, K.W., Schroeder, R.G., 2007b. Method and context perspec-
tives on learning and knowledge creation in quality management. J. Oper.
Manag. 25, 918e931.
Chopra, S., Meindl, P., 2015. Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning, and
Operation, 6 ed. Pearson.
Cleveland, G., Schroeder, R.G., Anderson, J.C., 1989. A theory of production
competence. Decis. Sci. 20, 655e668.
Coase, R.H., 1937. The Nature of the Firm, vol. 4, pp. 386e405.
Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A., 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on
learning and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 35, 128e152.
Cole, R.E., Scott, W.R., 2000. The Quality Movement and Organizational Theory.
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Corbett, C., van Wassenhove, L., 1993. Trade-offs? What trade-offs? Competence
and competitiveness in manufacturing strategy. Calif. Manag. Rev. 35, 107.
Croson, R., Schultz, K., Siemsen, E., Yeo, M.L., 2013. Behavioral operations: the state
of the field. J. Oper. Manag. 31, 1e5.
Dangayach, G.S., Deshmukh, S.G., 2001. Manufacturing strategy: literature review
and some issues. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 21, 884.
Davis, G.F., 2015. Editorial essay: what is organizational research for? Adm. Sci. Q.
60, 179e188.
Demeester, L., De Meyer, A., Grahovac, J., 2014. The role of operations executives in
strategy making. J. Oper. Manag. 32, 403e413.
Devaraj, S., Hollingworth, D.G., Schroeder, R.G., 2001. Generic manufacturing stra-
tegies: an empirical test of two configurational typologies. J. Oper. Manag. 19,
427e452.
Duncan, R.B., 1976. The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for
innovation. Manag. Organ. 1, 167e188.
Dyer, J.H., Hatch, N.W., 2006. Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowl-
edge transfers: creating advantage through network relationships. Strateg.
Manag. J. 27, 701e719.
Edmondson, A.C., Nembhard, I.M., 2009. Product development and learning in
project teams: the challenges are the benefits. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 26,
123e138.
Ethiraj, S.K., Gambardella, A., Helfat, C.E., 2016. Replication in strategic manage-
ment. Strateg. Manag. J. 37, 2191e2192.
Ettlie, J.E., 1995. Product-process development integration in manufacturing.
Manag. Sci. 41, 1224e1237.
Ferdows, K., 2006. Transfer of changing production know-how. Prod. Oper. Manag.
15, 1e9.
Ferdows, K., De Meyer, A., 1990. Lasting improvements in manufacturing perfor-
mance: in search of a new theory. J. Oper. Manag. 9, 168e184.
Ferdows, K., Vereecke, A., De Meyer, A., 2016. Delayering the global production
network into congruent subnetworks. J. Oper. Manag. 41, 63e74.
Field, J.M., Sinha, K.K., 2005. Applying process knowledge for yield variation
reduction: a longitudinal field study. Decis. Sci. 36, 159e186.
Fitzsimmons, J., Fitzsimmons, M., 2013. Service Management: Operations, Strategy,
Information Technology, 8 ed. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY.
Flynn, B.B., Flynn, E.J., 1999. Information-processing alternatives for coping with
manufacturing environment complexity. Decis. Sci. 30, 1021e1052.
Flynn, B.B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R.G., Bates, K.A., Flynn, E.J., 1990. Empirical
research methods in operations management. J. Oper. Manag. 9, 250.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G., Sakakibara, S., 1994. A framework for quality manage-
ment research and an associated measurement instrument. J. Oper. Manag. 11,
339e366.
Galbraith, J., 1973. Designing Complex Organizations. Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, Inc, Reading, MA.
Gallien, J., Graves, S.C., Scheller-Wolf, A., 2016. Practice-based research in operations
management: what it is, why do it, related challenges, and how to overcome
them. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 18, 5e14.
Gardner, H.K., Staats, B.R., Gino, F., 2012. Dynamically integrating knowledge in
teams: transforming resources into performance. Acad. Manag. J. 55, 998e1022.
Gibbons, R., 2010. Transaction-cost economics: past, present, and future? Scand. J.
Econ. 112, 263e288.
Goodale, J.C., Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., Covin, J.G., 2011. Operations management
and corporate entrepreneurship: the moderating effect of operations control on
the antecedents of corporate entrepreneurial activity in relation to innovation
performance. J. Oper. Manag. 29, 116e127.
Gray, J.V., Massimino, B., 2014. The effect of language differences and National
culture on operational process compliance. Prod. Oper. Manag. 23, 1042e1056.
Gray, J.V., Roth, A.V., Leiblein, M.J., 2011. Quality risk in offshore manufacturing:
evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. J. Oper. Manag. 29, 737e752.
Gray, J.V., Siemsen, E., Vasudeva, G., 2015. Colocation still matters: conformance
quality and the interdependence of R&D and manufacturing in the pharma-
ceutical industry. Manag. Sci. 61, 2760e2781.
Grover, V., Malhotra, M.K., 2003. Transaction cost framework in operations and
supply chain management research: theory and measurement. J. Oper. Manag.
21, 457.
Guide, V.D., Ketokivi, M., 2015. Notes from the Editors: redefining some method-
ological criteria for the journal. J. Oper. Manag. 37, veviii.
Hamilton, B.H., Nickerson, J.A., 2003. Correcting for endogeneity in strategic man-
agement research. Strateg. Organ. 1, 51e78.
Handfield, R.B., Melnyk, S.A., 1998. The scientific theory-building process: a primer
using the case of TQM. J. Oper. Manag. 16, 322e339.
Handley, S.M., 2017. How governance misalignment and outsourcing capability
impact performance. Prod. Oper. Manag. 26, 134e155.
Handley, S.M., Benton, W.C., 2013. The influence of task- and location-specific
complexity on the control and coordination costs in global outsourcing re-
lationships. J. Oper. Manag. 31, 109e128.
Hayes, R.H., 2000. Toward a “new architecture” for POM. Prod. Oper. Manag. 9,
105e110.
Hayes, R.H., Pisano, G., Upton, D., Wheelwright, S.C., 2005. Pursuing the Competitive
Edge. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Hayes, R.H., 1985. Strategic planningeforward in reverse? Harv. Bus. Rev. 63,
111e119.
Hayes, R.H., Schmenner, R.W., 1978. How should you organize manufacturing? Harv.
Bus. Rev. 56, 105e118.
Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C., 1979a. Link manufacturing process and product life
cycles. Harv. Bus. Rev. 57, 133e140.
Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.G., 1979b. The dynamics of process-product life cycles.
Harv. Bus. Rev. 57, 127e136.
Helfat, C.E., Winter, S.G., 2011. Untangling dynamic and operational capabilities:
strategy for the (N)ever-Changing world. Strateg. Manag. J. 32, 1243e1250.
Hill, T., 1999. Manufacturing Strategy: Text and Cases, 3 ed. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Hitt, M.A., Carnes, C.M., Xu, K., 2016a. A current view of resource based theory in
operations management: a response to Bromiley and Rau. J. Oper. Manag. 41,
 G. Anand, J.V. Gray / Journal of Operations Management 53-56 (2017) 1e8
107e109.
Hitt, M.A., Xu, K., Carnes, C.M., 2016b. Resource based theory in operations man-
agement research. J. Oper. Manag. 41, 77e94.
Holcomb, T.R., Hitt, M.A., 2007. Toward a model of strategic outsourcing. J. Oper.
Manag. 25, 464e481.
Hollenbeck, J.R., Wright, P.M., 2017. Harking, Sharking, and Tharking: Making the
Case for Post hoc Analysis of Scientific Data. Working Paper.
Hozak, K., Collier, D.A., 2008. RFID as an enabler of improved manufacturing per-
formance. Decis. Sci. 39, 859e881.
Huber, V.L., Hyer, N.L., 1985. The human factor in cellular manufacturing. J. Oper.
Manag. 5, 213e228.
Huckman, R.S., Zinner, D.E., 2008. Does focus improve operational performance?
Lessons from the management of clinical trials. Strateg. Manag. J. 29, 173e193.
Hyer, N.L., Brown, K.A., Zimmerman, S., 1999. A socio-technical systems approach to
cell design: case study and analysis. J. Oper. Manag. 17, 179e203.
Jacobs, R.F., Chase, R.B., 2016. Operations and Supply Chain Management: the Core,
4 ed. McGraw-Hill Education.
Jensen, M.C., Meckling, W.H., 1976. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency
costs and ownership structure. J. Financ. Econ. 3, 305e360.
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., 2008. MASTERING the management system. Harv. Bus.
Rev. 86, 62e77.
Ketchen, D.J., Hult, G.T.M., 2007a. Toward greater integration of insights from or-
ganization theory and supply chain management. J. Oper. Manag. 25, 455e458.
Ketchen, D.J., Hult, G.T., 2007b. Bridging organization theory and supply chain
management: the case of best value supply chains. J. Oper. Manag. 25, 573e580.
Ketokivi, M., 2016. Pointecounterpoint: resource heterogeneity, performance, and
competitive advantage. J. Oper. Manag. 41, 75e76.
Ketokivi, M., 2006. Elaborating the contingency theory of organizations: the case of
manufacturing flexibility strategies. Prod. Oper. Manag. 15, 215e228.
Ketokivi, M.A., Schroeder, R.G., 2004. Strategic, structural contingency and institu-
tional explanations in the adoption of innovative manufacturing practices.
J. Oper. Manag. 22, 63e89.
Ketokivi, M., Ali-Yrkko € , J., 2009. Unbundling R&D and manufacturing: postindustrial
myth or economic reality? Rev. Policy Res. 26, 35e54.
Ketokivi, M., McIntosh, C.N., 2017. Addressing the endogeneity dilemma in opera-
tions management research: theoretical, empirical, and pragmatic consider-
ations. J. Oper. Manag. 52, 1e14.
Ketokivi, M., Turkulainen, V., Seppa €l€ € , J., 2017. Why locate
a, T., Rouvinen, P., Ali-Yrkko
manufacturing in a high-cost country? A case study of 35 production location
decisions. J. Oper. Manag. 49, 20e30.
Kim, Y.H., Sting, F.J., Loch, C.H., 2014. Top-down, bottom-up, or both? Toward an
integrative perspective on operations strategy formation. J. Oper. Manag. 32,
462e474.
Koyuncu, B., Firfiray, S., Claes, B., Hamori, M., 2010. CEOs with a functional back-
ground in operations: reviewing their performance and prevalence in the top
post. Hum. Resour. Manag. 49, 869e882.
Krajewski, L.J., Malhotra, M.K., Ritzman, L.P., 2015. Operations Management: Pro-
cesses and Supply Chains, 11 ed. Pearson.
Krause, D., Youngdahl, W., Ramaswamy, K., 2014. Manufacturing e still a missing
link? J. Oper. Manag. 32, 399e402.
Kristal, M.M., Huang, X., Roth, A.V., 2010. The effect of an ambidextrous supply chain
strategy on combinative competitive capabilities and business performance.
J. Oper. Manag. 28, 415e429.
Lajili, K., Madunic, M., Mahoney, J.T., 2007. Testing organizational economics the-
ories of vertical integration. In: Ketchen, J., David, J., Bergh, D.D. (Eds.), Research
Methodology in Strategy and Management. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 343e368.
Lapre
, M.A., Scudder, G.D., 2004. Performance improvement paths in the U.S. Airline
industry: linking trade-offs to asset frontiers. Prod. Oper. Manag. 13, 123e134.
Lawrence, P.R., Lorsch, J.W., 1967. Differentiation and integration in complex orga-
nizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 12, 1e47.


Lefebvre, Louis A., Mason, Robert, Lefebvre, Elisabeth, 1997. The influence prism in
SMEs: the power of CEOs' perceptions on technology policy and its organiza-
tional impacts. mnsc Manag. Sci. 43, 856e878.
Leong, G.K., Snyder, D.L., Ward, P.T., 1990. Research in the process and content of
manufacturing strategy. Omega 18, 109e122.
Lieberman, M.B., Dhawan, R., 2005. Assessing the resource base of Japanese and US
auto producers: a stochastic frontier production function approach. Manag. Sci.
51, 1060e1075.
Linderman, K., Chandrasekaran, A., 2010. The scholarly exchange of knowledge in
operations management. J. Oper. Manag. 28, 357e366.
Liu, G., Shah, R., Schroeder, R.G., 2006. Linking work design to mass customization:
a sociotechnical systems perspective. Decis. Sci. 37, 519e545.
Liu, H., Ke, W., Wei, K.K., Gu, J., Chen, H., 2010. The role of institutional pressures and
organizational culture in the firm's intention to adopt internet-enabled supply
chain management systems. J. Oper. Manag. 28, 372e384.
Macher, J.T., Richman, B.D., 2008. Transaction cost economics: an assessment of
empirical research in the social sciences. Bus. Polit. 10, 1e63.
Maffei, M.J., Meredith, J., 1995. Infrastructure and flexible manufacturing technol-
ogy: theory development. J. Oper. Manag. 13, 273e298.
Mahapatra, S.K., Das, A., Narasimhan, R., 2012. A contingent theory of supplier
management initiatives: effects of competitive intensity and product life cycle.
J. Oper. Manag. 30, 406e422.
Mahoney, J.T., 2004. Economic Foundations of Strategy. Sage Publications.
Mantere, S., Ketokivi, M., 2013. Reasoning in organization science. Acad. Manag. Rev.
38, 70e89.
7
Marucheck, A., Pannesi, R., Anderson, C., 1990. An exploratory study of the
manufacturing strategy process in practice. J. Oper. Manag. 9, 101e123.
Mayer, K.J., Sparrowe, R.T., 2013. Integrating theories in amj articles. Acad. Manag. J.
56, 917e922.
McFadden, K.L., Jung Young, L.E.E., Gowen III, C.R., Sharp, B.M., 2014. Linking quality
improvement practices to knowledge management capabilities. Qual. Manag. J.
21, 42e58.
McIvor, R., 2009. How the transaction cost and resource-based theories of the firm
inform outsourcing evaluation. J. Oper. Manag. 27, 45e63.
Melnyk, S.A., Handfield, R.B., 1998. May you live in interesting times…the emer-
gency of theory-driven empirical research. J. Oper. Manag. 16, 311e319.
Menda, R., Dilts, D., 1997. The manufacturing strategy formulation process: linking
multifunctional viewpoints. J. Oper. Manag. 15, 223e241.
Menor, L.J., Roth, A.V., Mason, C.H., 2001. Agility in retail banking: a numerical
taxonomy of strategic service groups. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 3, 273.
Meyer, J.W., Rowan, B., 1997. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as
myth and ceremony. Am. J. Sociol. 83, 340e363.
Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C., 2007. Organization theory and supply chain management: an
evolving research perspective. J. Oper. Manag. 25, 459e463.
Miller, J.G., Roth, A.V., 1994. A taxonomy of manufacturing strategies. Manag. Sci. 40,
285e304.
Mintzberg, H., 1979. The Structuring of Organizations: a Synthesis of the Research.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Mukherjee, A.S., Lapre, M.A., 1998. Knowledge driven quality improvement. Manag.
Sci. 44, S35eS49.
Narayanan, S., Narasimhan, R., Schoenherr, T., 2015. Assessing the contingent effects
of collaboration on agility performance in buyeresupplier relationships. J. Oper.
Manag. 33, 140e154.
Nelson, R., Winter, S., 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Nonaka, I., 1991. The knowledge-creating company. Harv. Bus. Rev. 69, 96e104.
Pathak, S.D., Day, J.M., Nair, A., Sawaya, W.J., Kristal, M.M., 2007. Complexity and
adaptivity in supply networks: building supply network theory using a complex
adaptive systems perspective. Decis. Sci. 38, 547e580.
Peng, D.X., Schroeder, R.G., Shah, R., 2008. Linking routines to operations capabil-
ities: a new perspective. J. Oper. Manag. 26, 730e748.
Porter, M.E., 1996. What is strategy? Harv. Bus. Rev. 74, 61e78.
Porter, M.E., 1979. How competitive forces shape strategy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 57,
137e145.
Queenan, C.C., Angst, C.M., Devaraj, S., 2011. Doctor's orders- if they're electronic, do
they improve patient satisfaction? A complements/substitutes perspective.
J. Oper. Manag. 29, 639e649.
Roethlisberger, F.J., Dickson, W.J., Wright, Harold A., Pforzheimer, Carl H., Western
Electric Company, 1939. Management and the Worker : an Account of a
Research Program Conducted by the Western Electric Company, Hawthorne
Works, Chicago. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Roh, J., Krause, R., Swink, M., 2016. The appointment of chief supply chain officers to
top management teams: a contingency model of firm-level antecedents and
consequences. J. Oper. Manag. 44, 48e61.
Rosenzweig, E.D., Easton, G.S., 2010. Tradeoffs in Manufacturing? A meta-analysis
and critique of the literature. Prod. Oper. Manag. 19, 127e141.
Rosenzweig, E.D., Roth, A.V., 2004. Towards a theory of competitive progression:
evidence from high-tech manufacturing. Prod. Oper. Manag. 13, 354.
Roth, A., Singhal, J., Singhal, K., Tang, C.S., 2016. Knowledge creation and dissemi-
nation in operations and supply chain management. Prod. Oper. Manag. 25,
1473e1488.
Safizadeh, M.H., Field, J.M., Ritzman, L.P., 2003. An empirical analysis of financial
services processes with a front-office or back-office orientation. J. Oper. Manag.
21, 557.
Safizadeh, M.H., Ritzman, L.P., 1996. An empirical analysis of the product-process
matrix. Manag. Sci. 42, 1576e1591.
Salvador, F., Chandrasekaran, A., Sohail, T., 2014. Product configuration, ambidex-
terity and firm performance in the context of industrial equipment
manufacturing. J. Oper. Manag. 32, 138e153.
Sampson, S.E., Froehle, C.M., 2006. Foundations and implications of a proposed
unified services theory. Prod. Oper. Manag. 15, 329e343.
Sarin, S., McDermott, C., 2003. The effect of team leader characteristics on learning,
knowledge application, and performance of cross-functional new product
development teams. Decis. Sci. 34, 707e739.
Schaubroeck, J.M., 2013. Pitfalls of appropriating prestigious theories to frame
conceptual arguments. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 3, 86e97.
Schmenner, R.W., Wassenhove, L.V., Ketokivi, M., Heyl, J., Lusch, R., 2009. Too much
theory, not enough understanding. J. Oper. Manag. 27, 339e343.
Schmenner, R.W., 1982. Multiplant manufacturing strategies among the fortune
500. J. Oper. Manag. 2, 77e86.
Schmenner, R.W., Cook, R.L., 1985. Explaining productivity differences in North
Carolina factories. J. Oper. Manag. 5, 273e289.
Schmenner, R.W., Swink, M.L., 1998. On theory in operations management. J. Oper.
Manag. 17, 97e113.
Schroeder, R.G., 2008. Introduction to the special issue on theory development in
operations management. Prod. Oper. Manag. 17, 354e356.
Schroeder, R.G., Bates, K.A., Junttila, M.A., 2002. A resource-based view of
manufacturing strategy and the relationship to manufacturing performance.
Strateg. Manag. J. 23, 105e117.
Setia, P., Patel, P.C., 2013. How information systems help create OM capabilities:
8 G. Anand, J.V. Gray / Journal of Operations Management 53-56 (2017) 1e8
consequents and antecedents of operational absorptive capacity. J. Oper. Manag.
31, 409e431.
Shah, R., Goldstein, S.M., 2006. Use of structural equation modeling in operations
management research: looking back and forward. J. Oper. Manag. 24, 148e169.
Sharma, L., Chandrasekaran, A., Boyer, K.K., McDermott, C.M., 2016. The impact of
Health Information Technology bundles on Hospital performance: an econo-
metric study. J. Oper. Manag. 41, 25e41.
Shaw, J.D., 2017. From the Editors: advantages of starting with theory. Acad. Manag.
J. 60, 819e822.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A.V., Balasubramanian, S., 2008. How motivation, opportunity,
and ability drive knowledge sharing: the constraining-factor model. J. Oper.
Manag. 26, 426e445.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., Oliveira, P., 2010. Common method bias in regression models
with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organ. Res. Methods 13,
456e476.
Simon, H.A., 1957. Administrative behavior; A Study of Decision-making Processes
in Administrative Organization. Macmillan, New York.
Singhal, K., Singhal, J., 2012a. Opportunities for developing the science of operations
and supply-chain management. J. Oper. Manag. 30, 245e252.
Singhal, K., Singhal, J., 2012b. Imperatives of the science of operations and supply-
chain management. J. Oper. Manag. 30, 237e244.
Skinner, W., 1978. Manufacturing in the Corporate Strategy. John Wiley & Sons, New
York.
Skinner, W., 1974. The focused factory. Harv. Bus. Rev. 52, 113e121.
Skinner, W., 1969. Manufacturingemissing link in corporate strategy. Harv. Bus. Rev.
47, 136.
Slack, N., Lewis, M., 2015. Operations Strategy, 4 ed. Pearson.
Smith, N.C., 1970. Replication studies: a neglected aspect of psychological research.
Am. Psychol. Am. Psychol. 25, 970e975.
Sodhi, M.S., Tang, C.S., 2014. Guiding the next generation of doctoral students in
operations management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 150, 28e36.
Sousa, R., Voss, C.A., 2008. Contingency research in operations management prac-
tices. J. Oper. Manag. 26, 697e713.
Sousa, R., Voss, C.A., 2007. Operational implications of manufacturing outsourcing
for subcontractor plants: an empirical investigation. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.
27, 974e997.
Sousa, R., Voss, C.A., 2002. Quality management re-visited: a reflective review and
agenda for future research. J. Oper. Manag. 20, 91e109.
Sousa, R., Voss, C.A., 2001. Quality management: universal or context dependent?
Prod. Oper. Manag. 10, 383.
Spohrer, J., Maglio, P.P., 2008. The emergence of service science: toward systematic
service innovations to accelerate Co-Creation of value. Prod. Oper. Manag. 17,
238e246.
Spring, M., Hughes, A., Mason, K., McCaffrey, P., 2017. Creating the competitive edge:
a new relationship between operations management and industrial policy.
J. Oper. Manag. 49, 6e19.
St John, C.H., Young, S.T., 1992. An exploratory study of patterns of priorities and
trade-offs among operations managers. Prod. Oper. Manag. 1, 133e150.
Staats, B.R., 2012. Unpacking team familiarity: the effects of geographic location and
hierarchical role. Prod. Oper. Manag. 21, 619e635.
Steven, A.B., Dong, Y., Corsi, T., 2014. Global sourcing and quality recalls: an
empirical study of outsourcing-supplier concentration-product recalls linkages.
J. Oper. Manag. 32, 241e253.
Stock, G.N., Tatikonda, M.V., 2000. A typology of project-level technology transfer
processes. J. Oper. Manag. 18, 719e737.
Stratman, J.K., 2007. Realizing benefits from enterprise resource planning: does
strategic focus matter? Prod. Oper. Manag. 16, 203e216.
Stratman, J.K., Roth, A.V., Gilland, W.G., 2004. The deployment of temporary
production workers in assembly operations: a case study of the hidden costs of
learning and forgetting. J. Oper. Manag. 21, 689.
Sutton, R.I., Staw, B.M., 1995. What theory is not. Adm. Sci. Q. 40, 371e384.
Swamidass, P.M., 1989. Manufacturing strategy: a selected bibliography. J. Oper.
Manag. 8, 263e277.
Swamidass, P.M., Newell, W.T., 1987. Manufacturing strategy, environmental un-
certainty and performance: a path analytic model. Manag. Sci. 33, 509.
Swink, M., Song, M., 2007. Effects of marketing-manufacturing integration on new
product development time and competitive advantage. J. Oper. Manag. 25,
203e217.
Swink, M., Way, M.H., 1995. Manufacturing strategy: propositions, current research,
renewed directions. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 15, 4.
Tatikonda, M.V., Montoya-Weiss, M., 2001. Integrating operations and marketing
perspectives of product innovation: the influence of organizational process
factors and capabilities on development performance. Manag. Sci. 47, 151.
Tatikonda, M.V., Terjesen, S.A., Patel, P.C., Parida, V., 2013. The role of operational
capabilities in enhancing new venture survival: a longitudinal study. Prod. Oper.
Manag. 22, 1401e1415.
Taylor, F.W., 1911. Shop Management. McGraw-Hill.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A., 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic manage-
ment. Strateg. Manag. J. 18, 509e533.
Toffel, M.W., 2016. Enhancing the practical relevance of research. Prod. Oper.
Manag. 25, 1493e1505.
Trist, E.L., 1978. On socio-technical systems. In: Sociotechnical Systems: a Source-
book, pp. 43e57.
Tucker, A.L., 2016. The impact of workaround difficulty on frontline employees'
response to operational failures: a laboratory experiment on medication
administration. Manag. Sci. 62, 1124e1144.
Tucker, A.L., Nembhard, I.M., Edmondson, A.C., 2007. Implementing new practices:
an empirical study of organizational learning in hospital intensive care units.
Manag. Sci. 53, 894e907.
Uzumeri, M., Nembhard, D., 1998. A Population of learners: a new way to measure
organizational learning. J. Oper. Manag. 16, 515e528.
Van Mieghem, J.A., 2013. Three rs of operations management: research, relevance,
and rewards. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 15, 2e5.
Van Mieghem, J.A., Allon, G., 2015. Operations Strategy: Principles and Practice, 2
ed. Dynamic Ideas LLC.
Vastag, G., 2000. The theory of performance frontiers. J. Oper. Manag. 18, 353e360.
Vereecke, A., Van Dierdonck, R., De Meyer, A., 2006. A typology of plants in global
manufacturing networks. Manag. Sci. 52, 1737e1750.
Wacker, J.G., 1998. A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-
building research methods in operations management. J. Oper. Manag. 16, 361.
Ward, P.T., Bicklord, D.J., Leong, G.K., 1996. Configurations of manufacturing strat-
egy, business strategy, environment and structure. J. Manag. 22, 597.
Ward, P.T., Duray, R., 2000. Manufacturing strategy in context: environment,
competitive strategy and manufacturing strategy. J. Oper. Manag. 18, 123e138.
Whetten, D.A., 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Acad. Manag. Rev.
14, 490e495.
Williamson, O.E., 1985. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Anti-trust Implica-
tions. Free Press, New York, NY.
Williamson, O.E., 1994. Transaction cost economics and organization theory;
transaction cost economics and organization theory. Handb. Econ. Sociol.
77e107.
Williamson, O.E., 1975. Markets and hierarchies, Analysis and Antitrust Implications
: a Study in the Economics of Internal Organization. Free Press, New York.
Wu, D.Y., Katok, E., 2006. Learning, communication, and the bullwhip effect. J. Oper.
Manag. 24, 839e850.