See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/247174003

Service Operations Management research

Article  in  Journal of Operations Management · April 2007

DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2006.04.005

CITATIONS READS

118 3,600

3 authors, including:

José A.D. Machuca Victor G. Aguilar-Escobar

Universidad de Sevilla Universidad de Sevilla
69 PUBLICATIONS   1,021 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   169 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

High Performance Manufacturing International Research Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by José A.D. Machuca on 07 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 585–603
www.elsevier.com/locate/jom

Service Operations Management research

José A.D. Machuca *, Marı́a del Mar González-Zamora,
Vı́ctor G. Aguilar-Escobar
University of Sevilla, GIDEAO Research Group, Dpto. de Economı́a Financiera y Dirección de Operaciones,
Avda. Ramón y Cajal, 1, 41018 Sevilla, Spain
Received 25 April 2005; received in revised form 8 February 2006; accepted 6 April 2006
Available online 22 June 2006

Abstract
The extraordinary importance of the services sector for the economy both in production and employment cannot be denied. As a
result, there have been both demands for an increase in Service Operations Management (SOM) research since the 1980s on the one
hand, and, on the other, predictions that such an increase will take place [e.g.: Buffa, E.S., 1980. Research in Operations
Management. Journal of Operations Management 1 (1), 1–8; Miller, J.G., Graham, M.B.W., Freeland, J.R., Hottenstein, M.,
Maister, D.M., Meredith, J., Schmenner, R.W., 1981. Production/Operations Management: agenda for the 80s. Decision Science 12
(4), 547–571; Mabert, V.A., 1982. Service Operations Management: research and application. Journal of Operations Management 2
(4), 203–209; Amoako-Gyampah, K., Meredith, J.R., 1989. The Operations Management research agenda: an update. Journal of
Operations Management 8 (3), 250–262; Chase, R.B., 1996. The mall is my factory: reflections of a service junkie. Production and
Operations Management 5 (4), 298–308; Pannirselvam, G.P., Ferguson, L.A., Ash, R.C., Siferd, S.P., 1999. Operations Management
research: an update for the 1990s. Journal of Operations Management 18 (1), 95–112; Roth, A.V., Menor, L.J., 2003. Insights into
service Operations Management: a research agenda. Production and Operations Management 12 (2), 145–164; Slack, N., Lewis,
M., Bates, H., 2004. The two worlds of Operations management research and practice. Can they meet, should they meet?
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 24 (4), 372–387]. And yet, the amount of SOM research done in
OM research has still only been minimal. This contradiction calls for an in-depth study of the state of affairs of SOM research, and
we have conducted just such a study in 10 of the most relevant and representative outlets in the OM field, as well as in pipeline
research (Proceedings of the POMS, DSI and EurOMA Conferences). Our results aim to provide answers to the following questions,
amongst others: (1) Is greater importance now attached to SOM research within OM research? (2) What are the main topics of
research? Are they the same topics that have been proposed in SOM research agendas? (3) What methods are used in SOM research?
(4) What are the most commonly studied sectors of economic activities? (5) Are there any differences from OM research in terms of
content and methods? Some of our findings show that although a growth in SOM research had been predicted in earlier studies, there
is still only a minimal amount done (7.5% of OM research); seven topics command 61.5% of SOM research, which (with some
exceptions) is consistent with SOM research agendas; there is more research done on strategic issues than on tactical/operational
issues; models and simulations are still more common than empirical research, but trends point to a shift to the latter; the majority of
research focuses on a specific sector, and three sectors account for 50% of the total; there is a clear connection between type of
journal and type of research, research method and sector of activity.
# 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Service operations management; SOM content; Research methods; SOM research

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 954 55 76 10; fax: +34 954 55 75 70.
E-mail address: jmachuca@cica.es (José A.D. Machuca).

0272-6963/$ – see front matter # 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jom.2006.04.005
586 J.A.D. Machuca et al. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 585–603
1. Introduction, objectives and justification
Some of the most fundamental features that have
characterized developed economies in recent decades
are connected with the services sector, confirming the
great importance the sector has:
(a) The extraordinary role played by the services sector
in production. OECD statistical data for 2003
(OECD, 2005a) attributes approximately 70% of the
GDP to services in a large number of developed
countries (e.g. USA 76.5%; France 75.9%; UK
73.8%; Italy 70.9%; Germany 70.1%; Japan 69.6%,
and Spain 67.2%).
(b) The important role the services sector plays in
employment. Per-sector civilian employment data
for 2004 (OECD, 2005b) puts this at over 60% in
many advanced economies (e.g. USA 78.4%; UK
76.4%; France 72.6%; Japan 67.1%; Germany
66.6%; Italy 64.5%, and Spain 64%). And, more-
over, this is a growing trend (e.g. in the USA the
figure increased from 66.4% to 78.4% between 1981
and 2004, whereas during the same period
manufacturing fell from 30.1% to 20%, and
agriculture from 3.5% to 1.6% (OECD, 2005a)).
(c) Service activities are being incorporated more and
more into manufacturing companies. It has been
calculated that between 30% and 70% of added
value in a typical manufacturing company can be
attributed to the services constituent (Rosen, 1998).
The relevance of the services sector in developed
countries should be reflected in the importance given to
instruction and research in the various areas of service
company management and administration. But, is this
really the case?
There has been an awareness of this importance in
the specific case of Operations Management (OM) for
over 20 years. In their OM research agenda published in
Decision Sciences, Miller et al. (1981) cited Service
Operations Management (SOM) as one of their four
special interest groups. Eight years later, Amoako-
Gyampah and Meredith (1989) published an updated
Operations Management research agenda in JOM based
on Miller et al. (1981) amongst others. Once again SOM
is named as one of the important subjects to be taken
into consideration. Although the percentage of SOM
research was very small, it was forecast that it would
play an increasingly important role. Nevertheless, a
further update on the state of research in Operations
Management published in JOM by Pannirselvam et al.
(1999) stated that expectations for growth in published
research in SOM had not been met. Observations made
in recent papers by other authors (e.g. Roth and Menor,
2003; Slack et al., 2004; Johnston, 2005) suggest that, in
their opinion, there is still not enough research being
done in SOM.
There is an evident contradiction between the
importance of services in the real world and the little
attention paid to it in Operations Management
research (despite the fact that it is continually found
on research agendas) and this, in our view, demanded
an in-depth study on the state of current SOM research
to be done which would cover both numbers of SOM
publications and other important issues. And yet, to
date none had been conducted. This was not the case
for other significant OM sub-areas, such as Interna-
tional Operations Management (published in JOM by
Prasad and Babbar (2000)) or Supply Chain Manage-
ment (Alfaro Tanco et al., 2002). Our study was
conducted with the intention of addressing what we
considered to be an urgent need. Its prime objective
was to determine the state of affairs of SOM research
in the most relevant outlets in the field of Operations
Management. The study was designed to answer four
basic questions:
(a) What variations, if any, might have taken place in
underlying trends for the number of SOM publica-
tions in OM research since the publication of the
most recent studies into the latter?
(b) What are the main topics of research?
(c) What methods are used in SOM research?
(d) Which sectors of activity (if any) are the most
commonly studied?
Knowing the answers to these questions is important
for any subject field, but it is crucial for those, such as
SOM, which are still emerging. It is especially
important when the due attention a subject’s importance
in the real world demands does not seem to be paid to it.
The answers to these questions do not only allow the
state of affairs of SOM research to be established
through quantitative data for the first time, but they are
also useful in other ways: (a) they show whether SOM
has begun to occupy a position in OM research that is
more in keeping with its importance in the real world;
(b) they allow a comparison to be made with OM
research in manufacturing to see whether the two sets of
results really are different, as stated by one sector of OM
scholars; (c) they allow SOM research content to be
compared with the needs that are expressed in SOM
research agendas; (d) they will also show researchers
the most researched topics and sectors and these which
 J.A.D. Machuca et al. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 585–603
seem to need more attention, as well as the most used
research methods in SOM.
The following section offers a brief review of
literature, the methodology used is then set out and,
finally, the results obtained are commented upon. The
study ends with a section devoted to main conclusions
and final considerations. Our study into SOM reseach
focuses on the period from 1997 to 2002 and begins at
the end of the period analyzed by Pannirselvam et al.
(1999) with a view to determining whether any changes
have taken place since then.
2. Literature review
Our literature review basically focused on studies
that were analogous to our own. Literature on a range of
SOM research agendas is commented on in Section 4.2.
Only one previous study on Services Operations
Management research could be found (Mabert, 1982).
The remaining studies that we found that were linked in
some way to the issues set out in Section 1 that we
wished to address, concentrated on the wider and more
general field of Operations Management or one of its
more significant areas. The aggregated data on SOM
research in OM, as well as the general proposals made
for OM research content and methods, were taken as
viable points-of-reference for comparison with the
current state of affairs for research in SOM, and also for
establishing whether the growth that was expected
actually took place.
Mabert’s paper (1982) is not an exhaustive analysis
of SOM publications. As the author stated, it is only a
‘‘reasonably illustrative’’ sample of studies from the
previous few years. The author classified papers from
three points-of-view: their focus (research or applica-
tion), the sector of activity, and the particular problem
decision area (topic). As the author did not make any
reference to the state of OM research, we were unable to
infer what the relative importance given to SOM
research within the field of OM was at that time.
Despite the importance given to Services Operations
Management by a number of significant OM authors at
the beginning of the 1980s (e.g. Buffa, 1980; Chase,
1980; Miller et al., 1981), no great change could be
observed a decade later. When they updated their OM
research agenda, Amoako-Gyampah and Meredith
(1989) analyzed publications in the field appearing in
10 scientific journals for the period of 1982–1987:
Journal of Operations Management (JOM), Decision
Sciences (DS), Management Science (MS), Interna-
tional Journal of Production Research (IJPR), Interna-
tional Journal of Operations and Production
587
Management (IJOPM), IIE Transactions (IIET), Har-
vard Business Review, California Management Review,
Sloan Management Review, and Strategic Management
Journal. SOM was one of the 17 topics into which
research was classified. The authors decided to consider
it as a specific topic on the basis of the importance it was
given in the Miller et al. (1981) research agenda and its
growing importance within the discipline of Operations
Management. Nevertheless, it only achieved 6.35% (23
articles in 6 years out of a total of 362), a figure that is
clearly inadequate. Similarly, an analysis of doctoral
theses in US Business Schools between 1980 and 1986
(Hill et al., 1987) showed that SOM was not one of the
topics that had grown significantly.
Despite all these results, Amoako-Gyampah and
Meredith believed that there would be an increase in
SOM research publications in the near future. They
based this assertion on an analysis of the conference
proceedings of the Decision Sciences Institute (1986
and 1987) as an indicator of pipeline research: future
growth was only forecast for 7 of the 17 topics
considered, and SOM was in fifth position, with
14.18% of the papers (compared to 6.35% in the
journals).
The results of the Pannirselvam et al. study (1999)
showed that what had been forecast did not come about.
In an analysis of seven relevant journals in the OM field
(1992–1997), the percentage of SOM publications was
2.71%. Six of the journals that were analyzed were also
on the Amoako-Gyampah and Meredith list (JOM, MS,
IIE, DS, IJPR, IJOPM); the seventh is Production and
Operations Management (POM), which did not begin
publication until the 1990s.
The results of other studies on partial OM issues are
no better. In a comparative study of research in
International Operations Management (IOM) and in
OM published in 28 journals during the 1986–1997
period (Prasad et al., 2000), only 3.07% of the IOM
articles addressed the services sector. Given the
increasing importance of services in international
operations, the authors were puzzled by the result
and hold the view that changes will occur as
development towards service economies continues
worldwide. The authors of a literature review on mass
customization (MC) (Da Silveira et al., 2001) similarly
cite the lack of studies on MC in services as one of the
yawning gaps in literature on this subject. Pannirselvam
et al. (1999), meanwhile, also analyzed the DSI and
POMS Conference Proceedings (1996 and 1997). Of the
17 topics examined, SOM was in fourth place by
number of papers with 14%. The percentage difference
between conference papers and journal publications for
588 J.A.D. Machuca et al. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 585–603
SOM outstripped those for all other topics by a wide
margin. This would therefore also have pointed to
expectations for a large increase in the number of SOM-
related articles from 1997 onwards.
One of the objectives of our paper was to determine
whether the increase expected by a variety of authors
has occurred, which leads us to compare the present
state of SOM research with the data found in the
aforementioned studies. The fact that services appear in
this data in aggregate terms means that a comparative
analysis of the evolution of the various SOM topics is
not possible. Only Mabert’s paper allows us to make a
comparison of this type, albeit still a very limited one.
However, a comparison with a number of SOM research
agendas is made.
Another of the aspects addressed looks at the
methods employed in SOM research and the way they
have evolved. As far as the results of earlier studies
allow, the current situation for SOM will also be
compared with the situation for OM during previous
periods. Although some authors called for empirical
methods to be used in OM research from the beginning
of the 1980s (e.g. Buffa, 1980; Miller et al., 1981),
quantitative methods seem to have continued to
dominate. This is stated in Amoako-Gyampah and
Meredith (1989), which shows that models and
simulations (with a combined 68.82%) are used to a
much greater degree than empirical methods (15.96%).
An analysis of conference proceedings did not indicate
that there would be any great changes in the near future
except in the case of surveys and case studies, with
figures in proceedings almost doubling those in journals
(13.21% versus 7.22% and 7.54% versus 4.94%,
respectively).
This forecast was confirmed by the results of the
Pannirselvam et al. (1999) study which appeared some
10 years later. Models and simulation were still in first
place by a large margin (with a combined pecentage of
71.4% compared to 20.76% for empirical methods). In
the same vein, Wacker (1998) indicated that analytical
mathematical research in OM ‘‘is by far the most
popular methodology and appears to be over-
researched’’. Other authors also demanded more
emphasis on empirical research; Meredith (1998), for
example, documented ‘‘the advantages and rigor of
case/field research’’ and argued that ‘‘these methods are
preferable to more traditional rationalist methods of
optimization, simulation and statistical modeling for the
construction of new OM theories’’. It is obvious that this
need exists in SOM.
The last issue that is addressed, research in specific
sectors, has, in general terms, not been touched upon in
earlier studies. Amoako-Gyampah and Meredith (1989,
p. 257) only indicated that there were not many studies
devoted to specific service sectors (only five articles).
However, Mabert’s paper did not indicate which sectors
the studies that were analyzed focused upon.
3. Research methodology
3.1. The choice of the journals to be analyzed
There is a wide range and a large number of studies
devoted to determining the importance of the journals
that publish OM study results. Some are based on an
analysis of the quality and the relevance of the
journals (e.g. Barman et al., 1991, 2001; Young et al.,
1996; Soteriou et al., 1999); others are based on the
number of citations (e.g. Vokurka, 1996; Goh et al.,
1997; Pilkington and Liston-Heyes, 1999). The lists
and rankings of journals that appear in studies of this
type are generally used as the basis for selecting those
to be taken into account for an analysis of research in
OM or any of its sub-areas. One or two lists are
usually used (e.g. Amoako-Gyampah and Meredith
(1989) uses one, whereas Pannirselvam et al. (1999)
and Prasad and Babbar (2000) use two). Nevertheless,
given the differences in the classifications found in the
above-mentioned seven studies, we decided to
broaden the basis for selection to include all of these.
We have based our selection of relevant journals in the
field on three criteria: (a) They had to be included in at
least two of the studies; (b) they had to have been
ranked in the first five in at least one of the studies; (c)
they had to have been ranked in the first 10 in at least
one other.
The application of these rules resulted in a list of
eleven journals for the publication of OM research
results (in alphabetical order): Decision Sciences (DS),
Harvard Business Review (HBR), International Journal
of Operations and Production Management (IJOPM),
International Journal of Productions Economics (IJPE),
The International Journal of Production Research
(IJPR), Journal of Operations Management (JOM),
Management Science (MS), Operations Research (OR),
Production and Inventory Management (PIM), and
Production and Operations Management (POM). It can
be seen (see Section 2) that all the journals analyzed by
Pannirselvam et al. (1999) again appear on our list,
which also includes HBR, IJPE, OR and PIM. Two
types of journal can be clearly distinguished in the
group as a whole; the first is composed of journals that
are OM-specific (IJPOM, IJPE, IJPR, JOM, PIM and
POM), and the remainder are related to the broader field
 J.A.D. Machuca et al. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 585–603 589

Table 1
Classification of journals (by type and in alphabetical order)
Type Journals Studies
Barman Soteriou Young Barman Pilkington and Goh Vokurka
et al. et al. et al. et al. Liston-Heyes et al. (1996)
(2001) (1999) (1996) (1991) (1999) (1997)
OM IJOPM 10th 2nd 13th 7th 2nd 9th 12th
IJPE 14th 8th 10th 4th 33rd
IJPR 8th 5th 6th 3rd 3rd 1st 2nd
JOM 1st 1st 3rd 1st 6th 6th 5th
PIM 13th 13th 20th 12th 4th 7th 8th
POM 2nd 4th 4th
OR/MS DS 4th 15th 2nd 2nd 7th 8th 4th
IIET 6th 11th 5th 6th 29th 3rd 6th
MS 3rd 3rd 1st 5th 5th 2nd 1st
OR 5th 6th 8th 11th 9th 5th 3rd
No. of journals analyzed 21 35 21 20 42 49 25

of Operations Research/Management Science (OR/
MS)1 (DS, IIET, MS and OR). We considered that it
would be interesting to take these two groups into
account when examining and comparing SOM articles.
The HBR was found to be an isolated case which, if it
were taken into consideration, might impair the
comparison, and so we decided not to include it in
our analysis (it was not included in Pannirselvam et al.
(1999), either). Our study therefore focused on the 10
remaining journals. Table 1 shows the position they all
held in the seven studies taken into account.
3.2. Choice and analysis of articles
The subject of our analysis is Operations Manage-
ment articles in the services sector in the strict sense.
For this reason we have not considered service activities
in manufacturing companies. For the same reason,
neither have we considered articles that focus on
techniques and/or models that can be used both in
manufacturing and in services. We did not consider such
articles as meeting the test of a true SOM focus, except
when they could have some application to services. In
cases where it was not possible to clearly determine the
true focus of an article, a consensus amongst the authors
determined whether it should be accepted or rejected.
An analysis of the selected articles allowed the total
number of SOM articles to be calculated, and this figure
to be given as a proportion of the total number of OM
1
The appearance of this last group is not surprising given the above-
stated dominance of quantitative research in OM research.
articles. It also allowed the remainder of the questions
set out in Section 1 to be addressed: What specific topics
are studied? What research methods are used? And,
what sectors are taken into consideration?
To answer these four questions, in the first instance
we read the summaries; if these were not sufficiently
clear about any aspect, we resorted to the complete
version. If the classification of some aspects in an article
was not entirely clear to the person who was analyzing
it, it was passed on to the remaining authors, with a final
decision on the matter being taken by consensus. This
same procedure has been used by other authors (e.g.
Pannirselvam et al., 1999; Prasad and Babbar, 2000).
When this process was complete, 344 SOM articles had
been selected and analyzed out of a total of 4609 OM
articles published in the 10 journals analyzed for 1997–
2002. As can be imagined, this was an arduous and
extremely time-consuming task.
The second question, which involves an analysis of
content, requires a classification of possible topics for
research. For this we used the Aguilar Escobar and
Machuca (2000) classification. Said authors stated that a
SOM structure was required for any analysis in this field
of the discipline to be performed. Their proposed
structure has four levels of aggregation, with each of
these including the following level. In decreasing order
of aggregation, these levels are: groups, topics, sections
and subsections. The authors took the structure found on
the level of topics in OM books by Machuca et al.
(1995a,b) as their starting-point. This distinguishes
strategic, tactical and operational issues and is set out
hierarchically and includes long-, medium- and short-
terms decisions. A proposed structure for SOM was
590 J.A.D. Machuca et al. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 585–603
based on this and on information that was taken from
the eight most relevant SOM handbooks and 143
syllabuses for the subject from all over the world. The
structure distinguishes between 5 SOM topic groups
which are subdivided into 20 topics and 82 sections. In
our study, we have used the classification shown in
Table 2, which includes only four SOM groups. The
fifth one, devoted to Supply Chain Management, have
been subdivided into three topics which we have
included in groups 2, 3 or 4 depending on the type of
decision entailed. When any of the authors was unsure
of the topic of an article, all authors conferred until a
consensus was reached. Given the way the structure was
established, we believe it allowed the various SOM
research aspects to be suitably assigned within the
structure itself, and, therefore, to be appropriate for
establishing the state of affairs of SOM research.
Nevertheless, if we had discovered that the assignation
of some research content were not possible, the
structure would have been expanded appropriately.
This was not the case, however.
Table 2
Structure of SOM topics (adapted from Aguilar Escobar and Machuca
(2000) and Aguilar Escobar (2003))
1Introduction and key issues of management in services
(henceforth Group 1 or G1)
1.1. Introduction and key issues of management in services
2Service operations strategies and objectives
(henceforth Group 2, G2)
2.1. Service management
2.2. General aspects of strategy and objectives of operations in
services
2.3. Strategic quality issues in services
2.4. Service productivity
2.5. Information technology and new technology in services
2.6. Expansion, internationalization and globalization of services
2.7. Supply chain strategies and objectives
3Service operations design (henceforth Group 3, G3)
3.1. Service selection and design
3.2. Selection and design of the service delivery system
3.3. Capacity design/long-term capacity and demand decisions
3.4. Service facility location
3.5. Service facility design and layout
3.6. Service operations design in supply chains
4Planning, scheduling and control of service operations (henceforth
Group 4, G4)
4.1. Planning, scheduling and control of service operations
4.2. Capacity planning, scheduling and control
4.3. Short-term scheduling and control
4.4. Inventory management and control
4.5. Service project management
4.6. Design, measurement and compensation of service work
4.7. Measuring and control of service quality
4.8. Planning, scheduling and control in supply chains
Some of the articles reviewed dealt with aspects that
could be assigned to more than one topic. Given that one
of the objectives of our study was to identify topics of
interest in SOM research, we counted each of the topics
that appeared in each article separately. This criteria has
been used in other studies (e.g. Pannirselvam et al.,
1999).
The third question to be analyzed is connected with
the methods used in research. Other authors (e.g. Van
Hoek, 2001; Alfaro Tanco et al., 2002; Scandura and
Williams, 2000; Prasad et al., 2000; Claver Cortés et al.,
1999; Swamidass, 1991; Meredith et al., 1989), apart
from those mentioned in Section 2, have dealt with this
issue. As no full agreement could be found amongst the
various above-mentioned studies as to which criteria to
use, an analysis led us to opt for classifying research
methods in the following way: theoretical/conceptual
(T/C), literature review (LR), models and simulations
(M/S) and empirical studies (E). This classification
allowed us to make a comparison with earlier studies
and to determine any similarities or differences with
OM, as well as to see how the quantity of empirical
research had evolved.
Given the demands for more use of empirical
methods in OM, we devoted special attention to said
methods and tried to identify the research design of
empirical papers. We have used a type of classification
taken from the studies mentioned above, and also from
Scudder and Hill (1998) and Flynn et al. (1990): survey
(S), direct observation methods (DOM, of which those
identified in this study were: case study, field research,
field experiments and action research), panel study (PS),
laboratory experiments (LE) and other (O, including the
use of a database and historical data).
As was the case with content, more than one research
method was often discovered in a single article. As
such, we have counted each of these separately and
identified both individual and multiple use. This criteria
has also been used by other authors (e.g.: Pannirselvam
et al., 1999; Scudder and Hill, 1998).
The last issue that was examined concerns the
sectors of activity on which research focuses. There are
several different classifications of activity sectors, one
of the best-known being the ISIC (Industrial Sector
International Classification). Nevertheless, on occasion
we found that the terminology used in these did not
exactly correspond to that used in professional circles.
For this reason we created a less-detailed classification
aimed at grouping the various services together into
activities that have certain management problems in
common. When no particular sector was specified in an
article, it was classified as generic (see Table 3).
 J.A.D. Machuca et al. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 585–603 591

Table 3
Sectors of activity
B2B service companies Personal services
Commercial distribution Postal and courier services
Education Professional services
Financial institutions and insurance companies Public services and non-profit making companies
General energy supply Telecommunications
Health Tourism, leisure, culture and sport
Maintenance and repair Transportation

Table 4
Proportions of SOM /OM articles and x2-test comparison (OR/MS and OM journals)
1997–1998 1999–2000 2001–2002 1997–2002
SOM/OM % SOM/OM % SOM/OM % SOM/OM %
Total OR/MS journals 74/472 15.7 73/439 16.6 42/371 11.3 189/1282 14.7
Total OM journals 36/1005 3.6 57/1186 4.8 62/1136 5.5 155/3327 4.7
Total 110/1477 7.4 130/1625 8.0 104/1507 6.9 344/4609 7.5
2 2
x -test (x , significance) 68.1714, 0.0000 60.8480, 0.0000 14.9629, 0.0001 136.2427, 0.0000

4. Analysis of SOM research respective percentages reveal that there was, in fact,
a decrease in the actual relative importance of SOM
In this part of the paper, we take a detailed look at publications during the second 6-year period, followed
each of the four questions that were set out as research by a distinct resurgence during the third. The x2-test
objectives in Section 1. shows that there is an evident statistical significance
(x2 = 54.7448, sig. = 0.0000), although no significant
4.1. Quantification of the research difference is observed for the percentages for the first
and third 6-year periods.
Table 4 shows how the proportions of SOM/OM The analysis of pipeline research (Table 5) might
articles have evolved. Contrary to above-mentioned indicate whether continued future growth could be
expectations, and despite the importance of the sector, expected. We therefore selected the conferences that
the total figure is still very low in both absolute and we considered to be the most relevant for OM at the
relative terms, with only 7.5% of OM articles being present time: the POMS, DSI and EurOMA Con-
service-related. Moreover, there do not seem to be any ferences. The first two were part of earlier studies on
distinct trends towards an increase in SOM research in OM research published in JOM (DSI in Amoako-
the 10 relevant outlets as a whole during the 1997–2002 Gyampah and Meredith (1989); DSI and POMS in
period. This, together with the mean average of 7.5%, is Pannirselvam et al. (1999)). We also included the
a good indication of the little importance that is still EurOMA (not part of the earlier studies) alongside
being given to service operations research in the OM
field. With regard to the two types of journal (see
Table 5
Table 4), the x2-test reveals that the percentage of SOM
Evolution of SOM research: journals (1982–2002) and pipeline
articles in OR/MS journals is significantly higher than research (2001–2002)
in OM journals, both for the overall total (14.7% versus
SOM/OM %
4.7%) and per period (see x2-test results in the last line
of Table 4). Journals
If the time period taken into consideration is 1982–1987 23/362 6.35
1992–1997 53/1958 2.71
extended further into the past and the results are 1997–2002 344/4609 7.5
compared with the 6-year periods for 1982–1987
Pipeline
(Amoako-Gyampah and Meredith, 1989) and 1992–
2001–2002 259/1407 18.4
1997 (Pannirselvam et al., 1999) (Table 5), the
592 J.A.D. Machuca et al. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 585–603
these two conferences, as it is the most representative
of European OM research and receives a high number
of participants from other parts of the world. As was
done in previous studies, we used the conference
proceedings corresponding to the last 2 years of the
period being analyzed, 2001 and 2002.
Table 5 shows that the percentage of SOM/OM
research at conferences is higher than in articles. The
results of the x2-test indicate that this difference is
very significant (x2 = 143.1626, sig. = 0.0000). In
individual terms, the SOM/OM percentage at each
of the conferences is also significantly greater than
in articles (DSI = 21.1%, POMS = 19.3% and
EurOMA = 11%). It would therefore seem that pipe-
line research should produce an increase in SOM
publications in the future, although: (a) this will not be
so great as the difference that was found (not all
conference papers become articles); (b) the transfor-
mation might take more than 4 years (according to
conventional wisdom, there is a 1–3-year delay from
the initial submission of a manuscript until the actual
publication of an article).
4.2. Research content
This part of the paper addresses the second question
in the study: What are the main topics of research? In
this regard, the content of SOM research (journals and
pipeline research) will be looked at in Section 4.2.1 and
a comparison made with the studies mentioned in the
literature review. To a certain extent, this allows us to
see how SOM research has evolved and to determine
any content difference compared to OM research. In
Section 4.2.2, a comparison is made with the SOM
research Agendas that have appeared over the last 10
years in order to detect any similarities or differences.
Section 4.2.3 presents the way in which strategic and
tactical/operational aspects are addressed in SOM
research, with the results set out in Table 6. The first
six data columns show the number of topics and the
percentages they obtained in journals and in pipeline
research together with their positions in the rankings
based on the percentage of the totals they achieved. The
last columns contain data on four studies that each
propose a SOM research agenda. Finally, the last two
lines give the total number of topics devoted to strategic
issues and to tactical/operational issues. The number of
topics (471 in Table 6) is greater than the number of
SOM articles (344 in Table 4) since, as was indicated in
Section 3.2, it is possible for an article to cover more
than one topic. In such cases, the article counts for each
of the topics it deals with.
4.2.1. SOM research by topic and comparison with
earlier studies
The first seven topics in the ranking of articles clearly
stand out from the rest, commanding 61.5% of
publications. The percentages they achieve are all very
similar and range from 8.1% to 9.3%. In fact, when a x2
comparison of proportions test was performed, no
statistically significant differences emerged between
them. With regard to pipeline research, seven topics
(between 7.2% and 13%) again command the majority
of the research (67.9%), although they are not the same
topics as in the journals. In the following we remark on
the main topics found in the two rankings.
The highest percentage in SOM articles (9.3%) is
Topic 3.2, Selection and design of the service delivery
system. It is equally important in pipeline research,
where it obtains an even higher percentage (11.6%)
(despite falling to second place in the ranking; the
difference with the topic in first place is not significant).
It should be highlighted that it appears in third place in
Mabert’s SOM study (1982), with 13.9%, and that the
related topic in OM, ‘‘Process design’’, is also one of the
most popular topics in the wider field of OM in earlier
studies: second place (19.89%) in Amoako-Gyampah
and Meredith (1989) and fourth place (11.29%) in
Pannirselvam et al. (1999).
Topic 4.8, Planning, scheduling and control in
supply chains, is in second place in the ranking of
articles with 9.1%. It drops to eleventh place in pipeline
research, however, with 3.3%. There are no specific
supply-chain related topics in the earlier studies.
Three topics with identical percentages (8.9%)
follow in third position (2.4, 4.2 and 4.4). Service
productivity (topic 2.4), goes up slightly in pipeline
research (9.4%), although this increase is not sig-
nificant. This topic does not appear explicitly in the
earlier studies. With regard to topic 4.2, Capacity
planning, scheduling and control, this is in eighth place
in the Amoako-Gyampah and Meredith study (2.76%)
and ninth place in the Pannirselvam et al. study (2.09%).
Moreover, the OM pipeline research results (1.01%) in
Pannirselvam et al. (1999) show that there ought to be a
downward trend. This topic was given greater
importance in the field of SOM. As such, ‘‘Capacity
planning’’ was in second place in Mabert (1982) with
22.1%, and in 1980 Buffa identified it as one of the most
important topics in SOM. Our results also show that this
topic has continued to command great importance in
published service research (with an overall total of
14.2% for capacity related topics (3.3 plus 4.2)).
Nevertheless, there is a striking decrease in pipeline
research, where if achieves a grand total of only 7.2%.
Table 6
Distribution of research by topic (journals and pipeline research)
Topic Total journals (1997-2002) Total pipeline (2001-2002) Agendas
Articles % Ranking Ranking Papers % out Chase Johnston Nie and Roth and
topics papers of total (1996) (1999) Kellogg Menor
(1999) (2003)
Group 1 (G1: introduction and key issues 6 1.3 7 1.9
of management in services)
1.1 Introduction and key issues of management in services 6 1.3 18 15 7 1.9

J.A.D. Machuca et al. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 585–603

Group 2 (G2: service operations strategies 139 29.5 159 44
and objectives)
2.1 Service management 12 2.5 15 12 9 2.5 X
2.2 General aspects of strategy and objectives 17 3.6 12 7 26 7.2 X X X
of operations in services
2.3 Strategic issues of quality in services 38 8.1 7 1 47 13.0 X X 1
2.4 Service productivity 42 8.9 3 4 34 9.4 X X 4 X
2.5 Information technology and new technology in services 18 3.8 11 3 37 10.2 X X 3 X
2.6 Expansion, internationalization and globalization of services 3 0.6 20 16 6 1.7 X X
2.7 Supply chain strategies and objectives 9 1.9 16 22 0 0.0
Group 3 (G3: design of service operations) 115 24.4 101 27.8
3.1 Service selection and design 17 3.6 13 10 15 4.1 X X 2 X
3.2 Selection and design of the service delivery system 44 9.3 1 2 42 11.6 X X 2 X
3.3 Capacity design/long-term capacity and demand decisions 25 5.3 8 13 8 2.2 X 7
3.4 Service facility location 8 1.7 17 18 3 0.8 10
3.5 Service facility design and layout 6 1.3 19 20 1 0.3 11
3.6 Design of service operations in supply chains 15 3.2 14 5 32 8.8 X
Group 4 (G4: planning, scheduling and 211 44.8 95 26.3
control of service operations)
4.1 Planning, scheduling and control of service operations 24 5.1 9 16 6 1.7 X 8
4.2 Capacity planning, scheduling and control 42 8.9 3 9 18 5.0 7 and 12
4.3 Short-term scheduling and control 39 8.3 6 8 20 5.5 8
4.4 Inventory management and control 42 8.9 3 13 8 2.2 14
4.5 Service project management 1 0.2 21 19 2 0.6
4.6 Design, measurement and compensation of service work 1 0.2 22 20 1 0.3 X 6 and 13
4.7 Measuring and control of service quality 19 4.0 10 6 28 7.7 X X 1
4.8 Planning, scheduling and control in supply chains 43 9.1 2 11 12 3.3
Total 471 100 362 100
Strategic issues 254 53.9 260 71.8
(STI = G2 + G3)
Tactical/operational 211 44.8 95 26.3
issues (TOI = G4)

593
594 J.A.D. Machuca et al. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 585–603
Topic 4.4, Inventory management and control, has
traditionally been the focus of a lot of attention in OM
research: first place in Amoako-Gyampah and Meredith
(1989), and second place in Pannirselvam et al. (1999).
These two studies indicate a distinct decrease in
publications for the topic, however: (24.59% in 1982–
1987, versus 16.19% in 1992–1997), and this was justified
by the change in direction brought about by the success of
JIT. When to this we add the fact that inventories play a
less vital role in services than in manufacturing, it is
logical that it should fall to thirteenth place in pipeline
research with 2.2%, even though it still represents 8.9% of
SOM research publications in journals.
In sixth position we find Short-term scheduling and
control (topic 4.3), with a percentage of 8.3% in articles
and 5.5% in pipeline research (eighth place). This marks
a huge drop compared to the results in Mabert, where
the topic was in first place by a large margin with
37.2%. For any comparison to be made with previous
studies on OM, this result would have to be combined
with topic 4.1 (Planning, scheduling and control of
service operations), thus producing a total of 13.4% in
articles and 7.2% in pipeline research. This would allow
a comparison to be made with the OM Scheduling topic,
which appeared to be on the increase (16.30% in
Amoako-Gyampah and Meredith (1989) and 25.54% in
Pannirselvam et al. (1999)). It has to be pointed out,
however, that the figure given (14.18%) by Pannirsel-
vam et al. (1999) in pipeline research (OM Conferences
1996–1997) did anticipate a distinct decrease for the
topic in OM research in keeping with what appears to
have happened in SOM research.
The seventh most-researched topic in journals is
devoted to Strategic quality issues in services (topic
2.3), with 8.1%, while it is in first place in pipeline
research with 13%. This represents a major change
compared to the 1970s, when there was no quality-
related SOM topic in Mabert’s study. This growth is
again in line with OM research, as ‘‘Quality’’ is one of
the topics that showed a distinct increase in the earlier
studies: 4.97% for the period 1982–1987, 11.34% for
1992–1997 and 27.62% in 1996–1997 OM Conference
pipeline research. For a clearer comparison of these
figures with SOM research to be made, the percentage
for topic 2.3 has to be combined with that for 4.7
(Quality control and measurement), which gives 12.1%
in articles and 20.7% in pipeline research, thus
confirming this tendency towards growth. The percen-
tages for the remainder of the topics examined in
journals fall sharply (see Table 6).
To conclude, we shall look at some significant
changes in SOM research found in pipeline research.
Research on New technologies (topic 2.5) is flourishing,
leaping to third place in pipeline research (10.2%) from
eleventh (3.8%) in journals. Service design of opera-
tions in supply chains (topic 3.6) shows a similar
increase and jumps from 14th position (3.2%) to 5th
(8.8%). Topic 4.7, related to Service quality control,
almost doubles its percentage, and moves up from 10th
(4%) to 6th position (7.7%). Finally, topic 2.2,
connected with Strategy and objectives, doubles its
percentage and climbs from 12th place (3.6%) to 7th
(7.2%). When the x2-test is performed on the various
pairs of percentages, they are shown to be statistically
significant. In the next section we shall see whether
these results are in line with proposals made in SOM
research Agendas.
4.2.2. SOM research versus SOM research agendas
The four studies that were used are cited in the last
four columns of Table 6. We would like to comment that
the Chase (1996) study is not strictly-speaking an
agenda. The author remarks on a number of research
issues that he considers important, and refers to papers
that have dealt with them and/or other issues that are
pending research: it is these latter that we have used for
a comparison with SOM research. Meanwhile, Nie and
Kellogg (1999) propose a research Agenda with issues
ordered according to the importance they were given in
a survey among OM academics and in which they are
classified as being either manufacturing types, service
types or mixed. The Agendas proposed in Johnston
(1999) and in Roth and Menor (2003) express the
opinions of the authors.
It is not the aim of this article to analyze these
Agendas. Nevertheless, we have made use of them, as
far as we were able, for the sake of comparison with the
SOM research results (journals and pipeline research).
To do this we assigned the aspects mentioned in each to
the different topics in Table 6, in the same way as had
previously been done for articles and conference
papers. Also as was done with the journals and the
pipeline research, any aspects found in the Agendas
that were not strictly SOM-related were eliminated
from the study. The last four columns of Table 6 show
the results after they had been assigned. A cross
indicates that one or more of the issues on the Agenda in
question has been assigned to the topic in the
corresponding line. For Nie and Kellog, instead of a
cross, the position in the ranking of importance
obtained from the survey for all the academics as a
whole is given. This aggregation does not result in a
distortion of the figures for, as the authors themselves
state, respondants generally agree on the Agenda. On
 J.A.D. Machuca et al. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 585–603
odd occasions we have had to aggregate or disaggregate
Nie and Kellog’s results in order to allow a comparison
to be made with our topics.
It can be seen that, with some exceptions, on the
whole, the results of the SOM research (journals and
pipeline research) are consistent with those for SOM
research Agendas. As such, topic 3.2 (Selection and
design of the service delivery system), which is the
leader in both journals and pipeline research, can be
found on all research Agendas, and in second place on
the Nie and Kellog Agenda. Research in Quality (topics
2.3 plus 4.7), which goes up from lower positions in
SOM articles to much higher ones in pipeline research
(topic 2.3 jumps from 7th to 1st while 4.7 climbs from
10th to 6th), also appears on all the various research
Agendas (and in first place on Nie and Kellog’s). Topic
2.4, Service productivity, is placed 3rd and 4th in SOM
journals and in pipeline research respectively. It is in a
similar position on Nie and Kellog’s Agenda and can
also be found on the other Agendas.
The huge jump made by topic 2.5, Information
technology and new technologies in services, in the
SOM research rankings (11 in journals versus 3 in
pipeline research), is in keeping with the demands made
in the research Agendas. Topics 4.8, 4.4 and 4.2, which
fall significantly from one research ranking to the other
(2 versus 11, 3 versus 13 and 3 versus 9), are not all on
all Agendas and those that are (4.4 and 4.2), are in very
low positions on Nie and Kellog’s. Design of service
operations in supply chains (topic 3.6) does not appear
on the three oldest Agendas, and is very low in the
journals ranking (14th). It does, however, go up in
pipeline research (5th) and can be found on the most
recent Agenda. The issues related to General aspects of
strategy and objectives of operations in services (topic
2.2) also go up (12 versus 7) and are on three of the
Agendas.
There are, nevertheless, a number of topics that are
on at least two of the SOM Agendas which have not
received due attention to date in SOM research. This is
the case of Service selection and design (topic 3.1),
Planning scheduling and control of service operations
(topic 4.1), Work design (topic 4.6), Capacity design/
long-term capacity decisions (topic 3.3, although it is in
a lowly position on the Nie and Kellog Agenda), Service
facility design and layout (topic 3.5) and Expansion and
globalization of services (topic 2.6). The gap regarding
this last was also remarked upon by Prasad et al. (2000).
The remaining topics, which are towards the bottom of
both research rankings, either do not appear on the
research Agendas at all, or only do so on a single
Agenda.
595
4.2.3. Strategic versus tactical/operational issues in
SOM research
Given the repeated recommendations made in favor
of greater research in Strategic Issues (STI) (e.g. Buffa,
1980; Chase, 1980; Samson and Whibark, 1998), we
considered it important to study this aspect and compare
it with research in Tactical and Operational Issues
(TOI). According to studies by Amoako-Gyampah and
Meredith (1989) and Pannirselvam et al. (1999), the
latter predominates in OM research, as it also did in the
SOM research analyzed by Mabert at the beginning of
the nineteen-eighties (1982) in which TOI achieved
82.6% compared to 17.4% for STI.
The results in the last two lines of Table 6 show that
for the period 1997–2002 the aggregated total of articles
on strategic issues (53.9%) is greater than that for
tactical/operational issues (44.8%). This difference is
statistically significant (x2 = 7.8020; sig. = 0.0052), and
shows a marked change from the above-mentioned
studies on OM research, whose authors established a
predominance of tactical/operational issues in OM
research up to 1997. This is supported by the trends in
evolution seen per 2-year period. Although this
information has not been included in the table due to
lack of space, it can be stated that STI research goes up
from 44.1% to 58.6% between the first and third 2-year
periods, while TOI research falls from 55.2% to 41.4%.
Both these differences are significant (x2 = 6.0808,
sig. = 0.0137 and x2 = 5.5102, sig. = 0.0189, respec-
tively).2 Total figures for pipeline research (last two
lines, Table 6) clearly confirm this, with STI rising from
53.9% in articles to 71.8% in conference papers, whilst
TOI fall from 44.8% to 26.3%. These differences are
very significant (x2 = 27.7470, sig. = 0.0000 and
x2 = 30.1341, sig. = 0.0000, respectively). It would
therefore appear that research in strategic issues is
beginning to take a hold in SOM.
An analysis of the seven most-researched topics
strongly supports this. In articles, three of these are on
strategic issues (topics 2.3, 2.4 and 3.2) whilst the other
four are on tactical/operational issues (topics 4.2, 4.3, 4.4
and 4.8). Nevertheless, these four TOI topics are not
found in the pipeline research and are replaced by others,
with three out of the four dealing with strategic issues
(2.2, 2.5 and 3.6) and only one with TOI issues (4.7).
Although we have not included information per type
of journal in Table 6, we can state that OM journals are
2
This is in keeping with the growth in the proportion of SOM
articles in OM journals and with the fall in OR/MS Journals men-
tioned in Section 5.
596 J.A.D. Machuca et al. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 585–603

the main outlet for SOM papers devoted to strategic
issues (69%), whereas for articles related to tactical/
operational issues (61%) it is OR/MS journals. The
latter seems logical given that these types of issues have
greater links with quantitative research, which is more a
feature of OR/MS journals. A correspondence analysis
of journal groups (OM and OR/MS) and type of issue
(STI, TOI) confirms this, and the x2 contrast reveals that
the variables are not independent (x2 = 47.296 and
sig. = 0.0000).
4.3. Research methods
This section addresses the third question in our
study: What methods are used for SOM research?
Table 7 shows the number of articles in which each type
of method is used. The use of more than one method for
a single article means that the figure for the total in the
table (443) exceeds the number of articles that were
analyzed (344). Data in the total line shows that the use
of models and simulations (M/S) leads by a large
margin with a percentage (60.7%) almost twice that of
empirical methods (31.2%). This difference is clearly
significant (x2 = 77.9913 and sig. = 0.0000). The
difference between the use of models/simulations and
empirical methods is also significant for each time
period and is always in favor of the former.
These results tally with those of research in OM
between the beginning of the 1980s (Amoako-Gyampah
and Meredith, 1989) and the end of the 1990s
(Pannirselvam et al., 1999). Nevertheless, throughout
the three 2-year periods there is a tendency towards a
decrease in M/S and an increase in empirical methods,
with the gap closing as time progresses, and with the
difference being increasingly less significant (see last
line Table 7). Given that it is frequently difficult to
determine which research methods were used from
conference proceedings (especially when there are only
abstracts, as in the case of the POMS conferences), we
have not analyzed how this tendency has evolved in
pipeline research.
With regard to the type of journal (see Table 7), as
was expected the OR/MS journals present a much
higher percentage of models/simulations (81.5%) than
empirical methods (16.2%). The opposite is true for OM
journals, although the differences are not so pronounced
(46.2% (E) versus 39.8% (M/S)). A correspondence
analysis conducted on journal groups and research
methods clearly confirms this. The x2-test contrast
performed on the data in Table 7 shows that these
variables are not independent (x2 = 62.2002 and
sig. = 0.0000).
It could be inferred from these results, and those in
Section 4.2, that there should also be a link between
the research methods used and the strategic and
tactical/operational topic groups. The correspondence
analysis that was then conducted corroborates this
hypothesis: the study of tactical/operational issues has
distinct links with the use of models and simulations,
whereas the study of strategic issues is linked to
empirical research. Given the connection between
strategic issues/empirical research and tactical-opera-
tional issues/modeling and simulation, the evident
growth of STI and decrease of TOI in pipeline
research that was previously mentioned could be
indirect confirmation of the future growth of the use of
empirical methods and decline of M/S in SOM
research.

Table 7
Distribution of research methods
Research method 1997–1998 1999–2000 2001–2002 Total % Type of journal
Articles % Articles % Articles % OR/MS % OM %
journals journals
Theoretical/ 6 4.6 7 4.0 7 5.0 20 4.5 3 1.4 17 7.7
conceptual
Literature review 1 0.8 8 4.6 7 5.0 16 3.6 2 0.9 14 6.3
Models/simulations 89 68.5 106 60.9 74 53.2 269 60.7 181 81.5 88 39.8
(M/S)
Empirical 34 26.2 53 30.5 51 36.7 138 31.2 36 16.2 102 46.2
studies (E)
Total 130 100 174 100 139 100 443 100 222 100 221 100
2
x -test M/S vs. E 46.6526, 0.0000 32.4004, 0.0000 7.6466, 0.0057 77.9913, 0.0000
(x2, sig.) for
each period
 J.A.D. Machuca et al. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 585–603 597

Table 8
Types of empirical researcha
Empirical research 1997–1998 1999–2000 2001–2002 Total
Articles % Articles % Articles % Articles %
1. Survey 6 16.7 20 37.0 16 29.1 42 29.0
2. Direct observation methods 20 55.6 12 22.2 24 43.6 56 38.6
2.1. Case studies 18 50.0 12 22.2 18 32.7 48 33.1
2.2. Field research 1 2.8 0 0.0 2 3.6 3 2.1
2.3. Field experiments 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.8 1 0.7
2.4. Action research 1 2.8 0 0.0 3 5.5 4 2.8
3. Panel study 2 5.6 0 0.0 1 1.8 3 2.1
4. Laboratory experiments 1 2.8 1 1.9 0 0.0 2 1.4
5. Other 7 19.4 21 38.9 14 25.5 42 29.0
5.1. Database 0 0.0 2 3.7 1 1.8 3 2.1
5.2. Historical data 7 19.4 19 35.2 13 23.6 39 26.9
Total 36 100 54 100 55 100 145 100
a
The total in this table (145) does not coincide with the total of empirical studies in Table 7 (138). The difference results from seven studies making
use of two different empirical methods.

To conclude this section, given the growing interest
in empirical research, we studied the different types
mentioned in Section 3. Table 8 shows the way they are
distributed.
In aggregate terms, the majority of research (38.6%)
falls into the category of Direct Observation Methods
(DOM), basically case studies (33.1%). This method is
followed by Surveys (29%) and by the ‘‘Other’’
category (29%) using, for the most part, Historical
Data (26.9%). The differences in the proportions of
DOM and the other two methods (Survey and Other) are
not statistically significant. Two-year figures do not
reveal any distinct trends in the way the relative
importance of the three main research designs (survey,
case studies and historical data) has evolved. The
presence of Panel Studies and Laboratory Experiments
is purely anecdotal.
The comparison of research methods with specific
data on SOM from previous studies is not possible, as
none exists. A comparison can only be made with OM
data found in Amoako-Gyampah and Meredith (1989)
and Pannirselvam et al. (1999), and then only for the
main methods, surveys and case studies. With regard to
surveys, a distinct increase could be seen from 7.22% in
the first study, to 13.17% in the second. In our study, a
percentage of 9% is obtained for SOM research (that is,
29% (see Table 8) of the 31.2% total for empirical
research, see Table 7).
With regard to case studies, a stagnation in OM
research can be seen, with 4.94% in the Amoako-
Gyampah and Meredith (1989) study, and 5.24% in that
of Pannirselvam et al. (1999). However, in our study,
case studies in SOM research stand at 10.3% (that is,
33.1% (see Table 8) of the 31.2% for empirical research
(see Table 7)), which is clearly much higher. The
statistical significance of the differences between these
proportions cannot be measured due the fact that the
specific data from which they were obtained does not
appear in the earlier studies.
4.4. Sectors of activity
This section deals with the last question in our study:
Which sectors of activity are most commonly studied in
SOM research? Table 9 shows the number and
percentages of articles that deal with each of the
sectors under consideration. It should be highlighted
that, as in the Mabert (1982) study, the majority of the
articles (79.4%) deal with one sector or another. This
marks a difference with the results found in Amoako-
Gyampah and Meredith (1989) for OM research, in
which there were few articles devoted to specific
sectors. The Pannirselvam et al. (1999) study does not
address this question.
Three sectors comprise almost 50% of the total
articles: Transportation (20.1%), Commercial distribu-
tion (18%) and Health (10.2%). This is true for both
types of journal, although in different orders. The
remaining sectors obtain much lower percentages. In
Mabert (1982), research in Transportation (19.8%) was
in second place and Health (17.4%) in third. The
important position the latter had had in the 1970s was
therefore maintained. Commercial distribution, on the
contrary, did not appear in that study. It should be noted
that Health is one of the sectors that Chase (1996)
believes it is important to do research in.
 598
Table 9
Sectors in SOM research (journals and pipeline research)

J.A.D. Machuca et al. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 585–603

Sector of activity Journals Pipeline research
OM OR/MS Total Ranking Ranking Total papers POMS DSI EurOMA
journals journals (2001–2002) (2001–2002) (2001–2002) (2001–2002)
Articles % Articles % Articles % Papers % out Papers % out Papers % out Papers % out
of total of total of total of total
B2B service companies 4 2.6 10 5.3 14 4.1 7 7 11 4.2 8 5.8 2 2.1 1 3.7
Commercial distribution 38 24.5 24 12.7 62 18.0 2 2 43 16.6 20 14.5 16 17 7 26
Education 2 1.3 1 0.5 3 0.9 13 8 10 3.9 4 2.9 5 5.3 1 3.7
Financial institutions and 7 4.5 9 4.8 16 4.7 5 5 14 5.4 6 4.4 5 5.3 3 11.1
insurance companies
General energy supply 2 1.3 7 3.7 9 2.6 10 9 5 1.9 4 2.9 1 1.1 0 0.00
Health 22 14.2 13 6.9 35 10.2 3 1 47 18.1 22 15.9 23 24.5 2 7.4
Maintenance and repair 6 3.9 3 1.6 9 2.6 9 11 2 0.8 1 0.7 1 1.1 0 0.00
Personal services 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 14 13 1 0.4 1 0.7 0 0.00 0 0.00
Postal and courier services 1 0.6 2 1.1 3 0.9 12 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 0.00
Professional services 4 2.6 2 1.1 6 1.7 11 11 2 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.00 2 7.4
Public services and non-profit 5 3.2 6 3.2 11 3.2 8 4 17 6.6 12 8.7 2 2.1 3 11.1
making companies
Telecommunications 5 3.2 11 5.8 16 4.7 5 10 4 1.5 1 0.7 1 1.1 2 7.4
Tourism, leisure, culture 9 5.8 11 5.8 20 5.8 4 3 26 10.0 15 10.9 9 9.6 2 7.4
and sport
Transportation 16 10.3 53 28.0 69 20.1 1 5 14 5.4 7 5.1 6 6.3 1 3.7
Generic (no specific sector) 34 21.9 37 19.6 71 20.6 63 24.3 37 26.8 23 24.5 3 11.1
Total 155 100 189 100 344 100 259 100 ‘ 100 94 100 27 100
 J.A.D. Machuca et al. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 585–603
It should be highlighted that not enough attention is
paid in journals to research in some significant sectors
found in developed countries, such as: Tourism, leisure,
culture and sport; Telecommunications; Financial
institutions and insurance companies; Public services;
and Energy supply. The same was true for the Mabert
study except for the Financial institutions sector, which
was in first place with 23.3%. Another interesting
difference can be found with regard to the Education
sector, which is last but one in our study (0.9%), whilst
in Mabert it was third (equal with Health on 17.4%).
Although evolution over time does not appear in
table form due to the lack of space, it does provide some
information of interest. The apparent equality in the
aggregated number of articles dealing with the
Transportation (20.1%) and Commercial distribution
(18%) sectors masks the decrease in the former (25.5%,
19.2% and 15.4%) and the increase in the latter (14.5%,
16.2% and 24%). There is also a distinct increase in
articles devoted to Health (6.4%, 9.8% and 15.4%). The
remaining sectors show no distinct trends.
The figures for pipeline research (see Table 9) show
that six of the sectors that were ranked in the first seven
places in articles (percentages of over 4%) are the same,
and three of these are in the same position (Commercial
distribution, Financial institutions and insurance
companies, and B2B service companies), with similar
proportions to those found in the articles. However,
there have been some variations: attention should be
drawn to the first place achieved by Health as the
percentage it obtained has practically doubled. The x2-
test shows this difference (18.1% versus 10.2%) to be
statistically significant (x2 = 7.9927; sig. = 0.0047).
The trend towards an increase in research in the Health
sector that had been found in articles is therefore
repeated. The dramatic fall from first to fifth place of the
Transportation sector, with only a quarter of its original
percentage, should also be noted (statistically signifi-
cant difference (x2 = 26.7258; sig. = 0.0000)). This
confirms the trends that were seen in evolution by 2-
year period in the journal articles. The proportion for
Tourism, leisure, culture and sport rises from 5.8% to
10%, going up one place from fourth to third, although
this increase had already been noted in articles for the
last two 2-year periods. It would therefore seem that
research in this sector is beginning to receive the
attention its importance demand.
It can also be seen that Telecommunications drops
out of contention, falling from fifth (4.7%) to 10th place
(1.5%), despite the undoubted importance of the sector
in the real world. The appearance in the top seven of a
new sector, Public services, must be highlighted. This
599
sector moved up from eighth to fourth place and
doubled its percentage points. It should also be noted
that the Education sector quadrupled its proportion
(from 0.9% to 3.9%), rising from last but one to eighth
place. Another important sector, Energy, remains in a
lowly position and achieves an even smaller percentage
(1.9% compared to 2.6% in articles). All the remaining
sectors continue to occupy very marginal positions in
SOM research. Finally, it only remains to be stated that
the percentage of papers that deal with no specific sector
(generic) rises, although the difference in comparison
with the articles is not significant.
Lastly, we also considered it would be of interest to
discover whether any relationships existed between the
sectors dealt with and the type of journal, the type of
issue (strategic or tactical/operational), and the research
method (empirical or models/simulations). An analysis
was conducted that focused on the first seven sectors
under articles in Table 9. Although lack of space does
not permit us to give numbers for the analysis, these
show that:
(a) The Commercial distribution, Health, Maintenance
and repair, Professional services and Education
sectors appear to have definite links with OM
journals. On the other hand, Transportation,
Telecommunications, B2B service companies,
Energy and Postal services appear to have greater
links with OR/MS journals. There are no clear links
with any of the other sectors.
(b) The study of strategic issues appears to have greater
links with the Financial institutions sector, Tele-
communications and Health. On the contrary, the
Transportation, Commercial distribution and B2B
service company sectors have closer links with
tactical/operational issues. The Tourism sector has
no clear links at all.
(c) Models and simulations appear to be the method
that predominates in Transportation, Commercial
distribution and Telecommunications. Health,
Financial institutions and insurance companies,
and B2B service companies are more associated
with the use of empirical methods. Tourism, leisure,
culture and sport does not appear to be linked to any
method.
5. Main conclusions, final remarks and research
proposals
The main purpose of our study was to determine the
state of affairs of SOM research in the most relevant OM
outlets, especially with regard to the number of
600 J.A.D. Machuca et al. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 585–603
publications, content, research methods and sectors of
activity. To this end, we have collated a large quantity of
information in the foregoing sections, including pipe-
line research, and remarked on the findings that have
come out of the analysis. Although it might be useful to
offer a final summary of the findings here, a lack of
space means we shall have to limit ourselves to setting
out the main conclusions, on some occasions in an
aggregated form, and to adding some personal
observations.
With regard to the number of SOM publications:
these represent 7.5% of OM research in the analysed
journals. This constitutes a rise compared to the
previous 6-year period; the 18.4% achieved in pipeline
research seem to indicate that there would potentially be
further growth during the years following the period
analyzed in our study. Despite this, the figures
mentioned show that there is still clearly only a
marginal amount of SOM research in OM research.
How can the enormous gap that has existed for so many
years between the crucial importance of services in
developed economies and the scant attention that SOM
research seems to receive from OM academics be
explained? Why do neither this importance nor the
various Agendas seem to motivate OM researchers? An
exhaustive worldwide survey of OM academics should
be the subject of further research to find the answers to
these questions and to determine the deep-rooted causes
of the problem. This would be a first step towards
combating them and finding a solution.
In the meantime, it is only possible to speculate
about the reasons why OM is out of step with the
economy. As early as 1999 Nie and Kellog were already
indicating that it was a matter of fact that general
research and the teaching focus of OM academics was
manufacturing based (only 21.3% of respondants to
their survey were catalogued as service type). This
might be one of the causes for the lack of relative
importance of SOM research. Although the Nie and
Kellog survey was only sent to USA scholars, the
situation does not seem to be any better in the EU
judging by the results of pipeline research, which show
that the percentage of SOM papers (2001 and 2002) at
the mainly European researcher-attended EurOMA
conferences is about half that at US-based conferences
(11% (EurOMA) versus 20% (POMS + DSI)).
This could lead us on to other possible causes of the
problem: most reviewers in OM outlets could be on the
manufacturing side, as a result of which the number of
qualified reviewers in service research is much lower
than for manufacturing. In our opinion, this is not a
minor issue, as when comparisons were made with
previous research it was seen that there are differences
between research in SOM and in manufacturing (e.g.
the former has closer links with strategic issues and
makes a greater use of empirical methods). We share the
opinion of Nie and Kellogg (1999), who indicated that
most manufacturing-oriented academics were more
likely to believe that extensions and adaptations of
existing theories are sufficient to deal with SOM
research problems. This was not the case with service-
oriented academics, who were of the opinion that this
was not true on many occasions and defended the
uniqueness of SOM research for many problems (for
example, in SOM problems are usually less-structured
than in manufacturing and more cross-functional).
Those less familiar with SOM can also make wrong
value judgements regarding the relevance of SOM
topics. Following the same line, Roth and Menor (2003)
pointed out that the types of problems and methodo-
logies found in SOM research tended to be different to
manufacturing and that, because of this, ‘‘it may be
more difficult for many POM scholars (less familiar
with SOM research) to evaluate publication quality and
contribution’’. It is evident that all this might lead to a
manufacturing bias when judging SOM research.
Another cause of misunderstanding could arise out
of the insufficient use of a cross-functional approach in
OM research despite the fact that a number of authors
(e.g. Hayes, 1998; Machuca, 1998; Krajewski, 1998)
see it as an urgent requirement and have been making
demands for its greater use for a good number of years.
It should therefore not come as a surprise that traditional
manufacturing academics are likely to misunderstand
the complexity of service design and delivery, which
require an even greater interdisciplinary view than
manufacturing problems.
These circumstances may serve as justification for
the statement made by Roth and Menor (2003) to the
effect that traditional POM outlets may not be the most
suitable for SOM research as they could be less
receptive to it. This is a concern, as new faculty and
candidates for faculty positions are still under great
pressure to publish in prestigious OM outlets. This
usually leads to a choice of tried and true topics whose
publication involves less risk. Research in services does
not appear to comply with these prerequisites and this
could be another reason for the low percentage of OM
research it represents.
We believe that as long as the above mentioned
situation persists it will continue to be difficult to get
SOM research in the place where it belongs. And yet, it
is urgent to bridge the gap in order that our discipline
meet the needs of the Economy. In this regard, it would
 J.A.D. Machuca et al. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 585–603
be an important step if efforts were made both by
suitable senior researchers to lead research teams, and
also by OM outlet editors to publish more special issues
and encourage SOM research through the Editorial
included in each issue. We strongly believe that the
problem is so great that OM society leaders (e.g.
EurOMA, POMS or even DSI) should also launch a
‘‘crusade’’ in favor of SOM research.
With regard to research content: due to a lack of
space here, we refer readers back to Section 4.2 for the
main findings that come out of the results in journals
and pipeline research. We only remind you that the
results for SOM research have been consistent with the
Agenda proposals for the most part, but that there are,
nevertheless, a number of topics which, despite
including issues that appear on at least two of the
SOM research Agendas considered, figure poorly in
SOM published research (without pipeline research
showing any trends towards a change). These are:
Service selection and design, Planning, scheduling and
control of service operations, Work design, Capacity
design/long-term capacity decisions, Service facility
design and layout and Expansion/globalization of
services.
If we accept the validity of the above-mentioned
Agendas, greater attention ought to be given to these
topics in the future. Nevertheless, for a more complete
vision of all the SOM topics that should be researched,
Agendas drawn up by Academics should be supple-
mented with others taken from the professional field. To
this end, further research should include a survey
conducted amongst service organization managers.
This should be as exhaustive as possible in order to
prevent there being any gaps between both worlds and
to provide answers to the needs of said organizations.
Another interesting issue is the evident evolution of
SOM research towards a clear predominance of
strategic issues. This is clearly a positive move and
responds to recommendations that a number of authors
have made since the 1980s (e.g. Buffa, 1980; Chase,
1980). Nevertheless, the authors believe that there
might also be a negative aspect to this for SOM. In our
opinion, one of the reasons for the smaller number of
tactical/operational studies might be the fact that they
are more diffuse, less structured, greatly varied and, in
short, that their standpoints and the solutions to their
problems are more difficult to determine than those on
the same level in manufacturing. In our opinion, a small
amount of research in tactical/operational issues may be
a failing in SOM, and an effort should be made to
increase research in this area (whilst not halting the
drive in strategic issues).
601
With regard to research methods: the evolution of
models/simulation and empirical methods over the
period under consideration would seem to indicate a
shift towards a prevalence of the latter, which is in
keeping with recommendations by the well-known
authors for OM research as a whole. Another interesting
aspect is that the percentage of surveys is smaller than in
OM research, while the use of case studies is greater.
With regard to sectors of activity: it must be
highlighted that, contrary to what happened with OM
research during the 1980s, the majority of SOM
publications focus on a specific sector of activity.
Nevertheless, practically 50% of attention focuses on
three sectors: Transportation, Commercial distribution
and Health. Pipeline research confirms this focus,
although Transportation is replaced by Tourism, leisure,
culture and sport in the group of the three main sectors.
Some empirical research amongst service organizations
is necessary here too, analagous to the research
mentioned for ‘Content’, in order to determine which
sectors are most in need of research.
The relationship that was found between content and
research methods should also be highlighted, as well as
that between the research methods and sectors of
activity. These relationships might serve as a guide for
researchers when designing their research. Another
interesting aspect revealed by our study is the
connection discovered between the different types of
journal (OM and OR/MS) and their content and the
research methods and sectors they deal with. OM outlets
have greater links with strategic content, empirical
methods and some specific sectors of activity. OR/MS
journals, on the contrary, have greater connections with
tactical/operational content, the use of models and
simulations, and other sectors. With regard to the
number of articles, it must be remarked than the
percentage of SOM/OM in OR/MS journals is clearly
higher than in OM journals. However, there has been a
decrease in OR/MS journals in the last 2-year periods
and an increase in OM journals for all periods. As shall
be seen, these trends could be associated with changes
in the types of topics dealt with (strategic versus
tactical/operational (see Section 4.2.3)), and the
methods used in SOM research (empirical versus
quantitative methods (see Section 4.3)).
This information may be of aid to researchers
looking for a suitable outlet for their research. As far as
we, the authors, are concerned, this indicates that
further profiling of the various OM journals would be
useful, and we are currently researching this issue.
Information on the absolute and relative numbers of
publications in the various journals is also of great use
602 J.A.D. Machuca et al. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 585–603
as it can help researchers determine which journals
show the greatest interest (or apparent interest, at least)
in the field of SOM. People looking for the results of
SOM research will also find this of interest, as they will
be able to go straight to journals that have the greatest
number of publications. It will also be important for the
editors of the journals themselves, who will see how
they are positioned in both absolute and relative terms
and, on this basis, they will, perhaps, be able to decide
whether to reposition their journal by encouraging
research in SOM.
We would encourage the use of this first study of ours
into SOM research as a springboard for further research,
but with a wider focus. If this is done, our analysis could
be expanded and the criteria for selection broadened to
include more journals, such as some that are specifically
devoted to the services sector, as well as other
prestigious outlets in the wider field of management.
These were not included in our study as they did not
meet the criteria that we had established to ensure the
quality/relevance (for the OM community)3 of the
outlets to be analyzed. It should be highlighted that only
one service specific journal (The International Journal
of Service Industry Management) can be found in one of
the published rankings that were used (Soteriou et al.,
1999), albeit in 18th place. The content analysis could
also be expanded to include not only pure SOM articles,
but also others that deal with the service-component in
manufacturing and yet others that have a greater
interdisciplinary element, especially those that connect
SOM with marketing and/or human resources. There
could also be more detailed research into content with
topics being disaggregated into more specific issues.
Finally, more studies could also be done on pipeline
research; a comparison of SOM topic and manufactur-
ing topic ‘‘hit rates’’ for example, with an analysis of
any differences and their causes.
We believe that our study can be considered to be
representative despite the fact that it is limited to only
10 journals and that it could be broadened to include a
greater number outlets and a wider range of content. We
base this belief, on the one hand, on the fact that the list
of journals is in line with the earlier studies devoted to
OM research which we used for a comparison with our
results and, on the other, because our list takes its
selection of the most prestigious OM outlets from a total
of seven studies on their quality/relevance and number
of citations. As we have previously pointed out, it is a
3
Only the Harvard Business Review met the criteria but was later
excluded for the reasons set out in Section 3.1.
well-known fact that researchers tend to submit their
studies to journals of this type.
This analysis could possibly be flawed if what is
being published does not reflect what is being submitted
(that there is a bias in the journals regarding appropriate
topics for publication). However, Amoako-Gyampah
and Meredith (1989) and Pannirselvam et al. (1999)
demonstrated that this was not the case in reality.
Acknowledgements
The co-authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable
comments and suggestions offered by the Associate
Editor and also extend their gratitude to the three
anonymous reviewers who assessed the article. They are
similarly indebted to José Luis Pérez Dı́ez de los Rı́os
for his help with the statistical calculations in the study.
Finally, they would like to state that this study was
conducted within the framework of the Spanish
Ministry of Science and Technology’s project no.
DPI2003-01579.
References
Aguilar Escobar, V.G., 2003. Análisis bibliométrico y de contenido de
los programas docentes y manuales de Dirección de Operaciones
en Servicios. Doctoral Thesis. Universidad de Sevilla.
Aguilar Escobar, V.G., Machuca, J.A.D., 2000. Analysis of textbooks
on service operations management. In: Machuca, J.A.D., Man-
dakovic, T. (Eds.), POM Facing the New Millennium. POMS,
Sevilla, pp. 383–392.
Alfaro Tanco, J.A., Álvarez Gil, M.J., Montes, M.J., 2002. Lagging
behind vs. advancing too fast? Identifying gaps in research in the
supply chain. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Annual
Conference of the European Operations Management Association
(EUROMA), Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 27–38.
Amoako-Gyampah, K., Meredith, J.R., 1989. The Operations Man-
agement research agenda: an update. Journal of Operations Man-
agement 8 (3), 250–262.
Barman, S., Tersine, R.J., Buckley, M.R., 1991. An empirical assess-
ment of the perceived relevance and quality of OM-related jour-
nals by academicians. Journal of Operations Management 10 (2),
194–212.
Barman, S., Hanna, M.D., LaForge, R.L., 2001. Perceived relevance
and quality of OM Journals: a decade later. Journal of Operations
Management 19 (3), 367–385.
Buffa, E.S., 1980. Research in Operations Management. Journal of
Operations Management 1 (1), 1–8.
Chase, R.B., 1980. A classification and evaluation of research in
Operations Management. Journal of Operations Management 1
(1), 9–14.
Chase, R.B., 1996. The mall is my factory: reflections of a service
junkie. Production and Operations Management 5 (4), 298–308.
Claver Cortés, E., González Ramı́rez, M.R., Llopis Taverner, J., 1999.
Estudio de la investigación en sistemas de información a través del
análisis de dos revistas (1981–1997). Revista de Economı́a y
Empresa XIII (36), 97–120.
 J.A.D. Machuca et al. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 585–603
Da Silveira, G., Borenstein, D., Fogliatto, F.S., 2001. Mass customi-
zation: literature review and research directions. International
Journal of Production Economics 72 (1), 1–13.
Flynn, B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R.G., Bates, K.A., Flynn, E.J.,
1990. Empirical research methods in Operations Management.
Journal of Operations Management 9 (2), 250–284.
Goh, C., Holsapple, C.W., Johnson, L.E., Tanner, J.R., 1997. Eval-
uating and classifying OM journals. Journal of Operations Man-
agement 15 (2), 123–138.
Hayes, R., 1998. Developing POM faculties for the 21st century.
Production and Operations Management 7 (2), 94–98.
Hill, A.V., Scudder, G.D., Haugen, D.L., 1987. Production/Operations
Management agenda for the 80s: a progress report. In: Proceed-
ings of the 1987 DSI Conference, Decision Sciences Institute,
Boston, MA, pp. 840–842.
Johnston, R., 1999. Service Operations Management: return to roots.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management
19 (2), 104–124.
Johnston, R., 2005. Service Operations Management: from the roots
up. International Journal of Operations and Production Manage-
ment 25 (12), 1298–1308.
Krajewski, L., 1998. Motivating students in the Operations Manage-
ment class: challenges for the publishing industry. Production and
Operations Management 7 (2), 188–193.
Mabert, V.A., 1982. Service Operations Management: research
and application. Journal of Operations Management 2 (4), 203–
209.
Machuca, J.A.D., 1998. Improving POM learning: systems thinking
and transparent-box business simulators. Production and Opera-
tions Management 7 (2), 210–227.
Machuca, J.A.D., Álvarez Gil, M.J., Garcı́a González, S., Domı́nguez
Machuca, M.A., Ruiz Jiménez, A., 1995a. Dirección de Opera-
ciones: Aspectos estratégicos en la producción y los servicios.
McGraw-Hill, Madrid.
Machuca, J.A.D., Garcı́a González, S., Domı́nguez Machuca, M.A.,
Ruiz Jiménez, A., Álvarez Gil, M.J., 1995b. Dirección de Oper-
aciones: Aspectos tácticos y operativos en la producción y los
servicios. McGraw-Hill, Madrid.
Meredith, J., 1998. Building operations management theory through
case and field research. Journal of Operations Management 16,
441–454.
Meredith, J.R., Raturi, A., Amoako-Gyampah, K., Kaplan, B., 1989.
Alternative research paradigms in operations. Journal of Opera-
tions Management 8 (4), 297–326.
Miller, J.G., Graham, M.B.W., Freeland, J.R., Hottenstein, M., Mais-
ter, D.M., Meredith, J., Schmenner, R.W., 1981. Production/
Operations Management: agenda for the 80s. Decision Science
12 (4), 547–571.
Nie, Kellogg, 1999. How professors of Operations Management view
service operations? Production and Operations Management 8
(3), 339–355.
View publication stats
603
OEDC, 2005a. Main Economic Indicators, Basic Structural Statistics,
August 2005. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/4/1874420.pdf.
ODEC, 2005b. Labour Force Statistics, Paris. http://www1.oecd.org/
scripts/cde/members/lfsindicatorsauthenticate.asp.
Pannirselvam, G.P., Ferguson, L.A., Ash, R.C., Siferd, S.P., 1999.
Operations Management research: an update for the 1990s. Jour-
nal of Operations Management 18 (1), 95–112.
Pilkington, A., Liston-Heyes, C., 1999. Is production and operations
management a discipline? A citation/co-citation study. Interna-
tional Journal of Operations and Production Management 19 (1),
7–20.
Prasad, S., Babbar, S., 2000. International Operations Management
research. Journal of Operations Management 18 (2), 209–247.
Prasad, S., Babbar, S., Calis, A., 2000. International Operations
Management and Operations Management research: a compara-
tive analysis. Omega 28 (1), 97–110.
Rosen, L.D., 1998. Service: the next frontier. Hospital Materiel
Management Quarterly 19 (3), 29–34.
Roth, A.V., Menor, L.J., 2003. Insights into service Operations
Management: a research agenda. Production and Operations
Management 12 (2), 145–164.
Samson, D., Whibark, D.C., 1998. Guest editorial. Journal of Opera-
tions Management 17, 3–5.
Scandura, T.A., Williams, E.A., 2000. Research methodology in
management: current practices, trends and implications for future
research. Academy of Management Journal 43 (6), 1,248–1,264.
Scudder, G.D., Hill, C.A., 1998. A review and classification of
empirical research in Operations Management. Journal of Opera-
tions Management 16 (1), 91–101.
Slack, N., Lewis, M., Bates, H., 2004. The two worlds of Operations
Management research and practice. Can they meet, should they
meet? International Journal of Operations and Production Man-
agement 24 (4), 372–387.
Soteriou, A.C., Hadjinicola, G.C., Patsia, K., 1999. Assessing produc-
tion and Operations Management related journals: the European
perspective. Journal of Operations Management 17 (2), 225–238.
Swamidass, P.M., 1991. Empirical science: new frontier in Operations
Management research. Academy of Management Journal 16 (4),
793–814.
Van Hoek, R.I., 2001. The rediscovery of postponement a literature
review and directions for research. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment 19 (2), 161–184.
Vokurka, R.J., 1996. The relative importance of journals used in
operations management research. A citation analysis. Journal of
Operations Management 14 (4), 345–355.
Wacker, J.G., 1998. A definition of theory: research guidelines for
different theory-building research methods in operations manage-
ment. Journal of Operations Management 16, 361–385.
Young, S.T., Baird, B.C., Pullman, M.E., 1996. OM research produc-
tivity in U.S. business schools. Journal of Operations Management
14 (1), 41–53.