Professor Niall Piercy, PhD.

Swansea, United Kingdom.

Web: www.niallpiercy.com
Email: niallpiercy@aol.com

BUSINESS HISTORY AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

Published in:

Business History

Full citation:

Piercy, N. 2012. The Role of History in Operations Management.

Business History. 54, 2, 154-178. DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2011.631121.
Open access full text: http://tinyurl.com/q6b6h7x.
Publisher link: http://tinyurl.com/pf2cwjx

This paper is released under the UK Open Access Framework. There may be very minor
differences between this document and the published journal version due to changes and
corrections at the print-proofing stage. All copyright for the material within this paper rests
with the publishing journal.

Elements and the rationale of this paper were first presented at the British Academy of
Management annual conference in Oxford 2005.
Other papers by the same author that you may be interested in are listed below. Free, open
access full text of most papers is available from the links given with publication/post-press
copies available from the journals in question subject to payment.

Lean and general operations management

 Piercy, N. and Rich, N. 2015 The Relationship Between Lean Operations and Sustainable
Operations. International Journal of Operations and Product Management. 35, 2, 282-315.
DOI:10.1108/IJOPM-03-2014-0143.
 Open access full text: http://tinyurl.com/pefpr6p.
 Publisher link: http://tinyurl.com/pwogwog

 Piercy, N. and Rich, N. 2009. Lean Transformation in the Call Service Centre. International
Journal of Operations and Production Management. 29, 1, 54-76. DOI:
10.1108/01443570910925361.
 Open access full text: http://tinyurl.com/qxsur3n.
 Publisher link: http://tinyurl.com/nqt44c7

 Piercy, N. and Rich, N. 2009. The Implications of Lean Operations for Sales Strategy:
From Sales-Force to Marketing-Force. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 17, 3-4, 237-253.
DOI: 10.1080/09652540903064738.
 Open access full text: http://tinyurl.com/onkdlr9.
 Publisher link: http://tinyurl.com/ovum4z8

 Piercy, N. and Rich, N. 2009. High Quality and Low Cost: The Lean Service Centre.
European Journal of Marketing. 43, 11/12, pp1477-1497 DOI:
10.1108/03090560910989993.
 Open access full text: http://tinyurl.com/n9wyf8h.
 Publisher link: http://tinyurl.com/ohk2dbz

 Piercy, N., Caldwell, N. and Rich, N. 2009. Considering Connectivity in Operations

Management. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. 58, 7,
607-632. DOI: 10.1108/17410400910989449.
 Open access full text: http://tinyurl.com/o2cja9t.
 Publisher link: http://tinyurl.com/ohlrp3k

 Lin, S., Piercy, N and Campbell, C. 2013. Beyond the make-or-buy dichotomy: outsourcing
creativity in the fashion sector. Production Planning and Control 24, 4/5, 294-307. DOI:
10.1080/09537287.2011.648542.
 Open access full text: http://tinyurl.com/q7ucy3q.
 Publisher link: http://tinyurl.com/otbbelr

 Piercy, N. 2012. The Role of History in Operations Management. Business History. 54, 2,
154-178. DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2011.631121.
 Open access full text: http://tinyurl.com/q6b6h7x.
 Publisher link: http://tinyurl.com/pf2cwjx
Public sector operations management

 Lewis, M., Piercy, N., Phillips, W. and Palmer, J. (2015). Towards a Model of the
Intervention Process. Policy & Politics, 43, 2, 255-271. DOI: 10.1332/030557312X655927.
 Open access full text: http://tinyurl.com/punuocp.
 Publisher link: http://tinyurl.com/ps6l9ks

 Piercy, N., Phillips, W. and Lewis, M. 2013. Change management in the public sector: The
use of cross-functional teams in the Public Sector. Production Planning and Control , 24,
10-11, 976-987. DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2012.666913.
 Open access full text: http://tinyurl.com/p4tzwbz.
 Publisher link: http://tinyurl.com/qcf2y5c

 Rich, N. and Piercy, N. 2013. Losing patients. A systems view on healthcare improvement.
Production Planning and Control. 24, 10-11, 962-975. DOI:
10.1080/09537287.2012.666911.
 Open access full text: http://tinyurl.com/qaey6c4.
 Publisher link: http://tinyurl.com/pu8gnle

Teaching operations management

 Piercy, N., Brandon-Jones, A., Campbell, C and Brandon-Jones, E. 2012. Examining the
effectiveness of experiential learning in small and large group teaching. International
Journal of Operations and Production Management. 32, 12, 1473-1492. DOI:
10.1108/01443571211284205.
 Open access full text: http://tinyurl.com/oyuwspt.
 Publisher link: http://tinyurl.com/qbf44tg

 Brandon-Jones, A., Piercy, N., Slack, N. 2012. Bringing teaching to life: Exploring
innovative approaches to Operations Management education International Journal of
Operations and Production Management 32, 12, 1369-1374. DOI:
10.1108/01443571211284142.
 Open access full text: http://tinyurl.com/nrwpe79.
 Publisher link: http://tinyurl.com/nz5wh64

 Piercy, N. 2013. Evaluating Student Reactions to New Experiential Learning Techniques.

Innovations in Education & Teaching International. 50, 2, 202-213.
DOI:10.1080/14703297.2012.760870.
 Open access full text: http://tinyurl.com/nvtseln.
 Publisher link: http://tinyurl.com/nahwofg

 Piercy, N. and Caldwell, N. 2011. Experiential Learning in the International Classroom:

Supporting Integration and Learning Effectiveness. International Journal of Management
Education 9, 2, 25-35. DOI: 10.3794/ijme.92.313.
 Open access full text: http://tinyurl.com/ngsrg4n.
 Publisher website: http://tinyurl.com/ouecfxa
 Piercy, N. 2010. The Production Game. Decision Science: Journal of Innovative Education.
8, 1, 271-276. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4609.2009.00256.x.
 Open access full text: http://tinyurl.com/nza8s4e.
 Publisher link: http://tinyurl.com/p4byrhk

Marketing-operations cross-functional relationships

 Piercy, N. and Ellinger, A. 2015 Demand- and supply-side cross-functional relationships:

an application of disconfirmation theory. Journal of Strategic Marketing 23, 1, 49-71.
DOI:10.1080/0965254X.2014.914067.
 Open access full text: http://tinyurl.com/putxgv6.
 Publisher link: http://tinyurl.com/og7aeao

 Piercy, N. 2011. Marketing and Operations Relationships: Why can’t we all just get along?
Business and Marketing 6, 13, 64-66

 Piercy, N. 2010. Improving marketing-operations cross-functional relationships. Journal of

Strategic Marketing. 18, 4, 337-356. DOI: 10.1080/09652541003768095.
 Open access full text: http://tinyurl.com/oswbv47.
 Publisher link: http://tinyurl.com/pqy8535

 Piercy, N. 2010. Improving the Marketing-Operations Relationship: Case Evidence from an

Internet Small-Medium-Enterprise. The Marketing Review. 10, 4 333-351. DOI:
10.1362/146934710X541311.
 Open access full text: http://tinyurl.com/p4ep83q.
 Publisher link: http://tinyurl.com/nodzenm

 Piercy, N. 2009. Positive management of marketing-operations relations. Journal of

Marketing Management, 25, 5/6, pp551-570. DOI: 10.1362/026725709X461858.
 Open access full text: http://tinyurl.com/pk8ec4m.
 Publisher link: http://tinyurl.com/p6ur3sz

 Piercy, N. 2007. Framing the Problematic Relationship between the Marketing and
Operations Functions. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 15, 2/3, 173-195. DOI:
10.1080/09652540701319037.
 Open access full text: http://tinyurl.com/oyg64z4.
 Publisher link: http://tinyurl.com/pck8tbw

 Piercy, N. and Rich, N. 2004. Strategic Marketing and Operations Relationships: The Case
of the Lean Enterprise. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 12, 3, 145-161. DOI:
10.1080/0965254042000262896.
 Open access full text: http://tinyurl.com/pqlovcu.
 Publisher link: http://tinyurl.com/nzw294h

ResearchGate.net will continually be updated with new papers and links – if the paper you are
interested in is not available above, check on http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Niall_Piercy
for updates.
 BUSINESS HISTORY AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

Professor Niall Piercy

Citation:

Piercy, N. 2012. The Role of History in Operations Management. Business History. 54, 2,
154-178

ABSTRACT

Operations management is a key function in the modern organisation and an important area of

study in the business school. Like many subjects it remains separated from the business history

community. The practice of operations management can gain meaningful and significant

lessons from proper consideration of the historical antecedents of current practices.

Unfortunately, more than any other business area, operations management has a habit of

forgetting the lessons of the past and ‘reinventing the wheel’. The purpose of this paper is to

emphasise the value of historical analysis in operations management, assess the level of

historical coverage of the development of operations within that subject area (taking a review

of OM textbooks as a proxy), and highlight the valuable opportunities for the business history

community to engage with their operations colleagues to better guide the next generation of

operations management education and practice.

KEYWORDS

Operations Management, Business History

The story of operations management is a fascinating one that extends far beyond the

boundaries of the organisation. A story of great pioneers and engineers, innovators and

inventors. A story of revolution - industrial, economic, social and libertarian. Perhaps more

than any other business discipline operations management has shaped the world in which we

work and live. However, for students of operations management so much of this rich heritage

is overlooked and unknown (Sprague 2007).

We have progressed from cottage or craft based activity into industrial organisation and

now into the post-industrial economy. There are many key thinkers and turning points in the

development of modern operations management (OM). Within the OM literature the coverage

of this period is inconsistent or in many cases entirely absent. Conducting a small survey of

OM publications, Wilson (1995) found the focus almost exclusively on current issues, with

superficial coverage of the historical development of the subject, stating: “The assertion that

the profession is ignorant of its beginnings is undeniable” (p61).

There is increasing discussion in the OM community that as a subject OM has in both

teaching and research become too blinkered in its focus on the near past and forgotten too

much of the historical processes and foundations of the subject (Sprague 2007). Experience

with undergraduate, graduate and executive level courses shows students who are unable to

identify even major thinkers in the field (such as Adam Smith or Charles Babbage). Reviewing

OM textbooks, the primary mechanism that is used to disseminate basic information to

students, provides an explanation for much of this problem - a focus on contemporary issues

(which is of course vital) has edged out too much of the historical development of the subject

(much of which informs and greatly aids understanding of contemporary operations problems).

This situation is unnerving - the lessons of the past can play a major role in informing

decisions, analysis and in solving the problems of the future.

To consider the problem in detail, in this paper, a comprehensive analysis of the

published outputs in the field of OM was conducted. This focused specifically on the textbook
publication as it is this medium that is used to introduce the concepts of OM to students and

practitioners. The analysis highlighted a troubling lack of consistency and accuracy in the

attention paid to the historical development of the subject. Some OM texts provided useful

insights to frame the subject, however, many produced little coverage beyond a few lines on a

few key thinkers (with no explanatory concept) while others employed no historical or

developmental review of the subject at all. The purpose of this paper is to emphasise the

importance of considering history in OM and to highlight the generally poor or inaccurate

histories being portrayed. The reasons for such omissions and the implications for the study of

OM are then discussed. The business history community can play a major role in working with

their operations colleagues to generate new and integrative approaches to business history and

operations management to redress the shortcomings identified in this paper.

THE IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY FOR OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

Within the business history community the consideration of historical developments is one of

the explicit purposes of the discipline. Within the OM community historical analysis is often

not valued even implicitly. It is useful therefore to codify why history is important for OM. The

challenges facing modern operations managers (improve quality at lower cost in a socially

responsible manner while facing increased global competition and vulnerable supply),

dominate, as they should, the teaching and practices of OM. Some may suggest the past is best

left to historians, however, many of the challenges and problems OM face, draw close parallels

with the challenges of the past - and thus valuable lessons can be gained from historical

consideration. Recognition of the past is essential to properly understand the present state of

operations and to make informed speculation about the future. Understanding the methods

used, the approaches adopted, the ideas and the ideals of key thinkers can greatly inform how

we deal with contemporary problems and solve the operational challenges of the future

(Wilson 1995).
A Case of History Repeating

Too many business academics have become more concerned with keeping up with the latest

fad or fashion rather than focusing on the lessons of the past (Ries and Trout 1998). This is

unfortunate as it is important not to discard or forget the ‘old ways’ just to follow the latest

trend (Hoffman 1967). Many of the operational challenges that we think of as new are in fact

recurrences of past issues and trends: “We have much to learn from the past… fundamental

principles recur in spite of our tendency to invent new/contemporary jargon to describe them.”

(Lehmann 1998 p121).

In dismissing the past, valuable information is lost and must be rediscovered: “Much of

what we know about operations management has been known and practised but then, too often,

forgotten and reinvented.” (Sprague 2007 p220). Such a pattern of knowledge generation then

loss is clearly apparent in OM (Voss 2007). Many of the most advanced concepts in operations

are apparent in some form or another decades or centuries before their ‘discovery’ (Brown and

Hyer 2007). Proponents of lean operations in the 1990s taught that technology is subordinate to

the worker and new technologies are less use than maximising worker commitment (Womack

and Jones 1996). This countered the majority of accepted wisdom at that time, however, it was

also specifically identified by Charles Babbage centuries before (Lewis 2007). The benefits of

interchangeable parts is still a common lesson being taught in OM as part of the ‘new’

Japanese style of manufacture (Womack et al 1990). However, the approach was evident in

Royal Navy rigging block construction in the early nineteenth century. Similarly, the ‘old’

work of Frederick Taylor still has much to teach about worker relations (Wagner-Tsukamoto

2007). New concepts of ethical and environmental operations management draw close parallel

with movements centuries before (Voss 2007). Current interest in ‘evidence based

management’ would be very familiar to earlier pioneers such as Babbage, Taylor or the

Gilbreths (Sprague 2007). Reviewing the early work of OM pioneer Edward Buffa in the
1960s, Singhal et al (2007) found topics such as design for manufacture and total quality

approaches in his writings twenty to thirty years before they were rediscovered and received

widespread attention. The techniques of the American System of Manufacture in the nineteenth

century were forgotten and dismissed as Fordist mass production dominated the twentieth

century, however, the ‘new’ approaches of just-in-time (that followed Ford) built on and

replicated the American System (for instance, inter-changeability, quality philosophy, multi-

skilling, process integration) (Wilson 1998). It is not only in manufacturing that such lessons

can be applied. The approaches of Fred Harvey and The Harvey System that was designed to

deliver mass-customised high quality service through standard operations with worker

engagement, came a century before Heskett’s service-profit chain or application in Burger

King or McDonalds (Heineke and Davis 2007, Sprague 2007).

While specific tools and technologies evolve over time, the broader strategic lessons are

constant across history making it vital for students and companies to be aware of them (Wilson

1998, Finkelstein 2006). Singhal et al (2007) note: “What keep changing are the answers, and

not the questions” (p323). These answers are informed by present challenges but to properly

frame the question, it is necessary to understand the past.

Looking Back to Look Forward

Business history allows for the testing of theories but also the opportunity to develop and

extend theory into new areas using archival sources. The ability to make comparisons over

time and to determine hypothesis, generalised structures and theories that can be tested, are key

contributions of historical analysis (Buckley 2009). This can determine what aspects of

operational frameworks will work in a given set of constraints over time and provide a wealth

of data to test theories on strategy, operations and market conditions over a wide range of

business scenarios (Chandler 1990, Amatori 2009).

 It is not only possible to see past patterns reoccurring but by looking to the past it is

possible to extrapolate forward: Abernathy and Corcoran (1983) evaluated two centuries of the

development of the American System of Manufacture and were able from this to accurately

predict the changes that would need to be, and were, made to American production systems for

the two decades following their work; Watson et al (2007) looked at developments in the

theory of constraints to extrapolate forward to the next series of challenges for practical

application; and, Jacobs and Weston (2007) highlight how software engineers in the 1960s

recognised the benefits of data integration more than thirty years before the push towards

flatter organisations in the 1990s.

In business schools around the world the current emphasis in teaching OM programmes

is to design and manage courses as well as to produce readings lists that focus on the current

context overlooking the past. This trend must be addressed: “We run the risk of losing valuable

lore and information about our roots without a record of the people and events who laid the

foundation of our field” (Sprague 2007 p219-220). The business history community has an

opportunity to play a major role in working with colleagues in OM to reshape the next

generation of textbooks and university programmes to better integrate historical analysis into

operations. It is necessary to fully quantify the current state of historical coverage in OM

before this process can begin.

THE ROLE OF THE TEXTBOOK

In considering the role of different aspects of the educational system in providing historical

commentary, the individual professor plays a part in shaping curricula, teaching methods and

selection of readings but the core textbook also serves a very important role in informing

students at all levels about the fundamental practices of a subject, whether guided by the

lecturer or in undertaking their own reading. Textbooks are important documentation of the

subject, they show how things should be or have been done and not just how one person or
organisation does things - they are the primary contributor to the knowledge and practice of

OM (Voss 2007).

Initial texts in the 1950s were very broad covering every aspect of operations (such as

hard engineering and operations research) but more recent textbooks have become increasingly

focused on OM (Buffa 1980). Credited with writing some of the first modern OM texts in the

1960s Edward Buffa was keen to provide historical context to operations (Singhal et al 2007).

Recent research has suggested contemporary texts provide little consideration of the key

individuals in history who helped shape the modern operations landscape or details of the

contexts in which they operated (Wilson 1995, Lewis 2007). With such omissions in the

textbook it is unsurprising OM students and practitioners have little awareness of past issues or

the development of the subject. This paper seeks to specifically determine how well the

historical development of OM is covered in the modern OM textbook.

A convenience sample was used by the author to conduct a review of all textbooks in

the OM section in the university library at their institution. This included the most recent major

publications and earliest texts from the 1960s. The university in question is a leading global

research-orientated university. Textbooks were systematically checked by contents page and

index, consulted for references to the broad subject of the history of OM and for specific actors

in the development of the field (full list in table one). In addition, as the introduction chapter

often provides a background in the subject, the first chapter of each book was scanned for

names (eg. Taylor), activities and approaches (eg. scientific management).

In determining the time period to investigate a decision was made to limit the analysis

to developments since the emergence of large scale industrial organisations at the time of the

industrial revolution (from the mid-eighteenth century onwards). This decision may seem

counter-intuitive in research seeking to analyse the full coverage of history in OM, however, it

was arrived at after careful consideration for several specific reasons: the industrial revolution

changed the nature of operations production activity in scale and scope, making it harder to
translate lessons and practices from previous periods into contemporary operating

environments (Reinfeld 1959, Riggs 1970); pre-industrial revolution practices are sparsely and

poorly documented compared to developments of the last three hundred years (Voss 2007);

and, operations management as a specific area of practice and study only emerged after the

industrial revolution (Buffa 1971, Chase and Aquilano 1989).

OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT HISTORY:

KEY TURNING POINTS AND THEIR COVERAGE

This article does not seek to present a complete history of OM development, however, it is

useful to identify a broad framework of the trends that have taken place within OM before

examining in detail the actors within these stages or the coverage of them. While Rostow’s

(1960) widely used five stage model describes the common transition from pre-industrial to

mass-consumption society1, in OM three stages of development are often proposed: craft

production (before industrialisation), early to later mass production (Western high volume

industrial production) and lean production (based on the techniques of Toyota and Japanese

post-mass production ideas) (Womack et al 1990, Fujimoto 1999, Brown 2000). Heizer and

Render (1999) focus alternatively on periods based on ‘Early Concepts’ (1776-1880) - the

labour specialisation ideas of Adam Smith or Charles Babbage and standardised parts

approaches of Eli Whitney; ‘Scientific Management’ (1900-1910) - focused around the work of

Frederick Taylor and his contemporaries; and, ‘Mass Production’ (1910-1980) - from Ford’s

first moving assembly line to later refinements such as statistical control and materials

resource planning. Bennett (1981) suggests four stages of OM development: ‘The Process

School’, (late 18th - 19th century) - ‘small groups of individuals creating great innovations’ such

1
‘The traditional society’ (an agricultural society); ‘the preconditions for take-off’ (the emergence of innovators,
financiers, trade, exporting and social structures that support post-traditional production); ‘the take off’, in Britain
(the combination of pre-conditions and technological innovation to expand production into industrial scale and
scope); ‘the drive to maturity’ (the expansion of modern technology into all areas of the economy, beyond those
as James Watt’s steam engine; ‘The Scientific School’ - based on the work of Fredrick Taylor

and his contemporaries such as Gantt and the Gilbreths; ‘The Operations Research School’ -

describing the World War II defence research teams that used operations techniques; and, ‘The

Human Factors School’ - focused on human rather than technical aspects of work and control.

There is significant overlap and commonality across these frameworks. A timeline of

major developments in operations management practice was constructed by combining them

together. This was then populated with key thinkers in the discipline (shown in figure one).

This model was used to guide the literature review process. Several additional contributors

were identified and these were incorporated. The resultant list is not claimed to be exhaustive

but to represent the most commonly acknowledged thinkers and turning points in operations

and industrial development. The coverage of each of these people or issues in OM texts was

then analysed.

= = Figure 1. Operations Management History = =

Table one and two show the findings of the research. Table one shows the low levels

and in many cases complete absence of any historical coverage in many textbooks. Those texts

that did highlight key thinkers often identified one or two and did not provide a comprehensive

picture of events (table two highlights the poor overall coverage even in texts providing some

partial coverage). From a wide range of sources it is possible to compile a complete history,

however, such a compilation, which one would expect to form the basis of any introductory

text to the development of OM, is almost non-existent in the OM texts that were reviewed. The

coverage of historical actors and figures in OM emerges as disturbingly patchy and

original drivers of expansion); and, the age of high mass-consumption (the development of a consumer-driven
society).
inconsistent. Each key turning point is now addressed and OM textbook coverage discussed in

detail.

= = Table 1. Operations Management History = =

= = Table 2. Coverage of Historical Topics = =

The arrival of modern OM occurred with the shift from craft based production in an agrarian

economy to the industrial factory system - that is - the industrial revolution (Russell and Taylor

2002, Meredith 2002). Occurring first in Britain in the early eighteenth century several key

contributors are identified in the historical literature (Waller 1999, Lowson 2002). Moore

(1965) identifies five key developments in the textile industry that laid the foundation for

industrial revolution: the invention of The Flying Shuttle in 1733 by James Kay allowed a

weaver to weave cloth wider and faster thus upsetting the balance between spinning and

weaving creating pressure on spinning; subsequently James Hargreaves’s 1764 Spinning Jenny

allowed spinning several threads at one time - greatly increasing spinners output; the Water

Frame in 1769 by Richard Arkwright made stronger threads than the Jenny machine and saved

labour by using animal or water power rather than human; the Mule Spinner in 1779 by Samuel

Crompton spun threads better and faster than the Jenny or Water Frame with less effort and

made threads faster and of higher quality than was possible by hand; and, the power loom in

1785 by Edmund Cartwright that broke the weaving bottleneck. Despite the importance of

these innovations, laying the foundation for the industrial revolution and modern organisation,

they are almost entirely omitted from the operations texts reviewed.

The introduction of steam based power systems, removing the constraints of human,

animal and water power systems provided the next major spur for the growth of industrial

factory systems - freeing them from geographic constraints (being near water) and increasing

power levels and consistency. The work of James Watt in developing steam power systems in
the 1760s (aided by later developments of mobile steam engines by Trevithick in 1802 and

steam boats by Fulton in 1807) revolutionised the factory system and created the industrial

organisation in which OM as a function developed (Moore 1965, Cook and Russell 1984,

Noori and Radford 1995). Despite the importance of the introduction of steam power for OM,

this development receives little attention in the operations texts, with those that do consider it

providing only brief coverage of this major turning point.

The need to co-ordinate large numbers of men and machines provided the backdrop for

developing the organisational hierarchies and control systems we recognise today. Two key

observers evaluated this system and the management implications it created. Adam Smith’s

1776 book “The Wealth of Nations” focused on the benefits of the division of labour and parts

standardisation (Buffa 1971, Singhal et al 2007, Sprague 2007) while Charles Babbage’s 1832

book “Economy of Machinery and Manufacturers” included time studies, research and

development management, economic analysis for location decisions and the benefits to

production costs of worker task specialisation (Buffa 1971, Singhal et al 2007). The

contributions of Adam Smith to economics are widely acknowledged, however, only a quarter

of the textbook sample identified his contributions and made direct reference to the

implications for OM. Charles Babbage receives even less attention despite the key implications

for task specialisation and worker control he proposed.

Engineers also made contributions that changed the practical nature of OM. John

Wilkinson and Henry Maudslay in the 1770s were responsible for the first generation of

machine tools in cannon boring and later in steam engine manufacture. By developing better

tools and automating production processes Wilkinson was able to offer superior quality than

the handmade products that had gone before, providing a quality revolution in manufacture

(Bradley 1972, Bennett 1981). Before machine tooled parts James Watt had been unable to

achieve the close fit of parts necessary for pressurised steam and resultantly the steam engine.
Without the contributions of machine tool experts the industrial revolution would have faltered

before it began (Moore 1965). These innovations are barely covered in the OM textbooks.

Eli Whitney, working at the same time, is credited with the use of standardised and

interchangeable parts in manufacture (Wilson 1998) (although some have suggested French

military manufacturers had mastered the same skills ten years previously (Hounshell 1984)

albeit at far greater cost (Moore 1965)). Quality control through the use of jigs and standard

parts allowed for increased manufacturing volume with unskilled workers, notably in musket

manufacture in the United States (Bennett 1981, Abernathy and Corcoran 1983, Heizer and

Render 1999). Wilkinson and Maudsley receive almost no attention at all in the operations

texts, despite contributing a major turning point in production OM. The contribution of Eli

Whitney receives greater attention with a quarter of texts acknowledging his work. The lessons

of parts standardisation, inter-changeability and implications for quality are still being

emphasised today in lean production approaches today (Womack et al 1990), however, the

lessons of the past masters in this area are all but omitted from the operations field.

At the start of the twentieth century the work of Frederick Taylor in developing four

principles of scientific management to increase worker productivity had an enormous impact

on the practice of OM (Radford 1963, Corman 1974, Johansson et al 1993). Gaining popularity

following the publication of his books on the subject and testimony before the US Senate,

Taylor had an enormous impact on production management. Reinfeld (1953) goes so far as to

describe Taylor as “The father of modern management” (p53). Half of all operations texts

directly identify Taylor and discuss his contributions. However, few mention key

contemporaries of Taylor such as Carl Barth (developed the slide rule for speed and feed of

machine tools); Harrington Emersons (application of scientific management in American

railways); or the later refinements by Charles Bedaux (spreading scientific management in

Europe) (Horn 1978a,b,1979). The subtleties around Taylors work are often overlooked in the

OM texts, both in terms of the pre-existing ideas on which he built (for instance Adam Smith,
Charles Babbage) and also in terms of the positive, humanistic working environment Taylor

tried to build, which stands in stark contrast to the anti-worker portrayal Taylor too often

receives (Taylor 1911).

The work of Henry Ford in combining labour specialisation, interchangeable parts and

the moving assembly line to form a modern mass production system (often referred to as a

‘Fordism’) is another key turning point for OM (Lowson 2002, Russell and Taylor 2002). This

system has been described by Chase and Aquilano (1989) as “the machine age’s greatest

technological innovation” (p20) and by Bessant (1991) as the final triumph of mass

manufacture over craft production. Model ‘T’ production only began in 1908 yet by 1913

annual production had reached 100,000/year (in comparison, the UK in total produced only

34,000 that year), doubling in 1914 and reaching one million in 1919 (Rhys 1972). However,

only a quarter of the operations texts sampled make direct reference to Henry Ford and his

work in early mass production. While almost all talk in generalisms about ‘mass production’,

the contributions of Henry Ford are disturbingly omitted from OM texts. The subtleties

surrounding the work of Henry Ford are also overlooked. Many aspects of the ‘new’ system he

described were already present in previous manufacturing approaches: standardisation (the

work of John Wilkinson and Henry Maudslay); interchangeable parts (Eli Whitney and gun

manufacture); worker deskilling and division of labour (Adam Smith and Charles Babbage);

and, cash incentives to maximise labour (factories across Britain in the eighteenth century)

(Rose 1991, Rahikainen 2004). The introduction of a moving assembly line by Ford may be

critical in separating Fordist mass-production from the previous large volume industrial

production in Europe and the America Systems of Manufacture in the USA (Noori and Radford

1995). While all the other constituent features Ford adopted already existed in different

contexts, Ford did synthesise them into a new system that was greater than the sum of its parts

(Besant 1991, Schroeder and Flynn 2001). Despite his contribution, the unquestioning

reverence often given to Ford in the OM community deserves greater scrutiny, especially given
the skills of Henry Ford as self-publicist (Hounshell 1984). It is often forgotten that by the

1920s the Ford company had lost their position as number one automotive producer (never to

regain it) to General Motors who established production systems to offer a greater variety of

customised products to customers than Ford (Kotler 1997).

Later developments include those relating to improving the Taylor based system of

scientific management or Fordist based mass production such as the work of Henry Gantt

(charting and analysis) or Walter Shewart (mentor to W Edwards Deming and others in quality

management) (Buffa 1971). Overall, the coverage of actors within this scientific management

school is inconsistent.

The work of operations researchers in problem solving with mathematical and

computational approaches during the second world war created the entire field of operations

research and made invaluable contributions to scheduling, forecasting and capacity

management in production (Buffa 1971, Chase and Aquilano 1989, Fogarty et al 1989). The

combination of operations research and study of Japanese approaches to production led to the

foundation of new methods to track production flow, notably in the 1960s the work of Joseph

Orlicky on Materials Resource Planning (MRP), and two decades later refinements by Oliver

Wright and George Plossl in developing MRPII as a system for capacity planning management

in mass production that offered a step-change in lead-time and availability (Wright 1996).

These efforts are all but overlooked in the OM texts.

Similarly, the continuing work of human resource based researchers from the 1930s

receives very little attention in the operations field. Issues relating to operations research and to

human factors of production may well fall outside the traditional realm of OM, forming distinct

bodies of knowledge, however, each play a critical role in OM and excluding them from basic

operations texts is a shortcoming that omits significant areas of activity from the curricula.

The more recent developments in OM emanate from Japan with studies of lean

production systems redefining production management, task specialisation and worker control
(Womack et al 1990). Following the second world war the work of Toyota in designing a

production system that was different to mass production (out of need as post-war Japan lacked

materials, workers and capital goods), lay the foundation for post-mass production operations

management. The Japanese approach represents a paradigm shift in operations and

organisational logic (creating flatter organisational structures, enhanced cross-skilled worker

roles, altered job routines, different machine handling procedures, approaches to quality and

disproving the benefits of economies of scale). Combined these efforts delivered higher quality

at lower cost versus mass production and have been keenly emulated around the world as

Western companies struggle to compete with the Japanese (Brown et al 2004). It is ironic that

one of the key architects of the Japanese approach, W Edwards Deming, was an American who

received a hostile reception in the United States for challenging scientific mass production

approaches but in 1950 after an invitation to Japan to speak to the Japanese Union of Scientists

and Engineers, gained popularity there for his new ideas on improving production quality.

Deming and Toyota lead-engineer Taiichi Ohno lay the foundations for a new approach to OM

at Toyota in the post-war period - Japanese style lean production (Oakland 1993). This was

most notably recognised in the 1990 publication of “The Machine that Changed the World” -

the output of a five year study of the automotive industry based at MIT (Womack et al 1990).

While not the first research on Japanese production (the topic had been studies since the late

1970s), this was the most widely read and disseminated with over a million copies sold

supporting the step change in Western OM to a post-mass-production state.

Outside the lean school, while other contemporaries of Deming made similar

arguments, it is Deming who has become recognised as “the father of quality control” (Slack et

al 2004 p720) and “probably the most revered figure in quality management” (Bicheno 1998

p7). His work spurned a quality movement and renewed focus on the quality of OM practices

around the world. A useful summary of the quality movement is provided by Bendall et al

(1995) who describe three phases: firstly in the 1960s ‘The Early Americans’ (W Edwards
Deming - management philosophy; Joseph Juran - planning, quality and costs; and, Armand

Fegenbaum - Total Quality); secondly in the 1970s ‘The Japanese’ (Kaoru Ishikawa - simple

tools for quality, quality circles, company wide quality; Genichi Taguchi - minimum

prototyping; and, Shigeo Shingo - fail-safing and zero-defects); and in the 1980s ‘The Western

Wave’ (Philip Crosby: zero defects, quality awareness; Tom Peters: customer orientation; and,

Claus Moller: personal quality). Across the movement a broad demarcation is clear between

the Japanese approach to quality (as something that reduces production cost) versus traditional

mass production approaches (to improve quality production cost must increase as more

inspection is required).

The 1980s saw attempts to compete with the Japanese with domestically developed

Western approaches. Most prominently the six-sigma movement, developed at Motorola in the

1980s (a time when the company has been identified as badly run and disorganised (Finkelstein

2006)), promoted a ‘new’ statistical process control and improvement methodology. However,

inspection showed that the methods were already part of the full Toyota toolkit and Deming

improvement approach - and had been since the 1950s. Other Western developments such as

agility (centred around the Iacocca institute at Lehigh University) and mass customisation have

all been offered, with little evidence, as alternatives to Japanese approaches. Hotly contested in

the academic world, the rise of Japanese approaches, the subtlety with which Eastern and

Western philosophies have mixed, and legitimacy of counter-approaches, are generally

overlooked in the current operations textbooks. While most textbooks list some of the tools,

there is little consideration of their validity and applicability, leaving the student at the mercy

of the predisposition of the books author for guidance. These omissions are the most stark

revealed by the analysis as they concern not production techniques of the past but current and

contemporary issues in OM. An accurate history and understanding of the development and

application of lean and Japanese approaches is vital for the modern operations student but the

coverage of the topic remains confused and incomplete in many operations texts.
 OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT HISTORY: OMISSIONS AND OVERSIGHTS

Many of the OM texts reviewed provided no historical context of the subject or any

consideration of how it developed. There was no clear pattern of coverage between European

or American texts, or older versus more recently published work, suggesting a broad trend in

the OM community of overlooking the historical development of the subject.

Even where historical consideration would seem a prerequisite, it has been omitted:

Murdick (1990) considers the move to a service economy without analysing what came before;

Mayer (1975) describes that all ‘wealth comes from production’ without exploring how such

production has changed over time; Steudel and Desruelle (1995) provide the book

“Manufacturing in the Nineties” with no analysis of where such manufacturing came from or

how it developed; and, Kerr (1991) writes on “Knowledge Based Manufacturing Management”

while providing no knowledge on where manufacturing management came from. These

examples are by no means exceptional. The review of operations texts produced a depressingly

long list of scholarly works that omit all consideration of the historical development of the

subject and activities which they seek to describe (including: Koepke 1961, Mills 1961, Lawler

1969, New 1973, 1977, Law et al 1974, Oliver 1978, Kockhar 1979, Shetty and Buehler 1987,

Hayes and Tomes 1988, Hill 2000, Lockyer 1988, Nicholas 1990, Wild 1990, Lanigan 1992,

Mulemann et al 1992, Lund et al 1993, Meredith and Shafter 2002).

Many more texts provide a limited or partial coverage of operations development:

McClain and Thomas (1985) and Schonberger and Knod (1997) both provide a good coverage

from the nineteenth century onwards but omit the contributions of Smith and Babbage; in

contrast, Browne et al (1996) note the work of Adam Smith and then move forward to Taylor

without considering intervening developments. Similarly, Corman (1974) talks about general

changes in the nineteenth century but only specifically focuses on developments since Taylor.

In contrast, Reinfeld (1959) moves from ancient Egypt to the twentieth century without
covering anything in between. Kennaway (1981) talks about the origins of business with no

historical context for operations; King (1985) begins his review from the 1970s oil price shock

while Lawler (1985) steps back slightly further, beginning with the manufacturing industry

decline in the 1960s onwards. Several mention only Taylor (Gilchrist 1970, Williams 1996,

Krajewski and Ritzman 1999, Knights and Willmott 2000) or Ford (Kleindorfer 1985,

Hutchins 1999, Naylor 2002) with little or no consideration of other developments while many

others provide only the briefest mention of historical context before moving on to

contemporary issues (for instance: Jackson 1978, Lawler 1985, Krajewski and Ritzman 2002,

Waters 2002).

The American System of Manufacture is hardly mentioned at all in the OM texts,

forgotten as a footnote when compared to the mass production of Henry Ford (Wilson 1998).

Only 3% of those sampled mention the key technological discontinuous innovations that

started the industrial revolution and the modern OM era. Some reduce coverage to a basic table

or list of names in an introductory chapter without grasping the subtlety of each discovery or

looking at what each contribution means or how it relates to modern operations. This latter

point - the linkage between past action and present, as well as future, operation, is overlooked

in almost all textbooks.

Across the sample, books fell into three main categories: a very small minority that

present a complete picture; the majority that provide no historical development at all instead

focusing on very recent and contemporary developments; and many that present snippets of the

most popular recurring figures (such as Ford and Taylor).

DISCUSSION AND EXPLANATIONS

The broad trend revealed here is the omission of the historical back story of OM from most

OM textbooks. Answering the question as to why OM history is overlooked by so many is a

necessary prerequisite to addressing the issue of how to improve the historical engagement of

the subject.

The OM texts that were reviewed overlooked the majority of the past history of the

subject. While the purpose of the textbook is to provide students with tools and approaches to

inform practice rather than the historical debate more usually found in research monographs,

which would help to explain the omissions noted, without an understanding of the key turning

points and developments in the subject, the reader is left without an understanding of the

context of current developments. Many fail to even mention the most critical turning point in

modern management - the industrialisation of production during the industrial revolution in

Britain (Toynbee 1896, Rostow 1960, Moore 1965, Lowson 2002). The specific aspects of this

revolution - disruptive, discontinuous innovation from technological breakthroughs, the

replacement of human labour with machine labour, standardising parts and inter-changeability,

all continue to resonate today in operations practices around the world (Noori and Radford

1995, Schonberger and Knod 1997). The main areas of focus for the OM community continue

to be on recent North American developments, primarily on Frederick Taylor, Henry Ford and

the mass production logic that dominated the early twentieth century. Two related reasons are

apparent: the dominance of the United States as an industrial superpower during the past

century (ie. the place where most operations were taking place); and, the location of the United

States as the first area where business education and research took hold.

In the aftermath of the second world war the United States was the primary industrial

economy in world - Europe, that had already seen sharp falls in relative importance in world

trade, and Japan, were destroyed by war (Buffa 1984). The United States had confirmed its

place as ‘the society-in-dominance’, with the social, economic and management practices it

maintained, diffused and emulated around the world (Jacques 1996, Delbridge 2000). For OM,

this meant the study and emulation of the approaches being used in American manufacture -

primarily Fordist and Tayloristic mass production. It was these approaches that were seen as
crucial in achieving the armament production levels that supported the allied victory during the

war itself, and thus became inextricably and unquestionably linked with OM best practice

(Brown 2000). Previous industrial achievements in Europe and around the world were largely

overlooked and forgotten in the rush for global rebuilding (Horn 1978). Fifty years later the

preoccupation with twentieth century practices and ignorance of what came before is still

evident in OM.

The twentieth century saw the first emergence of the business school within the

university setting and emergence of OM as an academic subject. Both these events took place

first in the United States (Horn 1978, 1979, Alford 1996). It is understandable that the focus of

scholars in these institutions was the best practices within their own country. Both Taylor and

Ford benefitted by being in the right place (USA) at the right time (early 20th century). As the

study of business was growing they were the practitioners-in-dominance - Taylor himself

lectured at Harvard Business School and Henry Ford tirelessly promoted his approaches (Lewis

2007, Singhal et al 2007). Later writers on OM have sought to emulate the leading thinkers that

dominated the subject when they were up-and-coming scholars (that is, those focused on

Ford/Taylor/mass-production). The primacy of US and Fordist/Tayloristic based approaches is

an inheritance passed down to the current generation of operations academics, often without an

appropriate level of questioning and consideration as to the dominant focus in OM of recent

US developments (Buffa 1984).

Part of the current problem is the legacy of poor coverage of history within OM.

Contemporary scholars learnt little if anything about the long term developments of the subject

as students and are therefore largely ignorant of such issues - some have suggested OM

scholars have so little awareness of the development of their own subject they simply omit it

from consideration in key texts and teaching (Wilson 1995, Voss 2007).

Others have taken a more cynical approach. Promoting the latest management fad (to

sell consulting or books) often involves denigrating (usually incorrectly) what has gone before
(Wilson 1998). The fastest track to publication, promotion and academic adoration has become

to challenge and oppose recent entrenched wisdom, rather than consider the real value of

research or historical antecedents to existing structures (Mintzberg 2004).

Both in academia and in practice, business people show a natural preoccupation with

the present and future as this is the concern of managers and shareholders. The business

academic in seeking to serve this marketplace in teaching and writing thus focuses on the areas

of most pressing need to the client population - be it executives or undergraduates. A viscous

circle of academics seeking to serve user groups disinterested in history, thus who fail to see

the value of historical analysis and demand greater contemporary and practical application,

ensues (Sprague 2007). Part of the problem is a continuing short-term focus in OM that does

little to support longer term strategic analysis or historical considerations while a reductionist

and narrow focus in contemporary management research and education increasingly omits the

historical altogether (Mintzberg 2004).

Some suggest that business history is best left to business historians - that they are

responsible for covering such issues. However, academics in any area should have an

awareness of the development of their speciality. The functional divisions between business

areas (such as marketing or operations), repeat between OM and business history. Each area

operates exclusive of the other, to the detriment of both. OM looses vital skills and insight into

early developments of the subject while business historians loose the opportunity to engage in

shaping current practices and thinking. This is an issue for both communities and one of timely

concern for OM scholars as an increasingly interrelated and long term approach is being

developed in the operations field.

The academic scope of OM has developed over time, expanding from a narrow short

term focus on internal manufacturing efficiency to a much broader range of activities over the

long term. It is ironic that in expanding the temporal focus of the field the coverage of

historical developments within operations have become increasingly overlooked. Key work in
the 1980s by Hayes and Wheelwright (1984) suggested that operations management in practice

develops through four key stages: from internal to externally focused, and from keeping up

with to reshaping the nature of competition. It is possible to adapt their model to consider how

the academic focus of operations management has shifted over time, from a narrow (internal)

manufacturing focus to broad (external) operations based orientation, and from short term

tactical decisions to longer run strategic concerns (shown in figure two).

For the most part, current research in operations management is focused at the stage

four level, however, the existing focus of longer-term awareness should extend backwards as

well as forwards (Brunninge 2009). Similarly, the shift from looking solely at manufacturing or

operations within a functional boundary to the broader organisation or supply chain, should be

matched in academic circles by an extension to other areas of research such as business history

(Yates 2006).

= = Figure 2. Development of Research in Operations Management = =

IMPROVING HISTORY IN OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

The academic OM community needs to do far more to overcome the bias against the historical:

“Teaching and learning only the most current enthusiasm without providing background and

reference does not necessarily guarantee success. Understanding some of the history of our

business is well worth the effort.” (Sprague 2007 p237). The role of the business history

community in enthusing, educating and informing their colleagues in OM to help make this a

reality will be critical.

Several interrelated issues have emerged: the dominance of a North American bias in

the historical developments within the OM field; the need to break the repeating pattern where

each generation of OM academics disregard historical analysis emulating their fore-bears; the

need to emphasise the value of the historical contributions within the OM field to students and
practitioners; and, the need to integrate business history and OM. Creating a full and complete

(global) picture of OM developments requires OM scholars who are interested and informed on

the subject; ensuring academics and students are fully versed in all aspects of OM

developments requires them to understand the value of the subject and also to work across

different business areas to build a complete picture of OM developments.

Several researchers have considered how to better integrate business history with

operations (as well as management in general). Considering OM textbooks and teaching,

addressing the mindset of both academics and students will be necessary to break the viscous

circle of repeating historical exclusion in OM. Harvey and Wilson (2007) suggest two options:

‘proceeding by stealth’ - teaching business history under the guise of other contemporary

sounding subjects; or increasing the application of business history to highlight its relevance -

moving beyond fact based analysis to extrapolating forward and analysing immediate business

realities. A combined approach that can serve to make students aware of the key developments

of OM (ie. teach history by stealth in OM courses) can be supported by showing the value of

historical analysis for contemporary applications - thus creating students with greater

awareness and also greater interest in the subject.

Overcoming OM-Business History Divisions

There is often an exclusion of practical application of work within business history - Buckely

(2009) describes a ”narrow, insular and antiquarian” trend (p307) in the business history

community that has severely limited engagement with other areas as historians preoccupy

themselves with the past without looking at how future lessons can be interpreted. Resolving

the segregation of historians and OM can only serve to improve the current situation -

encouraging interactions between communities, prompted by an understanding of the mutual

benefits of that interaction, will be critical (Yates 2006).

 The functional separation of academic subjects in business schools extends to business

history (Deshpande 1999). While there are many business historians in business schools around

the world, research has suggested that despite the contributions they could offer few are

actually engaged in teaching or influencing other business subjects (Friedman 2005, Harvey

and Wilson 2007). Simple collaboration techniques such as group meetings or lunches between

colleagues in OM and business history could be very useful in making the first step towards

OM-business history integration.

In teaching, the involvement of colleagues from business history (or even social and

economic history departments) in early OM lectures can prove valuable in introducing students

to a new perspective. In writing new textbooks, sharing discussions, research ideas and

practices with colleagues who can add an historical lens to contemporary analysis is equally

valuable for both historian and operations specialist (Harvey and Wilson 2007).

Emphasising the Value of Historical Analysis for OM

One aspect to promote in teaching OM history is the broader analytical skills that can be

facilitated. A bias exists in business schools towards instrumental knowledge rather than the

explanatory and contextual knowledge typical in business history (Harvey and Wilson 2007).

In OM this trend is particularly apparent. Promoting these skills could be valuable for

encouraging greater uptake of the subject as part of operations courses. Indeed, Amatori (2009)

highlights the use of business history for students in applied subjects like operations or IT,

emphasising how it allows for a better understanding of how they fit in the global context (and

notes that initially sceptical students reported significant benefits from the exercise). McCraw

(1999) extends this, noting the intellectual capabilities that can be gained through rigorous

historical analysis and application - emphasising how historical precedent can teach good

judgement in future applications. Propagating the methods to teach these concepts that are

unfamiliar in OM will fall to the business historian. Leaving the confines of the business
history course to discuss course content with OM scholars, integrating guest lectures or

chapters into textbooks, will help drive improvement in this area.

History for the Present

Encouraging integration between OM and business history will be dependent not just on

getting scholars talking but in their understanding the mutual benefits and value of historical

analysis for contemporary applications. This moves beyond a focus on the methodological or

intellectual skills gained from the historical approach to a focus on the specific content of such

analysis.

The increasing competition between functional specialities in the business school is

pushing academics towards promoting ‘sexy and new’ topics - something history is not

perceived to be! Despite this, the need to understand the historical lessons within OM is critical

today - in a period of unprecedented global change, the strategic insights from past challenges

and developments can give an unrivalled ability to inform future decisions (Meredith 2001).

The wealth of video support materials on topics from the industrial revolution and industrial

history can help enliven dry discussions with audio-visual exerts. Regardless of the nature of

delivery, historical analysis and teaching is not seen as appealing, especially in the business

school, to students or academics who see it as an irrelevance. Encouraging teaching or the

inclusion of history in business texts is challenging.

Business students preoccupation with the present and future is not a new phenomena -

students entering the business school in the 1920s were focused on immediate problems and

the desire to apply new tools and approaches, not to focus on historical precedents (McCraw

1999). Thomas McCraw notes “Almost no MBA student comes to any business school for the

purpose of studying history” (McCraw 1999 p154). That students and managers don’t see the

relevance of history in the key texts they read is in part the failure of academics to highlight the

complex subtleties at work in history and also to fail to apply historical content to practical
contemporary analysis with any nuance or insight (Wilson 1995, Friedman 2005, Sprague

2007). Understanding these subtleties and the benefits for practical contemporary applications

are where the greatest learning opportunities occur (Amatori 2009). Alfred Chandler was

responsible for pushing business history into the mainstream curriculum at Harvard Business

School, where it proved highly popular, in part due to the personality of the man, but also the

sharp practical edge he introduced to the topic, analysing contemporary action and future

strategy based on past analysis (The Economist 2007). Chandler (and his contemporaries)

drove business history at Harvard in the 1970s away from the purely historical to a focus on

contemporary applications. McCraw (1999) discusses the challenges of teaching that course

(and even provides sample curricula), demonstrating continual growth in student numbers over

time by focusing on the applied and global development of management with historical

analysis. The cross-national nature of business history is one area McCraw emphasises as key

to fully understanding the subject and conveying a broader understanding to students -

something demonstrably lacking in existing operations texts.

For OM where so many contemporary applications draw on or combine previous

approaches there is a natural synergy between historical example and current application. The

case study method dominates operations management teaching. The majority of existing case

studies focus on contemporary organisations, drawing on the cases from the Harvard Business

Publishing or the European Case Clearing House. However, there need be no limit on the

timeframe of a case study in its selection - case examples from key turning points in history

can be valuable (and are often available within the business history and academic community

more widely and freely than the copyright protected materials of the major case writing

houses).

Continually emphasising contemporary aspects of past actions is vital to maintain

interest in historical elements of applied subjects such as OM. Emphasising the lessons for

supplier relationship management of Charles Babbage’s failure to make his difference engine
work (and the missed opportunity of a nineteenth century computer revolution); linking the

American System of Manufacture that was abandoned for Fordist mass production to

contemporary just-in-time approaches; highlighting the relevance of discontinuous

technological change that spurned the industrial revolution for contemporary lessons such as

the introduction of the iPad computer, all help to connect to historical precedents. Breaking

from the convention of the purely historical tradition to emphasise current connections is a

major challenge for business historians (Buckley 2009).

In table three the key components of a standard operations management introduction

level undergraduate or postgraduate course have been listed and opportunities to use historical

examples outlined. The use of such examples can help to connect students to the past, show

them the contemporary value of key thinkers or approaches from the past, all of which helps to

support the explicit delivery of the back story of operations management and implicitly create a

desire to learn more about the subject through demonstrating its value today.

= = Table 3. Historical and Contemporary Applications in Operations Management = =

CONCLUSION

Operations management is by nature an applied subject and the textbooks that serve students

and practitioners are naturally focused on current practices rather than the historical

development of the subject. However, it is vital for OM students and scholars to understand

where contemporary organisational and operational forms came from. Management thought

leaders from Alfred Chandler to Peter Drucker or Henry Mintzberg see history as fundamental

to the current practice of management and future development of the subject (Wells 1993,

Lamoreaux et al 2007, Amatori 2009). However, so many contemporary OM scholars totally

overlook the contribution historical analysis can make, a trend made depressingly apparent by

the research reported here: “This lack of an historical dimensions is a major failing for any
discipline. This is particularly so for operations management whose common and recurrent

problems often entail reinventing wheels.” (Wilson 1995 p65).

Our purpose has been to highlight the short-comings in the coverage of the historical

developments of OM in the key texts which shape the next generations understanding and

practice of it. We have introduced a timeline of events and developments within operations

management as a common foundation point for the interchange of ideas and scholars across

these communities. We have sought to emphasise the need for business history to more fully

engage and integrate with the OM community to overcome these current problems. In doing so

both communities will be better practised, informed and able to drive forward the content and

quality of both subject areas.

 REFERENCES

Abernathy, W. and Corcoran, J. (1983). Relearning from the masters: lessons of the American

system of manufacturing. Journal of Operations Management. 3, 4, 155-167.

Amatori, F. (2009). Business history as history. Business History. 51, 2, 143-159.

Babbage, C. (1832). On the Economy of Machinery and Manufacturers. Charles Knight,

London

Bendell, T. Penson, R. and Carr, S. (1995) The quality gurus – their approaches described and

considered, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 5 Iss: 6, pp.44 - 48

Bennett, D. (1981). An Introduction to Operations Management. Chapter in Lewis, C. D. 1981.

Operations Management in Practice. (Ed). Philip Allan, Oxford.

Bessant, J. (1991). Managing Advanced Manufacturing Technology. Blackwell, Oxford.

Bicheno, J. (1998). The Quality 60: A Guide for Service and Manufacturing. Buckingham:

Picsie Books.

Birchall, J. (1994). Co-op: The People's Business. Manchester University Press, Manchester.

Bradley, I. (1972) A History of Machine Tools. Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire: Model and

Allied Publications.

Brown, K. and Hyer, N. (2007). Archeological benchmarking: Fred Harvey and the service

profit chain, Circa 1876. Journal of Operations Management. 25, 2, 287-299

Brown, S. (2000). Manufacturing the Future. FT Prentice Hall, London.

Brown, S., Lamming, R., Bessant, J. and Jones, P. (2004). Strategic Operations Management.

Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Browne, J., Harhen, J. and Shivnan, J. (1996). Production Management Systems. Addison-

Wesley, Harlow.

Brunnige, O. (2009). Using history in organizations: How managers make purposeful reference

to history in strategy processes. Journal of Organisational Change Management. 22, 1,

pp8-26
Buckley, P. (2009). Business history and international business. Business History. 51, 3, 307-

333

Buffa, E. (1971). Basic Production Management. John Wiley, New York.

Buffa, E. (1980). Research in operations management. Journal of Operations Management. 1,

1, 1-7

Buffa, E. (1984). Meeting the Competitive Challenge. Irwin, IL.

Chandler, A. (1990). The enduring logic of industrial success. Harvard Business Review.

March-April. 130-140

Chase, R. and Aquilano, N. (1989). Production and Operations Management, Irwin,

Homewood, IL.

Cook, T. and Russell, R. (1984). Contemporary Operations Management (2ed), Prentice-Hall,

NJ.

Corman, J. (1974). Managing the Productive Process. General Learning Press, Morristown NJ.

Delbridge, R. (2000). Life on the Line in Contemporary Manufacturing, Oxford University

Press, Oxford.

Deshpande, R. (1999). Foreseeing Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 63, Special Issue, pp164-

167

Dibnah, F. and Hall, D. (2010). Foundries and Rolling Mills: Memories of Industrial Britain.

BBC Books, London.

Dilworth, J. (1996). Operations Management. London: McGraw Hill.

Finkelstein, S. (2006). Whey smart executives fail: four case histories of how people learn the

wrong lessons from history. Business History, 48, 2, 153-170.

Fogarty, D. HoffMann, T. and Stonebraker, W. (1989). Production and Operations

Management. Cicinnati: South-Western.

Friedman, V. (2005). BHC Conference: Reinvention and Renewal. Business History News,

Autumn, 30.

Fujimoto, T. (1999). The evolution of a manufacturing system at Toyota. Oxford University

Press, Oxford.

Garrett, L. and Silver, M. (1973). Production Management Analysis (2ed) Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich, NY.

Gilchrist, R. (ed). (1970). Works Management in Practice. London: Heinemann.

Greasley, A. (2006). Operations Management. Chichester: John Wiley.

Harrison, B. (2004). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.

http://www.oup.com/oxforddnb/info/ Accessed April 2011.

Harvey, C. and Wilson, J. (2007). Redefining Business History: An editorial statement.

Business History. 49, 1, 1-7

Hayes, M. and Tomes, A. (1988). Practical Operations Management, Philip Allan, Oxford.

Heineke, J. and Davis, M. (2007). The emergence of service operations management as an

academic discipline. Journal of Operations Management. 25, 2, 364-374.

Heizer, J. and Render, B. (1999). Principles of Operations Management. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hill, T. (2000). Operations Management. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Hoffmann, T. (1967). Production: Management and Manufacturing Systems. California:

Wadsworth Publishing.

Horn, C. (1978a). Scientific Management – The Pioneers. Management Services, 22, 7, pp16-

21

Horn, C. (1978b). Scientific Management – The Inter-War Years. Management Services, 22, 9,

pp16-21

Horn, C. (1979). Scientific Management in the Post War Era. Management Services, 23, 1,

pp8-14.
Hounshell, D. (1984). From the American System to Mass Production. Johns Hopkins,

London.

Hutchins, D. (1999). Just in Time. Aldershot: Gower.

Jackson, D. (1978). Cell Systems of Production. Essex: Anchor Press.

Jacobs, F.R. and Weston, F.C. (2007). Enterprise resource planning (ERP) - a brief history.

Journal of Operations Management. 25, 2, 357-363

Jacques, R. (1996). Manufacturing the Employee. London, Sage.

Johansson, H., McHugh, P., Pendleberry, A. Wheeler, W. (1993). Business Process

Reengineering. John Wiley, England.

Kennaway, A. (1981). Engineers in Industry. Oxford: Pergamon.

Kerr, R. (1991). Knowledge Based Manufacturing Management. Mass: Addison Wesley.

King, J. (1985). Management of Engineering Production. London: Frances Pinter.

Kleindorfer, P. (1985). The Management of Productivity and Technology in Management.

New York: Plenum Press.

Knights, D. and Willmott, H. (2000). The Re-engineering Revolution: Critical Studies of

Corporate Change. London: Sage.

Knod, R. and Schonberger, R. (2001). Operations Management: Meeting Customers Demands.

London: McGraw Hill.

Kockhar, A. (1979). Development of Computer Based Production Systems. London: Edward

Arnold.

Koepke, C. (1961). Plant Production Control (3ed). New York: Wiley.

Kotler, P. (1997). Marketing Management (9ed). Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Krajewski, L. and Ritzman, L. (1999). Operations Management: Strategy and Analysis (5ed).

Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.

Krajewski, L. and Ritzman, P. (2002). Operations Management: Strategy and Analysis,

Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle Reivew, NJ.

Lamoreaux, N., Raff, D and Temin, P. (2007). Beyond markets and hierarchies. The American

Historical Review. 108, 2.

Lanigan, M. (1992). Engineers in Business: The Principles of Management and Product

Design. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.

Law, P., Weinberg, C., Doyle, P. and Simmonds, K. (1974). Product Management. Harper and

Row, London.

Lawler, A. (1969). The Production Process (vol 6). London: Longmans.

Lawler, A. (1985). Productivity Improvement Manual. Aldershot: Gower.

Lee, S. and Schniederjans, M. (1994). Operations Management. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Lewis, M. (2007). Charles Babbage: reclaiming an operations management pioneer. Journal of

Operations Management. 25, 2, 248-259.

Lockyer, K.G. (1988). Production and Operations Management (5ed). Pitman Publishing.

Lowson, R. (2002). Strategic Operations Management: The New Competitive Advantage.

London: Routledge.

Lund, R., Bishop, A., Newman, A. and Salzman, H. (1993). Designed to Work. New York:

Prentice Hall.

Markland, R., Vickery, S. and Davis, R. (1997). Operations Management: Concepts in

Manufacturing and Services. Mason, OH: South Western.

Mayer, R. (1975). Production and Operations Management. 3ed. McGraw Hill.

McClain, J. and Thomas, L. (1985). Operations Management: Production of Goods and

Services. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. US

McCraw, T. (1999). Teaching history courses to Harvard MBA students. Business and

Economic History, 28, 2, 153-162.

Meredith, J. (2001). Hopes for the future of operations management. Journal of Operations

Management. 19, 397-402

Meredith, J. and Amoako-Gyampah, K. (1990). The genealogy of operations management.

Journal of Operations Management. 9, 2, 146-167.

Meredith, J. and Gibbs, T. (1992). The Management of Operations (4ed). John Wiley.

Meredith, J. and Shafer, R. (2002). Operations Management for MBAs. Wiley: New York.

Mills, L. (1961). Techniques of Value Analysis and Engineering. McGraw Hill: New York.

Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs. Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc, San Francisco.

Misei, T. (1995). A Nation of Steel. Baltimore, MD.

Monks, J. (1977). Operations Management: Theory and Problems, McGraw Hill, NY.

Moore, F. (1965). Manufacturing Management (4th Ed). Illinois: Irwin.

Murdick, R. (1990). Service Operations Management. London: Allyn and Bacon.

Naylor, J. (2002). Introduction to Operations Management. Harlow: FT Prentice Hall.

New, C. (1973). Requirements Planning. Gower Publishing.

New, C. (1977). Managing the Manufacture of Complex Products. Random House.

Nicholas, J. (1990). Managing Business and Engineering Projects. Prentice Hall.

Noori, H. and Radford, R. (1995). Production and Operations Management: Total Quality and

Responsiveness. McGraw-Hill Education.

Oakland, J. (1993). Total Quality Management (2ed). Butterworth Heinemann.

Oliver, S. (1978). Management of Production Technology. London: Mechanical Engineering

Publications.

Radford, J. and Richardson, D. (1963). The Management of Production. London: Cleaver-

Hume,

Rahikainen, M. (2004). Centuries of Child Labour. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Reid, R.D. and Sanders, N. (2005). Operations Management: An Integrated Approach.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Reinfeld, N. (1959). Production Control. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Rhys, D.G. (1972). The Motor Industry: An Economic Survey. Butterworths, London.
Riggs, J. (1970). Production Systems: Planning, Analysis and Control. Wiley, NY.

Rolt, L. (1958). The Brunel Lecture. Brunel College of Technology, 22nd January 1958..

Rose, L. (1991). The Erosion of Childhood. London: Routledge.

Rostow, W. (1960). The Stages of Economic Growth. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Cited in Moore (1965)

Russell, R. and Taylor, B. (2002). Operations Management (4ed). Prentice Hall.

Schonberger, R. and Knod, E. (1997). Operations Management. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Schroeder, R. (1993). Operations Management: Decision Marketing in the Operations Function

(4ed). New York: McGraw Hill.

Schroeder, R. and Flynn, B. (2001). High Performance Manufacturing: Global Perspectives.

Wiley.

Shetty, Y. and Buehler, V. (1987). Quality, Productivity and Innovation. New York: Elseview.

Singhal, K., Singhal, J. and Starr, M. (2007). The domain of production and operations

management and the role of Elwood Buffa in its delineation. Journal of Operations

Management. 25, 2, 310-327

Slack, N. Chambers, S. and Johnston, R. (2004). Operations Management. FT Prentice Hall

Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

Sprague, L. (2007). Evolution of the field of operations management. Journal of Operations

Management. 25, 2, 219-238.

Steudel, H. and Desruelle, P. (1995). Manufacturing in the Nineties. New York: Van Nostrand

Reinhold

Taylor, F. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. Harper, New York

The Economist. (2007). Obituary: Alfred Chandler. The Economist, 383, 8529, 95.

Toynbee, A. (1896). Lectures on the Industrial Revolution of the 18th Century in England.

Longmans, London.
Voss, C. (2007). Learning from the first operations management textbook. Journal of

Operations Management. 25, 2, 239-247.

Wagner-Tsukamoto, S. (2007). An institutional economic reconstruction of scientific

management. Academy of Management Review. 32, 1, 105-117.

Waller, D.L. (1999). Operations Management: A Supply Chain Approach. London:

International Thomson Business.

Waters, C. (2002). Operations Management: Producing Goods and Services. Harlow: FT

Prentice Hall.

Watson, K., Blackstone, J. and Gardiner, S. (2007). The evolution of a management

philosophy: the theory of constraints. Journal of Operations Management. 25, 2, 387-

402.

Wells, W. (2007). Concept of the corporation. Business History Review. 81, 1, 142-145

Wild, R. (1990). Essentials of Production and Operations Management. 3ed. London: Cassell.

Williams, B. (1996). Manufacturing for Survival. Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.

Wilson, F. (1999).Organizational Behavior. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Wilson, J. (1995). An historical perspective on operations management. Production and

Inventory Management Journal, 35, 3, 60-66

Wilson, J. (1998). A comparison of the ‘American system of manufacturers’ circa 1850 with

just in time methods. Journal of Operations Management. 16, 77-90

Womack, J. and Jones, D. (1996). Lean Thinking. Touchstone, London.

Womack, J. and Jones, D. (2003). Lean Thinking (2ed). London: Free Press.

Womack, J., Jones, D. & Roos, D. (1990) The Machine that Changed the World, Rawson

Associates, New York.

Wright, G. (1996). Manufacturing Resource Planning - MRP II: Unlocking America's

Productivity Potential. John Wiley, New York.

Yates, J. (2006). How business enterprises use technology: extending the demand-side turn.

Business History Conference Proceedings, Oxford University Press: 422-451

 Table 1. Operations Management History

Event Key Contribution Supporting References Percentage

of Texts
Covering
James Kay 1733: Fling Shuttle (first mechanisation of Moore 1965, Waller 1999 3%
Start of the British spinning and move to industrial
Industrial Revolution production)
James Watt 1764: Steam Power Bennett 1981, Cook and Russell 1984, Greasely 2006, Hoffman 1967, Knod and Schonberger 19%
Introduction of Steam 2001, Lee and Schniederjans 1994, Lowson 2002, Meredith 2002,
Power Monks 1977, Moore 1965, Noori and Radford 1995, Reid and Sanders 2005, Waller 1999
Machine Tooling 1774- First Generation of machine Tools Bennett 1981, Moore 1965 3%
1800

John Wilkinson 1774

Adam Smith 1776. “Wealth Labour Specialisation / Browne et al 1996, Buffa 1971, Cook and Russell 1984, Dilworth 1996, 26%
of Nations” book. Divisionalisation Fogarty et al 1989, Greasely 2006, Heizer and Render 1999, Hoffman 1967,
Knod and Schonberger 2001, Lee and Schniederjans 1994, Lowson 2002, Meredith 2002, Monks
1977, Noori and Radford 1995, Reid and Sanders 2005, Russell and Taylor 2002, Schroeder
1993, Slack et al 2004
Eli Whitney 1790 Interhcangeable parts / Bennett 1981, Bessant 1991, Dilworth 1996, Fogarty et al 1989, Greasely 2006, Heizer and 26%
Interchangeable Parts Standardisation Render 1999, Hoffman 1967, Knod and Schonberger 2001, Lee and Schniederjans 1994, Lowson
High volume gun manufacture 2002, Markland Vickery Davis 1997, McClain and Thomas 1985, Meredith 2002, Moore 1965,
Noori and Radford 1995, Reid and Sanders 2005, Russell and Taylor 2002, Waller 1999
Charles Babbage 1832 Labour Specialisation / Buffa 1971, Cook and Russell 1984, Greasely 2006, Heizer and Render 1999, Hoffman 1967, 13%
“Economy of Machinery Divisionalisation Hoffman 1967, Lee and Schniederjans 1994, Russell and Taylor 2002, Schroeder 1993
and Manufacturers” book.

Scientific Management Scientific Management Approach Bennett 1981, Browne et al 1996, Buffa 1971, Chase and Aquilano 1989, Cook and Russell 1984, 46%
(Frederick Taylor 1911. Corman 1974, Dilworth 1996, Fogarty et al 1989, Garrett and Silver 1973, Greasely 2006, Heizer
“Principles of Scientific and Render 1999, Jackson 1978, Johansson et al 1993, Knod and Schonberger 2001, Krajewski,
Management”) and Ritzman 1999, Lee and Schniederjans 1994, Lowson 2002, Markland Vickery Davis 1997,
McClain and Thomas 1985, Meredith and Gibbs 1992, Monks 1977, Noori and Radford 1995,
Radford and Richardson 1963, Reid and Sanders 2005, Reinfeld 1959, Riggs 1970, Russell and
Taylor 2002, Schonberger and Knod 1997, Slack et al 2004, Schroeder 1993, Waters 2002,
 Williams 1996
Henry Ford (c.1913) First moving assembly line Bessant 1991, Chase and Aquilano 1989, Corman 1974, Garrett and Silver 1973, 26%
Greasely 2006, Heizer and Render 1999, Johansson et al 1993, Kleindorfer 1985, Knod and
Schonberger 2001, Lee and Schniederjans 1994, Lowson 2002, Markland Vickery Davis 1997,
McClain and Thomas 1985, Naylor 2002, Noori and Radford 1995, Riggs 1970, Russell and
Taylor 2002, Schroeder 1993
Henry Gantt (1861-1919) Contemporary of Taylor. Bennett 1981, Cook and Russell 1984, Fogarty et al 1989, Knod and Schonberger 2001, McClain 10%
Scheduling and Charting Procedures and Thomas 1985, Monks 1977, Riggs 1970
Frank Gilbreth (1968-1924) Contemporary of Taylor. Time and Bennett 1981, Fogarty et al 1989, Knod and Schonberger 2001, Lowson 2002, McClain and 10%
Motion Thomas 1985, Noori and Radford 1995, Slack et al 2004
Walter Shewart (1930 “The Statistical Process Controls Buffa 1971, Fogarty et al 1989, Heizer and Render 1999, Knod and Schonberger 2001, Riggs 7%
Control of Quality of 1970
Manufactured Products”
book)
Human Resource Based Focus on people within the operating Bennett 1981, Dilworth 1996, Fogarty et al 1989, Knod and Schonberger 2001, Moore 1965, Reid 12%
Approaches (1930s+) system. and Sanders 2005, Riggs 1970, Waters 2002
(Mayo Studies, Hawthorne,
Tavistock Institute)
Operations Research Statistical and computational work. Bennett 1981, Buffa 1971, Fogarty et al 1989, Garrett and Silver 1973, Greasely 2006 7%
(WWII)
Lean Production (1990+) Post-mass production philosophy Hill 2005, Slack et al 2004, Womack and Jones 1996, Womack and Jones 2003, Womack et al 7%
1990
 Table 2. Coverage of Historical Topics

Instances Textbook
9 Knod and Schonberger 2001
8 Bennett 1981, Fogarty et al 1989
7 Greasely 2006
6 Heizer and Render 1999, Lee and Schniederjans 1994, Lowson 2002, Noori and Radford 1995
5 Buffa 1971, Cook and Russell 1984, Hoffman 1967, McClain and Thomas 1985, Moore 1965, Reid and Sanders 2005,
Riggs 1970, Russell and Taylor 2002
4 Dilworth 1996, Monks 1977, Schroeder 1993, Slack et al 2004
3 Garrett and Silver 1973, Markland Vickery Davis 1997, Meredith 2002, Waller 1999
2 Chase and Aquilano 1989, Corman 1974, Johansson et al 1993, Waters 2002
1 Hill 2005, Jackson 1978, Kleindorfer 1985, Krajewski, and Ritzman 1999, Meredith and Gibbs 1992, Naylor 2002,
Radford and Richardson 1963, Reinfeld 1959, Schonberger and Knod 1997, Williams 1996
 Table 3. Historical and Contemporary Applications in Operations Management
Operations Historical Example
Management
Topic
General Role of steel in shaping operations
Development of and supply chains (Misei 1995).
Manufacturing to
Operations
Management
Operations Strategy Competition between narrow and
broad gauge standards in UK
railways (Rolt 1958)
Service Sector Fred Harvey system of service
design in restaurants in the late
nineteenth century (Heineke and
Davis 2007)
Process Benjamin Huntsman invention of
crucible or cast steel manufacturing
process. Source of competitive
advantage until a rival stole the
idea and publicly shared (Harrison
2004).
Capacity Increase in aggregate capacity
realised by disruptive technologies
in textiles (Moore 1965)
Layout Early flow based production
models (Hounshell 1994).
Lean Standardisation at the Royal Navy
or Colt Weapons
interchangeability of parts
(Hounshell 1984, Womack et al
1990)
Workforce Formation of Co-Operative Society
Management for to bring workers together in a
Operations collaborative model (Birchall
1994)
Supply Chain Charles Babbage invention of the
Management first computer and how a failure to
manage the supply chain prevented
success (Lewis 2007)
Contemporary Application of
Historical Example
Role of focal organisations in
supply chain to determine
operational designs such as
Japanese automotive entrants to
the European market.
Competing technology of Blu-Ray
versus High Definition DVD
Current debates of service-shop
design and worker management
such as Google versus IBM
operations-worker approaches.
The production of generic
pharmaceuticals and other
intellectual property issues related
to production processes in
India/China
How the internet altered retail and
service businesses.
Production cell design.
Combination of many pre-existing
approaches to form the new lean
model.
Current movements in union
relations that are strained as a
result of the economic downturn.
Integrated supply chain
management and Japanese style
supplier relationships.
 Figure 1. Operations Management History
KEY PHASES
Craft Production
Start of the Industrial Revolution &
Industrialised Mass Production (UK)
Start of American System of Manufacture
(USA)
Scientific Management Mass Production
and Mass Consumption
Humanistic Mass Production
Operations Research Optimised Mass Production
Start of Post-Mass Production / Lean Production
(Japan only)
Decline of Western Mass Production -
Adoption, Adaptation and Responses to Lean
(World-wide)
KEY THINKERS and ACTIVITIES
1700
1733 - James Kay - Industrial Revolution
1750
1764 - James Watt - Steam Power
1774 - John Wilkinson, Henry Maudsley - Machine Tooling
1776 - Adam Smith - “Wealth of Nations”
1790 - Eli Whitney - Interchangeable Parts
1800
1832 - Charles Babbage “Economy of Machinery and Manufacturers”
1850
1900
1911 - Frederick Taylor “Scientific Management”
1913 - Henry Ford - Fordist Mass Production
1919 - Henry Gantt - Charting
1920s - Frank Gilbreth - Time and Motion
1930 - Walter Shewart - Statistical Process Control
1930s - Human Resource School - People Operations
1940s - Operations Research - Computational Operations
1950 1950s - Taiichi Ohno and W Edwards Deming - Toyota Production
- First Wave of Quality Gurus (Deming, Juran, Feigenbaum)
1960s - Second Wave of Quality Gurus (Ishikawa, Taguchi, Shingo)
- Joseph Orlicky - Materials Resource Planning (MRP)
1980s - Third Wave of Quality (Crosby, Peters, Moller); Motorola 6-Sigma
- Oliver Wright and Georgoe Plossl - MRP II
1990 - Dan Roos, James Womack, Dan Jones “Machine that Changed
the World”
1990s - Agility, Mass Customisation
2000
 Figure 2. Development of Research in Operations Management

Period Focus of Key Approach

Academic
Research
Broad Stage 4. 2000s focus on long Lean Operations
Integrated term activities based on
Operations and integrated Japanese
Management operations across approaches
business
functions
Stage 3. 1990s focus on medium Post-mass
Operations term production, early
and Supply improvements of imitation of ad-
Focus Management supply chain hoc Japanese
performance approach

Stage 2. 1980s focus on day-to- Operations

Operations day activity in all Research,
Management businesses Human Relations
including service School
sector
Stage 1. 1900s day-to-day Craft, Production
Manufacturing manufacturing Mass production,
Management management Scientific
Narrow Management
Short-term Long-Term

Temporal Perspective