writing the ideal paper for jom

8/7/2019 Writing the Ideal Paper for JOM

1/19

Writing the Ideal Paper for JOM: A New Editor s Perspective

Robert Handfield

Bank of America University Distinguished Professor

North Carolina State University

College of Management

CB 7229 Raleigh, NC 27695-7229

[email protected]

(919) 515 4674

Fax: (919) 515 6943

Introduction

As I assume the role of the new Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Operations

Management, I look forward to continuing the standards of excellence set by the previous

Editors of the journal. I also believe it is worthwhile to reflect on where the field of

Operations Management has come from, where we are today, and the challenges that lie

ahead of us as a discipline. We find ourselves as a field in an interesting predicament:

Operations Management (OM) is faced with some of the most interesting research

questions in global business, yet we have the least developed empirical knowledge base

of any of the academic business disciplines. This represents a challenge, but also a

significant opportunity.

As we teach our doctoral students, the fundamental goal of any researcher is to

create knowledge. By knowledge, what we mean is structured information that is readily

accessible and, ideally, of lasting value. Furthermore, this knowledge should be simple,

concise and useful. This knowledge should enable the researcher to either explain the


2/19

complex or to demonstrate the counter-intuitive. Ultimately, the challenge of knowledge

generation can be best described as a search to find something new. When the knowledge base of a fieldsuch as OM is relatively immature, then

researchers have an opportunity to significantly impact the direction of the field. This is

the position we find ourselves in today.

Knowledge generation is highly dynamic for a number of reasons. Some of these

reasons are well known to the reader and include changes in technology (both hardware

and software) and the emergence of new problems. The changes occurring in the field of

OM in the last five years have probably been more dramatic than any other field in

business, largely due to the forces of globalization, information technology, and increased

recognition of the contribution of new product development, manufacturing and service

operations to the competitiveness of organizations. Equally important is the combination

of the increasing maturity of Operations Management as a field of study combined with

the need to satisfy the central mission of scholars and educators in our field. In my

mind, the most important contribution to knowledge in this form involves the process of

conducting theory-driven empirical research.

Where I Stand As A Researcher and an Editor

All journal editors (and for that matter, all reviewers), have their own set of

personal biases on research that influences their decision-making in the acceptance or

rejection of submissions to a journal. To deny the existence of such biases is absurd,

since every researcher in effect possesses these biases. Moreover, the biases of

researchers and/or editors are formed by their experiences in their doctoral studies,

throughout their research career, and in their interactions with university colleagues,

faculty from other institutions, and most importantly, doctoral, masters, and undergraduate students. Ratherthan deny the existence of these biases, I feel it is

important to stipulate up-front what my particular views on relevant research are, and

what I hope to promote for JOM over the next five years as the Editor-in-Chief.


3/19

The editor of JOM for the last five years, Jack Meredith, has encouraged the

publication of empirical research that contributes to theory development in the field of

operations management. I am likewise pre-disposed to supporting research that is

exclusively in this vein, with the stipulation that manuscripts accepted for publication

meet the following criteria: 1) Cross-functional and cross-enterprise decision-making, 2)

Research rigor applied through the scientific theory-building approach, 3) Managerial

relevance.

1. Cross-functional and cross-enterprise decision-making. An important theme in my

academic and managerial-related experience to date has been an increasing awareness of

cross-functional and cross-enterprise decision-making when approaching management

problems. Too often, operations managers fail to realize that they cannot do it alone,

and do not consider the implications of their decisions on other functions, suppliers,

customers, and the community at large. In my mind, business practices of the future will

be defined in a new unit of analysis: the supply chain, (not the individual organization).

As a result of environmental shocks and global competition, organizations now find that

it is no longer enough to manage their internal processes. They must also be involved in

the management of the network of all upstream firms that provide inputs (directly or

indirectly), as well as the network of downstream firms responsible for logistics, delivery

and after-market service for the product/service to the end customer. From this realization emerged theconcept of the supply chain . The supply chain encompasses

all activities associated with the flow and transformation of goods from the raw materials

stage (extraction), through to the end user, the associated information flows, and the

capture, recycling, and/or minimization of material waste. Material and information flows

go both up and down the supply chain. Supply chain management is the integration of

these activities through improved supply chain relationships, to achieve a sustainable

competitive advantage. Based on my observations of trends in industry, the supply chain


4/19

will become the effective unit of competition. Although much of the prior work in OM

has emphasized the improvement of activities within the four walls of an organization s

manufacturing/service facility, the emphasis is now changing to reflect an optimization of

entire supply chain operations. Organizations will have preferred suppliers and

customers worldwide, and will need to effectively manage these relationships to create

value and compete. Electronic commerce technologies will play a critical role in

effectively integrating these supply chains by enabling information and forecasting

visibility across engaged participants.

2. Methodological Rigor and the Scientific Method. A second important theme in my

editorial policy is a willingness to explore non-traditional research methods to explore

relevant research questions, so long as they adhere to proven scientific methods of

investigation. The field of Operations Management has been characterized by a

dominant positivist epistemology over the last fifty years. While other business fields

such as marketing, organizational behavior, and finance have matured through the

process of the scientific theory-building process, Operations Management has been slow to shrug off itsmethodological roots in operations research. (For an in-depth

description of this phenomenon, see Handfield and Melnyk, 1998; Melnyk and

Handfield, 1998). A large number of journals publish OR-based research exclusively;

however, relatively few publish OM empirical articles exclusively. As such, my editorial

policy is to publish research that is based on solid empirical methodologies based on the

scientific method. I will also select a group of well-trained Associate Editors experienced

in scientific methods of empirical research. The process for reviewing and accepting

manuscripts will also be modified somewhat, to ensure that papers that are not

methodologically rigorous are caught earlier in the review process, as opposed to later. (I

will review the relevant changes at a later time).

It should be noted that empirical research in OM spans a broad diversity of


5/19

methods, including qualitative approaches (structured and unstructured interviews,

coding and matrix analysis), meta-analysis, critical event techniques, simulation, quasiexperiments, labstudies, and data collection using the World Wide Web. In each case,

the nature of the problem should drive the research method chosen. I believe that a

diversity of research approaches is not only appropriate, but absolutely necessary for a

journal such as JOM to contribute to the academic field. The research question and the

underlying body of theory in the area should drive the research approach.

Many empirical methods are dismissed as soft by some OM researchersin that

they do not fall into the traditional rubric of operations research and quantitative methods.

In some respects, based on some of the less rigorous work published up to now, I might

have to agree. However, my position is that a solid set of precedents exists for empirical

methods that must be utilized to drive methodological rigor into OM empirical research. If there is anyweakness to the recent set of OM empirical research publications, it is that

they suffer from poor research and sampling designs, or worse yet, poor underlying

theory development. The first problem has been identified by a number of researchers

(e.g.,Malhotra and Grover, 1998), but remains a consistent problem in the field. One of

my editorial goals will be to raise the bar on methodological rigor for publications in

JOM. The second problem, lack of poor theory development, is due in my opinion to the

inexperience of the first generation of OM empirical researchers. While early attempts

focused more on descriptive approaches to OM, the next generation of published research

must build a solid theoretical foundation for hypothesis creation, testing, and validation.

3. Managerial relevance. The third important theme in my editorial outlook is to only

publish articles that are managerially relevant. That is, I have always believed in

conducting research that contributes to our field as a scientific discipline and to apply this

knowledge to the practice of management as a profession. To achieve this goal, many

OM researchers are now forcing themselves to develop an intimate understanding of the

problems facing Operations Management practitioners. The nature of these problems has


6/19


7/19


8/19

reason, no one has ever convinced the field that empirical methods really can provide

unique insights that mathematical research can t. When an author is constrained to write

in the objective style of science, there is little room for rhetoric or convincing. So, to

date the most compelling argument given for why OM should adopt empirical methods is

that other fields use them and they seem to work for them. The question that should be

asked is what questions should be asked that empirical methods can answer that

mathematical methods can t. How do companies deploy lean manufacturing across

multiple facilities around the world? What is the relationship between performance and

alternative supplier relationships? Does web-based information visibility improve

performance, and how do planners react to information? Even lab studies, such as those

in the Beer Game, provide fascinating insights into human behavior in different OM

settings. In keeping with our positivist tradition, the best way to answer this type of

question is to go see what companies are doing and what works. Carefully thought-out

empirical research can tap experience without sacrificing methodological rigor. Granted

some control is sacrificed because empirical research is generally messy, but rigor can be

retained.

From 1980 to 1990, the number of empirically-based articles was relatively

scarce. Further, while the volume of empirical research published in journals such as

JOM increased from 1990 2001, not all of it has been especially rigorous. In a sense,

many of the people who published empirical research during this period found

themselves unequipped with the tools required to make the research theory-driven and rigorous. Many OMresearchers during this period were trained in mathematically-based

research such as optimization and simulation, but had no formal training in research

methods emphasizing survey design, qualitative data analysis, sampling, construct

validity, and all of the other required tools of the trade. Further, much of the research

during this period was devoid of a basis in theory. The perception of some OM


9/19

researchers who published during this period was that empirical research consisted of

sending a survey to managers with as many possible questions related to a field as

possible. This line of thought dictated that once the data were collected, one could find

the patterns and results, summarize them, and provide insights into what was really

happening. Clearly, this meant that the data were driving the theory, and not the other

way around. Moreover, a well-developed theoretical argument should in effect drive the

research design of an empirical study, and the data then supportor fail to support the

theory. This in turn drives the research agenda in a different direction, depending on the

nature of the results. Over time, the body of thought is influenced by the pattern of

empirical results and researchers start to drive the research agenda in a direction that is

influenced by this body of research. (Studies that review results in an area and

summarizes the overall implications of the results to date are called meta-analyses, and

are critical to influencing this process).

As an Editor, I have a responsibility to the field to ensure that this process takes

place. JOM has been recognized as the leading outlet for empirical research in a review

by the Academy of Management Journal (Trieschmann et. al., 2000), and has also been

highlighted as one of the top 25 journals in the world for managerial relevance by the

Financial Times. As such, there is a responsibility to ensure that the journal continues to publish research thatis of a high caliber, that is rigorous, and that is relevant. But how do

we pinpoint such criteria? How should I, the Area Editors, and indeed the reviewers for

the Journal distinguish between relevant and irrelevant research? I have already

discussed my personal views of what I believe JOM should be in terms of being the

leading OM journal in the field. Next, let s think about what the ideal article for such a

journal would consist of. In attempting to create this profile, I have based my comments

on research that I have reviewed, read, and written over my career in working with

faculty, doctoral students, and most importantly, OM practitioners.


10/19

Start with a Good Research Question

First and foremost, a high quality article begins with a good research question.

Note that not all papers will be groundbreaking breakthroughs offering deep insights

into a new and exciting line of research. As we discussed earlier, researchers may instead

choose a research question that involves mopping up work. Areas such as inventory

theory, job shop scheduling, and manufacturing planning are comparatively welldeveloped; much of thecurrent research involves extending and refining the existing

theories. Other concepts such as Total Quality Management, Manufacturing Strategy,

Lean Manufacturing, and Service Design have been around for a number of years, and

are in a relationship building stage from a theoretical context. While such concepts are

fairly well-defined, there still exist a number of empirical linkages that need to be made,

particularly with regard to their impact on performance. Finally, a number of emerging

areas in operations are in the discovery and description stage. Some of these areas

include the pro-active management of environmental policies in operations, globalization

of operations management practices, management of contract manufacturers, knowledge-basedmanagement, change management, and the emergence of integrated supply chains

and B2B e-commerce. The researchers who endeavor to provide contributions in these

unmapped areas will provide a foundation for future development as their theories mature

and develop.

The most important criteria for developing a good research question is that it be

interesting. Presumably, individuals do not work on research simply to obtain tenure and

merit raises at their academic institution; rather, I am going on the assumption that

academics pursue research out of an intellectual curiosity. The goal of a researcher

should be to communicate the excitement of this curiosity to the ultimate customer of

these endeavors: other researchers, and eventually, our students, who will hopefully go

out into the working world and deploy these lessons to improve the effectiveness of the

organizations where they work. To be successful in this effort, however, one must first


11/19

pique the interest of the reviewers and readers of your research.

How does one define an interesting research question that contributes to OM

theory? The creation of theories from empirical observations is a process of "disciplined

imagination" (Weick, 1989), involving a series of thought trials establishing conditions

and imaginary outcomes in hypothetical situations. Once a problem has been identified,

the researcher develops a set of conjectures in the form of If-Then statements. In

general, a greater number of diverse conjectures will produce better theories than a few

homogeneous ones. The conjectures are then chosen according to the researcher's

selection criteria, which should include judgments of whether the relationship is

interesting, plausible, consistent, or appropriate. The researcher must be careful at this

stage to maintain consistency in criteria when evaluating different conjectures. Examples of selection criteriainclude the following:

1) "That's Interesting" (Davis, 1971) - Is the relationship not obvious at first?

2) "That's Connected" (Crovitz, 1970) - Are the events related when others have

assumed they are unrelated?

3) "That's Believable" (Polanyi, 1989) - Is the relationship convincing?

4) "That's Real" (Campbell, 1986, Whetten, 1989) - Is the relationship useful to

managers?

5) That s Obvious (Whetten, 1989) Is the relationship so obvious that the reader

loses interest right away!

Using the basic questions and practical styles of a journalist, Whetten (1989) suggests

that the essential ingredients of a value-added theoretical contribution are explicit

treatments of Who? What? Where? When? Why? and How? These criteria are not

enough however. A theory that is complete, comprehensive and exhaustive in its analysis

but which addresses an issue seldom if ever encountered in the field is not useful. In

OM, research funding often comes from private industries that are impatient in realizing


12/19

the practical significance and utility of abstract theories. Our research should be applied

and the outputs potentially applicable to the OM environment. Therefore, useful theories

should have the following traits:

The theory must deal with a problem of "real importance."

The theory must point to relationships or uncover potentially important variables

overlooked in prior studies.

The theory must direct the researcher to issues and problems not previously examined (but which are stillof interest).

The theory must explain or provide insight into behavior or events occurring in other

areas.

The theory must be operationalized.

The theory and its output must be interesting.

Of these traits, the last one requires further explanation. First advocated by Davis (1971),

interesting theories were ones which caused the readers to sit up and take notice (Davis,

1971, p. 310). To be interesting, theories had to present an attack on an assumption that

was taken for granted by the readers. Interesting theories present one of two types of

arguments (Davis, 1971, p. 311):

What is seen as non-X is really X, or,

What is accepted as X is actually non-X.

The assumptions attacked by interesting theories cannot be ones strongly held by the

readers. Papers presenting such arguments are examples of That s Absurd and are often

summarily dismissed by the readers, not to mention reviewers and discussants! For

example, if we were to read a paper arguing that there is no linkage between corporate

strategy, corporate performance and manufacturing capabilities, our initial reaction would

be to dismiss the paper out-of-hand without reading it any further. Why? Because we

see economic performance as being strongly influenced by manufacturing capabilities.


13/19

However, if this initial statement was instead explained in terms of outsourcing

capabilities (e.g. the core competence of new organizations is the design and marketing new products andoutsourcing of manufacturing to contract manufacturers), this absurd

initial statement might instead become interesting.

Second, interesting theories must consider both the theoretical and the practical

dimensions (Simon, 1967). They must be seen as being of real practical significance to

the audience. This significance might lie in directing research into new directions; it

could indicate new research methodologies. If the practical consequences of a theory are

not immediately apparent, the theory will be rejected. Theories lacking such practical

significance are examples of the category of Who Cares?

Third, interesting theories must challenge. Theories that merely confirm views,

assumptions or frameworks already accepted by the audience are not interesting. Such

theories represent the That s Obvious category. As can be seen from this discussion, to

generate theories that are interesting, the writers must identify and understand their

audience. What may be obvious to one audience may be absurd to another and

interesting to a third.

In communicating the research question, a good article should build a strong

argument up front for why the question is interesting (just like the lead-in to a newspaper

article). The introduction should clearly and succinctly describe the nature of the

research question and why it is interesting. It should quickly get to the point what is the

research question but also convince the reader that there is an interesting theory that is

being offered to address the question. Moreover, this is your chance to grab the reader

and get them to sit up and take notice ! If you don t do this, then the reader is likely to

go elsewhere, and skip the remainder of the article. Review the Relevant Literature. . . Concisely!

Next, the researcher needs to explain where the theory lies at this point, there

should be a seamless transition from the introduction (what is the question?) to the


14/19

literature review (what do we know about the question already, and why do I think my

theory may help provide an answer to the question?) Now that you ve gotten the reader s

attention in the introduction, think of this section of your article as the background to the

issuethat helps to build your case. You need to be careful here many interesting

questions have already had a lot of work done in other fields. If you ignore this work, the

reviewer is likely to slam the door on you, thinking that you clearly haven t really looked

in the literature closely enough and that therefore you really don t know what you re

talking about.

On the other hand, some researchers write a literature review that goes through

every paper written on the subject and simply reiterates what each one contributed. This

is a pointless exercise you do not need to convince the reader that you have read articles

related to the problem. (In the reviewers minds, you would not have submitted the

article if you didn t have some knowledge in the area of OM!) This section of the paper

should be carefully crafted, and avoid simply listing all of the previous work that has

been done. Rather, think of the literature review as an extension of the first section you

are still building a case for your theory, and you do not need to cover every tangentially

related piece of work. Choose your sentences carefully and try to be concise, and explain

in as few words as possible why the theory is relevant, and what we know about it.

Sentences should flow naturally into one another, just as if you were having a

conversation with someone you were seeking to convince on a particular point of view.

In such a case, if you diverge, you will lose the reader s attention ( so what is your point? ) The naturaloutcome of the literature review is an answer to the question: what

do we know about this? The next logical transition is to hypotheses and/or propositions

that posit the details of your theory.

Hypotheses and Propositions: Articulated Theories

A succinct review of the literature immediately sets up the hypotheses and/or


15/19

propositions for the study. As an editor, I do not believe that any empirical article can

succeed without an explicit statement of what the researcher believes is the state of nature

as described by an explicit description of relationships between concepts/constructs.

One mistake often made by researchers is to create hypotheses and propositions that tend

to be too complex. The nature of the individual hypotheses should be stated in clear

concise terms that specific relationships between groups of constructs and/or concepts

which in turn can be identified with the data. This is the trickiest part of any research

paper, and one where most submitted articles are rejected. You need to ensure that the

hypotheses are testable, yet are not so bland that the relationships are in fact patently

obvious or tautological. One way to avoid this is to create a diagram of your hypotheses,

thus providing the reader with a guide to take him/her through your arguments. It is also

unlikely that you will have room to do justice to more than a half-dozen hypotheses in a

research article, since every one should be appropriately supported by the literature.

Another mark for failure is an attempt to try to explain the world ; you are better to bite

off a smaller chunk, then aggregate your results later through a meta-analytical study. Methodology: WhatDid You Do?

Once you have developed a good set of hypotheses, the research design, data

analysis, and description of the methodology should almost present themselves as

obvious. A good theory provides structure to data. Data, when captured from the field

(as is done with empirical research), has no structure. It does not tell the researcher the

sequence in which activities took place. It does not identify what factors influenced what

other factors. Rather, data simply shows that something did happen. To make sense of

this data, we must convert it into information. To do so, we must marry structure to data.

We must identify sequence, variables, constructs and relationships. Sequence describes

the order in which events or factors occur (i.e., what influences what and how).

Variables are the actual metrics observed and collected in the field. Constructs describe


16/19

concepts or factors that cannot be observed directly but which, nevertheless, are

important because they identify something that is either common to or unifying a set of

observed variables. Finally, relationships describe the exact manner in which the various

constructs are linked to each other. These traits offered by theory are not only important

to researchers but also to practitioners. Like researchers, our customers, the practicing

managers, need to make sense of the data before them. They need to have information

about sequence, variables, constructs and relationships.

In this regard, the methodology section should tell the reader exactly what it is

you did to test the theory. It should also explain why you chose the method you did. For

example, selecting a case study for a research question that has already been studied

extensively is not appropriate, as it is only likely to validate what we already know. Case

studies are often used to describe problems, not test them. Given the maturity of the theory, the appropriatemethodology here is important. A reader wishing to replicate the

results should effectively be able do so after reading this section. Replication of results is

a cornerstone for the scientific method.

Results, Discussion and Implications for Future Research

The final sections should summarize the results succinctly (without overstating

the obvious), and interpret the implications of these results in terms of your proposed

hypothetical relationships. Does the evidence support the relationship? If not, why not?

Do the results suggest a set of possible unexplored relationships? In some cases, the

researcher may conduct a post hoc analysis to lend further insights into the results. A

common mistake made by researchers is to overstate the implications of the results in

terms of theory. To avoid this, a section describing the limitations of the research is

advisable. There is no need to tear down your research. Rather, this section should

acknowledge any flaws in the research, and describe how they might be overcome in the

future. In addition, the researcher should reflect on the following question: If I were to


17/19

do it all over again, what would I do differently? Finally, you need to describe to

readers what needs to be done to address any gaps in the theoretical frameworks you

attempted to test, or even if these gaps no longer exist but have been replaced by a

different set of research questions altogether. Most importantly, you should be able to

describe what the results of the research mean for managers. How do your results shed

light on a real issue faced by a manager? Visualize yourself before a group of executives

who are interested in an issue related to your research. What do you have to say to them

that is meaningful based on what you ve learned? (Remember, if you don t have

something useful that they can take away when they leave, they ll eat you alive!) Summary of EditorialPhilosophy:

Based on these themes, my editorial philosophy can be summarized as follows:

I will encourage the publication of research that reflects cross-functional and crossenterprise decision-making,that is methodologically rigorous and is based on a solid

theoretical foundation, and that addresses problems that are managerially relevant. I

reserve the right to automatically reject papers that do not meet these criteria based on

a preliminary reading of the paper. The journal will support alternative research

methodologies, including survey research, multi- and single site case studies, metaanalysis, behavioralsimulations, unobtrusive observations, computer simulations, and

quantitative modeling (when validated with real data). The research will be evaluated

on its methodological rigor, contribution to theory-development in the field, and

relevance to managers. In cases when a submitted manuscript lacks sufficient rigor,

the writer will be referred to appropriate methodological texts (e.g. QuasiExperiments (Cook and Campbell,1979), Qualitative Research Methodologies

(Miles and Huberman, 1994), or structural equation models (Blalock, 1970).

I look forward to serving in the Editor-in-Chief role for the next five years, and

enhance the reputation that JOM has established in the OM community. I also hope

to develop a strong relationship with the OM community in this capacity, and look

forward to receiving your input, comments, suggestions, and criticisms. Although I


18/19

cannot promise to respond to everyone s input, I am certainly open and willing to

consider any thoughts for improving the Journal that you may have. References

Beged-dov, A.G. and T.A. Klein, Research methodology in the management sciences:

formalism or empiricism , Operations Research Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 3, 1970,

pp. 311-326.

Blalock, H.M. Jr., Introduction to Social Research, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall,

1970.

Buffa, E.S., Research in operations management , Journal of Operations Management,

vol. 1, no. 1, August, 1980, pp. 1-7.

Chase, R.B., A classification and evaluation of research in operations management ,

Journal of Operations Management, vol. 1, no. 1, August, 1980, pp. 9-14.

Cook T., and D. Campbell, Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field

Settings, Chicago, Il, Rand McNally, 1979.

Crovitz, H.F., Galton's Walk, New York, Harper, 1970.

Davis, M., That's Interesting! Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology

of Phenomenology , Philosophy of the Social Sciences, vol. 1, 1971, pp. 309-

344.

Dubin, R. Theory Building, New York, New York: Free Press, 1969.

Lewin, K The Research Center for Group Dynamics at Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, Sociometry, Vol. 8 (1945), pp.126-135.

Handfield, Robert, and Melnyk, Steven, "The Scientific Theory-Building Process: A

Primer Using the Case of TQM", Journal of Operations Management, vol. 16, no.

4, 1998, special issue on Theory Building in Operations Management , pp. 320-

339.

Malhotra, M. and V. Grover, 1998. An Assessment of Survey Research in POM: From

Constructs to Theory. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4): 407-425.


19/19

writing the ideal paper for jom

Documents