POMS
PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
Vol. 14, No. 4, Winter 2005, pp. 442– 449
issn 1059-1478 兩 05 兩 1404 兩 442$1.25
© 2005 Production and Operations Management Society
Operations Strategy Research
in the POMS Journal
Kenneth K. Boyer • Morgan Swink • Eve D. Rosenzweig
Eli Broad Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1122, USA
Eli Broad Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1122, USA
Goizueta Business School, Emory University, 1300 Clifton Road, Atlanta, Georgia 30322-2710, USA
boyerk@msu.edu • Swink@bus.msu.edu • Eve_Rosenzweig@bus.emory.edu
I
n this paper, we examine the operations strategy literature in the POMS journal to determine what
has been learned and to suggest new directions for further study in this important area of
research. Our review of this literature resulted in the selection of thirty-one relevant articles, many
of which draw upon multiple theoretical perspectives. We identify eight such theoretical perspectives, and go on to classify these perspectives in terms of the scope of inquiry employed in the
research (focused versus aggregated) and the researcher’s assumptions about choice processes
(behavioral versus rational). In doing so, we show that this body of work is dominated by papers
that draw upon theoretical perspectives enabling a more holistic scope of inquiry, with a bias
towards a view of strategy as a highly rational process. Building on our systematic review and
integration of the literature, we suggest multiple areas for future research.
Key words: operations strategy; theory development; areas for future research
Submissions and Acceptance: Received January 2005; revisions received February 2005; April 2005;
accepted May 2005.
1.
Introduction
2.
Studies of operations strategy have formed a key
stream of research in the POMS journal since its
founding, including papers from several of the
leading strategy researchers. In reviewing this literature stream, we focused on the articles which addressed operations strategy, defined as decisions
and plans involving the developing, positioning,
and aligning of managerial policies and needed resources so that they are consistent with the overall
business strategy (Anderson, Cleveland, and Schroeder 1989; Skinner 1969; Swamidass 1986). This
level of planning and decision-making focuses on
the competitive operations capabilities of a firm
over the long term. Further, an operations strategy
integrates various sub-functional activities and relates various functional policies to environmental
changes (Schendel and Hofer 1979). In these ways,
strategic operations decisions are distinct from tactical planning or operational control (Anthony
1965).
Describing the POMS Operations
Strategy Research Space
We reviewed all papers published to date in the
POMS journal for possible inclusion in our analysis
of the operations strategy research space. Table 1
summarizes the thirty-one POMS papers we selected as fitting the operations strategy domain, as
defined above. The table describes the papers in
terms of their topical focus and dominant theoretical
perspective(s). We developed these categories based
on our review of the papers and the larger operations strategy literature. While several papers address many theoretical perspectives, we limited the
classification to, at most, four perspectives that received the most significant treatment. A brief summary of the methodology employed in each paper is
also included in Table 1.
2.1. Topical Focus
The 31 papers represent two areas of topical focus—
content and process—which are broad categories used
442
Boyer, Swink, and Rosenzweig: Operations Strategy Research in the POMS Journal
443
Production and Operations Management 14(4), pp. 442– 449, © 2005 Production and Operations Management Society
Table 1
Chronological Review of Operations Strategy Research in the POMS Journal
Topical focus
Article
McDougall, Deane &
D’Souza (1992)
St. John and Young (1992)
Hayes (1992)
Lefebvre, Langley, Harvey,
& Lefebvre (1992)
Zahra and Das (1993)
Vickery, Droge and Markland
(1994)
Theoretical perspective
Methodology
Trade-offs/ Strategic/
Strategic
Goal
Strategy Strategy cumulative process Positioning/
Strategic evolution/ alignment/ Production
content process capabilities choice
types
RBV
fit
change consensus theory
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
Data
collection/
analysis
Sample
size
Survey
Survey
Plenary address
64
15
n/a
ⴱ
Survey
Survey
526
149
ⴱ
Survey
Conceptual
Review
Conceptual
Review
Conceptual
Review
Conceptual
Review
Conceptual
Review
Case Study
Case Study
Survey
Case Study
Survey
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
Skinner (1996a)
ⴱ
Skinner (1996b)
ⴱ
Hayes & Pisano (1996)
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
Clark (1996)
Wheelwright & Bowen
(1996)
Voss & Winch (1996)
Benningson (1996)
Gupta & Somers (1996)
Pesch & Schroeder (1996)
Gupta and Lonial (1998)
Brush, Maritan, Karnani
(1999)
Bordoloi, Cooper and Matsuo
(1999)
Ritzman & Safizadeh (1999)
Safizadeh, Ritzman & Mallick
(2000)
Pagell & Handfield (2000)
Sousa & Voss (2001)
Dostaler (2001)
Boyer & Lewis (2002)
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
Hayes (2002)
Heim & Sinha (2002)
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
Ramdas (2003)
Jack & Raturi (2003)
Lapre & Scudder (2004)
Rosenzweig & Roth (2004)
Anand & Ward (2004)
Total (n)
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
29
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
in prior operations strategy reviews (see e.g., Leong,
Snyder, and Ward 1990; Swink and Way 1995). Content-focused research refers to the study of operations
competitive priorities and capabilities as well as structural (e.g., capacity, technology) and infrastructural
(e.g., workforce) choices and configurations. While
structural choices refer to “bricks-and-mortar” decisions, infrastructural choices capture the policies and
systems for managing the structural components
(Hayes and Wheelwright 1984). Process-focused re-
6
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
6
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
12
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
8
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
4
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
ⴱ
12
8
8
ⴱ
5
65
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
15
1
269
24
175
Survey
Review and IP
Model
Survey
167
Survey
Case Study
Case Study
Case Study
Survey
Conceptual
Review
Archival Data
Conceptual
Framework
Archival Data
Archival Data
Survey
Survey
144
50
5
2
110
n/a
144
n/a
255
n/a
550
76
81
101
search refers to the study of strategy decision-making
and development, communication of strategic decisions within the organization, and strategy implementation. As shown in Table 1, strategy content research
has received substantial attention in the POMS literature. While relatively less emphasis has been placed
on the study of strategy process, it is particularly
important that work has been done in this area over
the last decade, given earlier calls for research on
strategy processes (Anderson, Cleveland and Schroe-
444
Boyer, Swink, and Rosenzweig: Operations Strategy Research in the POMS Journal
Production and Operations Management 14(4), pp. 442– 449, © 2005 Production and Operations Management Society
der 1989; Leong, Snyder, and Ward 1990; Swink and
Way 1995).
2.2. Theoretical Perspectives
Many researchers have highlighted the importance of
identifying and clarifying operations management
(OM) theories; they argue that theoretical development has been lacking and is necessary in order for the
field to progress (Amundson 1998; Melnyk and Handfield 1998; Schmenner and Swink 1999). As we reviewed the thirty-one articles, a variety of theoretical
perspectives became evident. Skinner’s (1969, 1974)
seminal articles articulate some of the foundational
concepts of operations strategy. Probably the most
important and central concern raised in his articles is
the need to “link” manufacturing structural and infrastructural decisions with overall business plans, and
thus guide business by building capabilities essential
to the formulation and achievement of the firm’s overall strategy. Several of the theoretical perspectives represented in the POMS operations strategy articles address this central concern.
For example, about one-third of the articles deal
with trade-offs among competitive priorities/capabilities such as quality, delivery, flexibility, and cost at the
plant and/or business unit level. This has been a
major area of debate between the supporters of the
proposition that trade-offs are necessary (Bennigson
1996; Boyer and Lewis 2002; Hayes and Wheelwright
1984; Safizadeh, et al. 2000; Skinner 1969; 1996a) versus supporters of a cumulative capabilities model specifying that capabilities can be complementary and
built simultaneously over time (Corbett and Van Wassenhove 1993; Ferdows and De Meyer 1990; Noble
1995; Rosenzweig and Roth 2004).
A related perspective is strategic/process choice,
which reflects the pattern of choices comprising the
operating system; articles classified in this category
examine multiple structural and infrastructural decision areas. Of the various strategic decision areas,
process choice appears to be the most commonly studied area in the POMS journal (see e.g., Ritzman and
Safizadeh 1999; Safizadeh, Ritzman, and Mallick
2000). Fundamental technological and market-based
factors are thought to constrain operations managers
to certain structural and infrastructural configurations.
Studies of how these strategic configurations might
relate to one another in an overall competitive space
address the relative positioning of various operational
types, or groups of organizations that are similar in
terms of their strategy, and supporting pattern of
structural and infrastructural choices (e.g., Lefebvre et
al. 1992; McDougall et al. 1992; Zahra and Das 1993).
Several POMS studies have sought to empirically un-
cover or verify the existence of certain theoreticallygrounded configurations and to establish their relationship to performance (e.g., Heim and Sinha 2002).
Along these lines, POMS researchers also draw
upon the resourced-based view of the firm (RBV) to link
resources and organizational capabilities to performance (Rosenzweig and Roth 2004; Vickery et al.
1994). This theoretical perspective, grounded in the
strategic management literature, suggests that competitive advantage results from the extent to which the
firm’s set of assets, processes, knowledge, etc., are
valuable, rare, and difficult to imitate or substitute
(Barney 1991).
For other articles in the POMS set, more of an emphasis is placed on theories related to strategic fit (e.g.,
Anand and Ward 2004; Gupta and Lonial 1998; Gupta
and Somers 1996; Pesch and Schroeder 1996; Skinner
1996a, 1996b). Finding its roots in contingency theory,
this perspective indicates that certain operations management strategic configurations/forms are more or
less appropriate for certain business competitive strategies and environmental contexts (e.g., dynamic environment).
All of the theoretical perspectives discussed thus far
tend to view operations strategy at relatively high
organizational levels, comprising many structural and
infrastructural decision areas. They also tend to view
strategy as a fairly mechanical process in which managers with extensive rationality seek to make appropriate linkages between strategy, structure, and performance. Other articles in the POMS operations
strategy research stream take a more behavioral view.
For example, several POMS studies focus on strategic
evolution. In this theoretical perspective, researchers
are interested in examining how organizations change
over time, and how they move from one state to
another (e.g., Clark 1996; Hayes and Pisano 1996; Lapre and Scudder 2004; Wheelwright and Bowen 1996).
Much of the research in this area is based on the
premise that operations strategy is path dependent:
the pattern of structural and infrastructural choices
made by firms today constrains their choice of future
strategic alternatives (Clark 1996; Hayes and Pisano
1996). Yet this perspective can differ from fairly rational views of strategy development processes, with the
recognition that evolution may be “guided” by factors
that go beyond clear strategic choices, such as the rate
at which the organization learns or the influence of a
top manager who has his/her own personal agenda.
With a few notable exceptions (e.g., Dostaler 2001;
Lapre and Scudder 2004), research in this area is primarily conceptual in nature; there is a strong need to
empirically examine dynamic models of operations
strategy.
Another behavioral point of view is that of goal
Boyer, Swink, and Rosenzweig: Operations Strategy Research in the POMS Journal
Production and Operations Management 14(4), pp. 442– 449, © 2005 Production and Operations Management Society
alignment/consensus among different decision makers
within or between organizations (Hayes 1992; St. John
and Young 1992; Voss and Winch 1996). This stream of
research examines the need for numerous people
within a single organization to work in concert to
achieve strategic objectives—a critical need since operations, more so than other areas such as finance or
marketing—requires the inputs of a large proportion
of the organization.
A final area of strategy research evidenced in the
POMS articles deals with what we term production
theory. These studies tend to be more focused on a
single aspect of strategy or performance, such as product variety management (e.g., Ramdas 2003) or flexibility (e.g., Jack and Raturi 2003). Furthermore, their
primary objectives are to explore or explain the technological bounds and complexities governing the application of a given approach or management paradigm. Some of these studies (e.g., Jack and Raturi
2003) are highly rational or mechanistic in their view
of operations, which we refer to as the technical/mechanistic view of production theory. Other studies (e.g.,
Pagell and Handfield 2000) employ more of a sociotechnical view that incorporates human and organizational behavioral issues associated with the adoption
or success of a given operational program.
To summarize the existing POMS operations strategy literature, we offer a framework in Figure 1 that
maps the various theoretical perspectives on two major dimensions: (1) scope of inquiry employed in the
research; and (2) the researcher’s assumptions about
choice processes. The scope of inquiry dimension enables us to position the POMS operations strategy
papers in terms of the level at which the research
questions are addressed/studied. For example, several of the POMS studies deal with structural and
infrastructural patterns of aggregate decisions at a
high organizational level (e.g., Lefebvre et al. 1992;
McDougall et al. 1992; Vickery et al. 1994), while others focus on specific paradigmatic initiatives and their
relationships to operations strategy or competitiveness (e.g., Brush, et al. 1999; Sousa and Voss 2001). As
depicted in Figure 1, the majority of the POMS operations strategy papers draw upon theoretical perspectives that enable a more holistic or aggregated scope of
inquiry.
Our second classification dimension—assumptions
about choice processes—is derived from a recent review of the business strategy literature (see Gavetti
and Levinthal 2004). Like the field of business strategy, the collection of POMS operations strategy papers
is characterized by much variation in the “researchers’
assumptions about the nature of individual choice
behavior” (Gavetti and Levinthal 2004, 1309). Researchers’ views vary from those characterizing the
Figure 1
445
Mapping Theoretical Perspectives of POMS Operations Strategy Research.
(NOTE: The number of papers assigned to each theoretical perspective corresponds to the assignments listed in Table 1. Note that papers could be assigned
to more than one perspective.)
behavior of decision makers as being extensively rational and comprehensive to those that view decision
makers’ rationality as being bounded or local at best,
thereby acknowledging the potential irrationality of
decision makers. As suggested by the foregoing discussion, “behavioral” in this case refers to research
perspectives that consider either the highly bounded
rationality of individual decision makers, or the sociological and political aspects of managerial decisionmaking. In addition, studies we classify as taking a
more behavioral view recognize that managers act
upon their perceptions, which may or may not be
accurate reflections of reality. Figure 1 indicates that
POMS strategy research has a fairly strong bias toward viewing operations strategy as a highly rational
process. This seems consistent with the training of OM
researchers and their inclination toward a view of
organizations as a collection of “processes.” Nonetheless, a few of the studies bring greater attention to
“human” behavioral issues (e.g., Dostaler 2001).
2.3. Methodology
As noted previously, Table 1 also contains columns
showing the primary method of data collection
and/or analysis used in each study as well as the
sample size (when relevant). To quickly summarize,
approximately half of the POMS operations strategy
papers employ survey research designs. Of those papers, Table 1 shows that sample sizes have generally
increased over the past decade, which is likely a result
of an increasing emphasis on eliminating potential
sources of bias. The remaining papers comprising Table 1 are predominantly categorized as conceptual
Boyer, Swink, and Rosenzweig: Operations Strategy Research in the POMS Journal
446
Production and Operations Management 14(4), pp. 442– 449, © 2005 Production and Operations Management Society
reviews/frameworks and case studies, yet over time, a
broader variety of methodologies has gradually been
utilized. Heim and Sinha (2002), Jack and Raturi
(2003), and Lapre and Scudder (2004), for example,
use archival data to investigate their research questions. While there is a general lack of readily available,
reliable data in many industries, identifying alternative, innovative sources of data is becomingly increasingly important as survey response rates continue to
decline (Klassen and Jacobs 2001; Lapre and Scudder
2004). Finally, we should also note that several studies
have focused on measurement issues, especially for
ill-defined multidimensional constructs such as factory focus and flexibility (Pesch and Schroeder 1996;
Bordoloi et al. 1999; Jack and Raturi 2003).
3.
Future Directions
Having briefly reviewed the literature, we now offer
some future directions for research. These are based
on our review of the literature and numerous discussions with colleagues in the area. Our intent is to offer
broad suggestions as opposed to an exhaustive list of
opportunities. We start with a discussion of research
opportunities in the broad domain of operations strategy and then hone in on opportunities tied to Figure 1.
3.1. A Broader View of Strategy
Historically, the bulk of operations strategy papers
have focused primarily on manufacturing strategy.
While there have been numerous calls for broaderbased research, particularly on services and on supply
chain as an inter-organizational system, there is still a
relative paucity of studies in these areas.
Service organizations currently comprise a large
proportion of the economies of developed nations.
Moreover, as more manufacturing firms try to differentiate themselves based on the services they offer in
addition to the tangible products, it becomes increasingly important to examine service strategy. Yet of the
collection of POMS operations strategy papers, only
three explicitly address service strategy (Hayes 2002;
Heim and Sinha 2002; Lapre and Scudder 2004). Suggested topics for examination include strategic linkages between back office and front office activities, the
use of IT systems to provide greater capabilities to
customers and to reduce workload, and the strategic
use of technology in services.
In addition to this increased emphasis on service
operations, we have also witnessed a surge in interest
in supply chain management over the past decade.
While a great deal of supply chain research has been
generated, a unified framework for defining supply
chain strategy has not emerged. Assuming operations
strategy is a subset of overall supply chain strategy,
research is needed to explain how and when to ex-
trapolate from the former to the latter. Giffi, Roth, and
Seal (1990), for example, add a set of integration strategy choices to the structural and infrastructural decision areas; these additional choices help define how
operations strategically interfaces with both internal
(e.g., marketing, R&D) and external (e.g., suppliers,
customers) entities. Along these lines, Hayes (2002, 28)
suggests that the domain of operations must transition
from “products and processes” to “systems of complementary products provided through networks by
different organizations.” As a starting point, more
studies of operations strategy should extend beyond
the manufacturing plant to encompass networks of
plants within the strategic business unit (SBU), and
ultimately networks that span multiple firms across
the supply chain. Specific questions that need to be
investigated at these higher organizational levels include: How should supply chain strategy be defined?
Is it simply an expansion/re-working of existing operations strategy principles, or do we need an entirely
new framework? Related questions include: How do
supply chain partners cooperate in jointly developing
a strategy— or should they? How do adversarial and
cooperative supply chain strategies differ? Finally, are
their major drivers of supply chain management, i.e.,
dominant organizations?
3.2. Resource-Based View
The RBV model provides a solid theoretical foundation for understanding the role operations strategy can
play in creating and sustaining a competitive advantage. Assembling, integrating, and deploying synergistic tangible (e.g., IT infrastructure) and intangible
(e.g., technical know-how) resources may serve as
sources of competitive advantage in the form of operations-based capabilities like delivery speed or process flexibility (Bharadwaj 2000). We suggest operations strategy researchers apply this theoretical
perspective to two critical areas for future research:
the technology/strategy interface and process innovation management.
Much of the OM technology-oriented research has
focused on antecedents to technology (mostly AMT)
adoption and performance benefits. However, there
has been less study that takes a broader view of technology as a strategy enabler. For example, the impact
of information technology on business over the last 20
years is undeniable, yet true strategic benefits have
been difficult to quantify (Brynjolffson 1993). The rush
to implement the newest and “best” software/hardware often occurs without much strategic thought,
particularly at the supply chain level. As a result, there
is a strong need for operations strategy researchers to
examine the roles and impacts of technology and related, supporting resources in operations through a
Boyer, Swink, and Rosenzweig: Operations Strategy Research in the POMS Journal
Production and Operations Management 14(4), pp. 442– 449, © 2005 Production and Operations Management Society
more strategic lens. The information systems (IS) literature may serve as a guide, as many researchers in
this field draw upon the RBV to link IS strategy to
operational and business performance (see e.g.,
Bharadwaj 2000).
Key OM technology/strategy interface questions
that need to be addressed concern the relationship
between various competitive priorities and IT applications. For example, numerous companies have employed online ordering or automated telephone systems as a means of lowering cost (fewer call center
operators translates to lower cost). However, this savings may come at some price in terms of quality if
frustrated customers feel lost in the process. Another
key question involves matching IT systems across departments, business units, and supply chains: How
should companies use strategy and particular technologies to maximize performance for the entire organization or supply chain rather than individual departments/units?
Along these lines, we anticipate that information
and communication technologies (ICT) will play an
increasingly prominent role in the study of operations
strategy—as real-time information becomes more
readily available and coordination costs continue to
decrease, organizations will rely on supply chain partners to a greater extent to conduct non-core business
processes. Important research questions in this context
include: Which business processes should be outsourced today, and which should be kept in-house?
Clearly those business processes that are valuable,
rare, and difficult to imitate should be retained inhouse. Of the outsourced business processes, which
should be located domestically and which should be
located offshore? How will these decisions change
over time?
Drilling down on business processes further, process innovation has received much less research
attention than product innovation across all business literatures. However, due to recent competitive
threats from firms in countries with lower input
costs, process innovation is today a potentially important and strategic source of advantage for manufacturing firms located in more industrialized nations. To date, most existing OM research has
tended to view operational process innovation as a
matter of incremental changes and “continuous improvement.” There is a need to define and study
more radical forms of process innovation in operations settings. Further, we need to study process
innovation as a manageable portfolio of synergistic
resources that work together to create a dynamic
capability with strategic potential.
447
3.3. Strategic Evolution/Change
Strategic evolution addresses the question of how
companies change operations strategy over time.
Clearly there is some incremental change, but there
are also substantial questions regarding how companies make dramatic or non-incremental changes. Numerous companies and industries are facing or have
faced a need to make such changes. Examples include
the airline industry (where major carriers are trying to
move toward the Southwest model), the automobile
industry (where American car manufacturers have
been struggling to re-invent themselves for two decades) and the computer industry (where Dell has
created a direct model which rivals have not been able
to successfully copy). Critical questions to be addressed in this area include: How should companies
recognize when they are due for a “non-incremental”
change of strategy? How should this strategy be pursued? Research on strategic evolution should seek to
examine a few companies in depth over a long period
of time in order to document and analyze evolutionary patterns. Operations strategy research in this area
would also benefit from an integration of views articulated in industrial organization and business strategy
research literatures (e.g., population ecology—Carroll
1988).
3.4. Goal Alignment/Consensus
The need for alignment is implicit in almost every
study of operations strategy, but has received relatively little explicit examination. Due to an overly
rational view of strategic processes, most research
studies assume that a company with an appropriate
strategy in terms of content and process is well positioned for success, but in truth operational decisions
are made with such great frequency by such a large
number of individuals within an organization that
there is often a high-degree of misalignment. Research
needs to be done to address how various groups
within a company can be better aligned internally, as
well as how external alignment with supply chain
partners can be achieved. There are also substantial
issues regarding the level of analysis for alignment.
For example, traditional competitive priorities of cost,
quality, flexibility and delivery can be broadly
aligned, yet this may not translate to detailed alignment of specific metrics within each area. In short,
there is a strong need to examine alignment by studying multiple respondents within a single organization
or supply chain. Furthermore, this sort of study needs
to consider behavioral elements of decision processes.
For example, social, political and other motivations
need to be explicitly considered as possible sources of
alignment/misalignment.
448
Boyer, Swink, and Rosenzweig: Operations Strategy Research in the POMS Journal
Production and Operations Management 14(4), pp. 442– 449, © 2005 Production and Operations Management Society
3.5. Production Theory
Like goal alignment, future production theory studies
would benefit from a consideration of the behavioral
elements of decision processes. Further, while not explicitly captured in the POMS operations strategy research space, a large literature within the overall OM
research field focuses on production theory and specifically the description and impact of “practice paradigms.” Example practice paradigms include total
quality management, six-sigma, and lean manufacturing. While the impacts of these approaches on manufacturing practice and performance are clearly significant, the implications for operations strategy are not
well understood. Are practice paradigms strategic?
What are the implications for positioning and strategic
fit theories? Future research studies need to clarify the
boundaries of operations strategy and its relationship
to specific practice programs and initiatives.
3.6. Summary
We offer these ideas as a starting point for further
thought and discussion regarding directions for future
research of operations strategy. Overall, operations
strategy continues to be rich area, offering many complex questions that are ripe for research.
Acknowledgments
We thank the referees and the Editor-in-Chief for their valuable comments, which have considerably improved the paper.
References
Amundson, S. D. 1998. Relationships between theory-driven empirical research in Operations Management and other disciplines.
Journal of Operations Management 16(4) 341–359.
Anand, G., P. Ward. 2004. Fit, flexibility and performance in manufacturing: Coping with dynamic environments. Production and
Operations Management 13(4) 369 –385.
Anderson, J. C., G. Cleveland, R. Schroeder. 1989. Operations strategy: A literature review. Journal of Operations Management 8(2)
133–158.
Anthony, R. N. 1965. Planning and control systems: A framework for
analysis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17(1) 99 –120.
Bennigson, L. A. 1996. Changing manufacturing strategy. Production
and Operations Management 5(1) 91–102.
Bharadwaj, A. S. 2000. A resource-based perspective on information
technology capability and firm performance: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly 24(1) 169 –196.
Brush, T. H., C. A. Maritan, A. Karnani. 1999. The plant location
decision in multinational manufacturing firms: An empirical
analysis of international business and manufacturing strategy
perspectives. Production and Operations Management 8(2) 109 –
132.
Brynjolffson, E. 1993. The productivity paradox of information technology. Communications of the ACM 36(12) 67–77.
Bordoloi, S. K., W. W. Cooper, H. Matsuo. 1999. Flexibility, adaptability, and efficiency in manufacturing systems. Production and
Operations Management 8(2) 133–150.
Boyer, K. K., M. W. Lewis. 2002. Competitive priorities: Investigating the need for trade-offs in operations strategy. Production and
Operations Management 11(1) 9 –20.
Carroll, G. 1988. Ecological models of organizations. Ballanger Books,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Clark, K. B. 1996. Competing through manufacturing and the new
manufacturing paradigm: Is manufacturing strategy passe?
Production and Operations Management 5(1) 42–58.
Corbett, C., L. van Wassenhove. 1993. Trade-offs? What trade-offs?
Competence and competitiveness in manufacturing strategy.
California Management Review 35(4) 107–122.
Dostaler, I. 2001. Beyond practices: A qualitative inquiry into high
performance electronics assembly. Production and Operations
Management 10(4) 478 – 493.
Ferdows, K., A. De Meyer. 1990. Lasting improvements in manufacturing performance: In search of a new theory. Journal of
Operations Management 9(2) 168 –184.
Gavetti, G., D. A. Levinthal. 2004. The strategy field from the perspective of Management Science: Divergent strands and possible
integration. Management Science 50(10) 1309 –1318.
Giffi, C., A. V. Roth, G. M. Seal. 1990. Competing in world-class
manufacturing: America’s 21st century challenge. Richard D. Irwin,
Inc., Homewood, Illinois.
Gupta, Y. P., T. M. Somers. 1996. Business strategy, manufacturing
flexibility, and organizational performance relationships: A
path analysis approach. Production and Operations Management
5(3) 204 –233.
Gupta, Y. P., S. C. Lonial. 1998. Exploring linkages between manufacturing strategy, business strategy, and organizational strategy. Production and Operations Management 7(3) 243–264.
Hayes, R. H., S. C. Wheelwright. 1984. Restoring Our Competitive
ed.ge: Competing Through Manufacturing. John Wiley and Sons,
New York, New York.
Hayes, R. H. 1992. Production and operations management’s new
requisite variety. Production and Operations Management 1(3)
249 –253.
Hayes, R. H., G. P. Pisano. 1996. Manufacturing strategy: At the
intersection of two paradigm shifts. Production and Operations
Management 5(1) 25– 41.
Hayes, R. H. 2002. Challenges posed to Operations Management by
the “new economy.” Production and Operations Management
11(1) 21–32.
Heim, G. R., K. K. Sinha. 2002. Service process configurations in
electronic retailing: A taxonomic analysis of electronic food
retailers. Production and Operations Management 11(1) 54 –74.
Jack, E. P., A. S. Raturi. 2003. Measuring and comparing volume
flexibility in the capital goods industry. Production and Operations Management 12(4) 480 –501.
Klassen, R., J. Jacobs. 2001. Experimental comparison of web, electronic and mail survey technologies in Operations Management. Journal of Operations Management 19(6) 713–728.
Kriimer, F. J., M. E. Hafsi, S. X. Bai. 1997. Production flow control for
a manufacturing system with flexible routings. Production and
Operations Management 6(1) 37–56.
Lapre, M. A., G. D. Scudder. 2004. Performance improvement paths
in the U.S. airline industry: Linking trade-offs to asset frontiers.
Production and Operations Management 13(2) 123–134.
Lefebvre, L.A., A. Langley, J. Harvey, E. Lefebvre. 1992. Exploring
the strategy-technology connection in small manufacturing
firms. Production and Operations Management 1(3) 269 –285.
Leong, G. K., D. Snyder, P. Ward. 1990. Research in the process and
content of manufacturing strategy. Omega 18(2) 109 –122.
McDougall, P. P., R. H. Deane, D. E. D’Souza. 1992. Manufacturing
strategy and business origin of new venture firms in the com-
Boyer, Swink, and Rosenzweig: Operations Strategy Research in the POMS Journal
Production and Operations Management 14(4), pp. 442– 449, © 2005 Production and Operations Management Society
puter and communications equipment industries. Production
and Operations Management 1(1) 53– 69.
Melnyk, S. A., R. B. Handfield. 1998. May you live in interesting
times . . . The emergence of theory-driven empirical research.
Journal of Operations Management 16(4) 311–319.
Noble, M. A. 1995. Manufacturing strategy: Testing the cumulative
model in a multiple country context. Decision Sciences 26(5)
693–721.
Pagell, M., R. Handfield. 2000. The impact of unions on operations
strategy. Production and Operations Management 9(2) 141–157.
Pesch, M. J., R. G. Schroeder. 1996. Measuring factory focus: An
empirical study. Production and Operations Management 5(3)
234 –254.
Ramdas, K. 2003. Managing product variety: An integrative review
and research directions. Production and Operations Management
12(1) 79 –101.
Ritzman, L. P., H. H. Safizadeh. 1999. Linking process choice with
plant-level decisions about capital and human resources. Production and Operations Management 8(4) 374 –392.
Rosenzweig, E. D., A.V. Roth. 2004. Towards a theory of competitive
progression: Evidence from high-tech manufacturing. Production and Operations Management 13(4) 354 –368.
Safizadeh, H. H., L. P. Ritzman, D. Mallick. 2000. Revisiting alternative theoretical paradigms in manufacturing strategy. Production and Operations Management 9(2) 111–140.
Schendel, D., C. W. Hofer. 1979. Strategic management: A new view of
business policy and planning. Little Brown, Boston, Massachusetts.
Schmenner, R., M. Swink. 1999. On theory in Operations Management. Journal of Operations Management 17(1) 97–113.
449
Skinner, W. 1969. Manufacturing: Missing link in corporate strategy.
Harvard Business Review 47(3) 136 –145.
Skinner, W. 1996a. Manufacturing strategy on the ‘S’ curve. Production and Operations Management 5(1) 3–14.
Skinner, W. 1996b. Three yards and a cloud of dust: Industrial
management at century end. Production and Operations Management 5(1) 15–24.
Sousa, R., C. A. Voss. 2001. Quality management: Universal or context
dependent. Production and Operations Management 10(4) 383– 404.
St. John, C. H., S. T. Young. 1992. An exploratory study of patterns
of priorities and trade-offs among operations managers. Production and Operations Management 1(2) 133–150.
Swamidass, P. M. 1986. Manufacturing strategy: Its assessment and
practice. Journal of Operations Management 6(4) 471– 484.
Swink, M., M. Way. 1995. Manufacturing strategy: Propositions,
current research, renewed directions. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management 15(7) 4 –26.
Vickery, S. K., C. Droge, R. E. Markland. 1994. Strategic production
competence: Convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.
Production and Operations Management 3(4) 308 –318.
Voss, C. A., G. W. Winch. 1996. Including engineering in operations
strategy. Production and Operations Management 5(1) 78 –90.
Wheelwright, S. C., H. K. Bowen. 1996. The challenge of manufacturing advantage. Production and Operations Management 5(1)
59 –77.
Zahra, S.A., S. R. Das. 1993. Innovation strategy and financial performance in manufacturing companies: An empirical study.
Production and Operations Management 2(1) 15–37.