Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 118

Introduction: 20th Anniversary of JOM:

an editorial retrospective and prospective
20th Anniversary of JOM: and editorial retrospective and prospective
This issue marks the beginning of Vol. 20 of the
Journal of Operations Management (JOM), though it
has been more than 20 years since it began publication
in August 1980 under the brave editorship of Lee Krajewski. As most operations management (OM) faculty
are aware, there were a few times when JOM looked
like it might not survive, due to lack of funds and sponsorship commitments by both societies and deans. But
it did survive, due to the efforts and tenacity of a few
dedicated people in our field, and it is now recognized
as being among the elite group of top 20 US business
journals, joining the ranks of Management Science in
quantitative methods, Strategic Management Journal
in strategy/policy, Journal of Marketing Research in
marketing, Journal of Finance in finance, Academy
of Management Journal in management, Accounting
Review in accounting, and such eminent others (see
Table 1 in Academy of Management Journal 43 (6)
(2000) 11301141).
On such an historic occasion, I thought it would
be interesting to see what the previous editors now
thought about the field and its development over the
years, as well as research and publication in our field,
especially in JOM. I, thus, got in touch with as many
of the previous editors as I could, as well as the next
editor (Rob Handfield, North Carolina State University), to see if they would contribute their wisdom to
this joint editorial. Although I could not get input from
them all, I did get some very worthwhile comments,
which I share with you here.
First, however, let me review who the editors
and early associate editors have been over the last
20 volumes. As noted, Lee Krajewski at Ohio
State University was the initial editor for Vol. 1 in

1980, with the following associate editors: Vince

Mabert, Jack Meredith, Ken Ramsing, Larry Ritzman,
Randall Schuler, and Earle Steinberg. Lee continued
as editor until Vol. 3, No. 3 in May 1983 when Earle
Steinberg at the University of Houston took over,
with new associate editors D. Clay Whybark and
Roger Schroeder. After about a year, Earle joined
Touche Ross & Co., but stayed on as editor through
Vol. 7, No. 2 in October 1987. During a prolonged
editor-search hiatus, Lee stepped back in, along with
Gene Woolsey as co-editor, to publish Nos. 3 and 4
of Vol. 7, getting that combined issue out a year later,
in December 1988, and then Vol. 8, No. 1 in January 1989. At that point, Ron Ebert at University of
Missouri, Columbia took over as editor, with Paul M.
Swamidass as associate editor, publishing the second
issue of Vol. 8 in April 1989. Ron continued as editor
through Vol. 10, No. 4 in October 1991.
After Ron, Art Hill and Tom Hoffmann at the University of Minnesota helped JOM get on more financially solid ground by arranging for Elsevier Science
Publishers to take over the publication of the journal
starting with Vol. 11 in March 1993. Tom and Art also
appointed a large set of associate editors to help them
in their editorial duties: R.D. Banker, W.L. Berry, K.A.
Brown, A. DeMeyer, J.A. Fitzsimmons, J.R. Freeland,
J. Jaikumar, S. Kekre, R.E. Markland, J.R. Meredith, R. Narasimhan, L.P. Ritzman, W. Robinson, A.V.
Roth, D.A. Samson, G.D. Scudder, and F.B. Talbot.
They also appointed an impressive editorial advisory
board consisting of 53 well-known eminent OM scholars. Tom and Art finished their editorial turn at the end
of Vol. 12 in June 1995.
With the solid footing given to the publishing
activities (e.g. finances, printing, subscription correspondence, production, shipping) of JOM by Elsevier,

0272-6963/02/$ see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Introduction / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 118

thanks to Tom and Art, my duties were mainly limited to editorial direction, with occasional promotion.
I largely continued the associate editors and advisors
I inherited from Tom and Art, making minor changes
over the years as circumstances dictated. Also, Art
continued his involvement with JOM for a few more
years as our Tutorials Editor. The first issue of Vol.
13 appeared in July 1995 and my contract with Elsevier was originally scheduled to terminate in January
2000. However, I was asked by Elsevier to continue
for two more years, and agreed, so now my final issue
(of papers I processed) will be Vol. 20, No. 6 at the
end of 2002. However, Rob Handfield will start taking
all new submissions starting this January, so 2002 is
a transition year for both of us. Adopting Robs new
policy of requiring that paper revisions be completed
within a year, I will continue to handle the revisions
of papers I processed until the end of 2002.
We start with the past, our first editor, Lee Krajewski, and finish with Rob Handfield, our future editor
for a prospective on what is in store for JOM.
J. Meredith
Babcock Graduate School of Management
Wake Forest University, P.O. Box 7659,
3109 Worrell Professional Center, Winston-Salem
NC 27109, USA
Tel.: +1-336-758-4467; fax: +1-336-758-4514
PII:S0272-6963(01)00082-1

Reflections on operations management research

Abstract
It has been more than 18 years since I stepped down as
the founding editor of the Journal of Operations Management (JOM). I recall the feelingbittersweet, but mostly
sweet. Now we commemorate Jack Merediths retirement
as the editor of JOM. Jack has done a great service to the
profession while editor of JOM. I am sure that he has similar feelings of reluctance to turn over the reins and let the
parade pass, however, I am also sure that he joins me in
expressing confidence that Rob Handfield will do an outstanding job as the new editor.
The first issue of JOM came out in August 1980. As
expressed in my inaugural editorial, the Journal was to satisfy three basic needs: (1) enhancement of interdisciplinary

research, (2) encouragement of research into real problems

faced by operations managers, and (3) put the word management back into operations management. What prompted
the American Production and Inventory Control Society
(APICS) to sponsor a journal devoted to addressing those
three needs? The answer requires a brief review of history. What follows is my interpretation of various events in
our past that, no doubt, are jaded by own experiences and
opinions.

1. The beginning
In the 1950s, our profession was highly descriptive in nature, building upon the early works of Adam
Smith, Charles Babbage, and Frederick Taylor (Buffa,
1980). The field of operations management as defined
by the early textbooks was also broad. Text titles often used the words industrial management and the
contents included chapters on personnel management,
finance, marketing, organization, and general management. Research was limited to time and motion studies, plant layout, simple EOQ models, and descriptive
reports of how production systems actually worked.
In the 1960s, a major change took place in our
profession. As Buffa (1980) puts it, the savior that
rescued the field from extinction was the development of Management Science/Operations Research
(MS/OR). It provided the scientific methodology that
opened the door to a more rigorous attack on research issues, and it provided us with researchable
topics for many years to come. The tools were powerful but the models often exceeded our capability to
solve them. Nonetheless, we found ingenious ways to
solve complicated problems by devising heuristics or
by boiling down a non-linear equation into a set of
simple-to-calculate linear rules. We were enamored
by the potential for these tools and sought to solve all
of production managements problems with them.
2. A revelation
In the 1970s, we received a wake-up call. Armed
with the MS/OR tools, we sought tractable problems that the tools could solve. We shied away from
problems with messy behavioral implications: our solutions were exact and our objective functions were
clearoften to minimize costs. We built upon other

Introduction / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 118

models reported in the literature, often providing minor advantages in problem scope or solution speed.
In our drive to conduct academically respectable research we lost touch with reality. The wake-up call
came when state legislatures and other constituents
of business schools demanded relevancy in what we
taught in our classes and what we were giving back to
the practicing community by way of useful research
findings. We found ourselves in a position where our
research experiences and what we taught in the classroom (except perhaps in Ph.D. programs) were on divergent paths. We did not have a good idea of what
was happening in the real world, and many of us did
not care. In fact, Management Science had two series:
theory and applications. In the minds of many, publishing a paper in the Theory series was better than publishing one in the Applications series. The image of
doing academic research became one of donning a lab
coat and performing research in a sterile environment,
using high-powered mathematics to uncover truth in
well-defined solution spaces. In this time frame, many
solutions were generated for trivial problems (in a
mangers mind).
It was in the decade of the 1970s that the field had
an identity crisis. Some might argue that it still does.
Nonetheless, operations research was getting some
bad press because of the issue of relevancy, even
though major contributions to society were made in
several areas, including military logistics and airline
scheduling. We tried to distinguish between operations management, which addresses the operating
problems of managers who are responsible for the
direction and control of the processes that transform
inputs into products and services (Krajewski and
Ritzman, 2001), and operations research, which provides rational bases for decision-making by seeking to
understand and structure complex situations and to use
this understanding (often through the use of analytical
and numerical techniques) to predict system behavior
and improve system performance (Informs Online, 21
September 2001). Many of the problems addressed by
operations researchers are in the same domain as those
addressed by operation management researchers. The
distinction between the two areas of interest is often
blurry in the eyes of managers and academics in other
areas of interest. I must confess that sometimes I need
to rub my eyes a little, too. When it comes to research,
the two interest areas are inextricably entwined, as

they should be. Operations management needs an arsenal of tools to analyze significant operating problems.
2.1. Another beginning
The pressures from constituents to be relevant in
our teachings and the pressures to publish academically respectable research studies forced the field
to take a hard look at what it was doing. Our roots
came from the rigorous discipline of MS/OR and a
decision-making orientation, but our future was in
expanding our knowledge of real operations issues
and embracing new methodologies. We needed a respectable publication outlet for research that was not
only academically sound, but focused on real operations issues. We were fortunate that APICS stepped
up to the plate and provided the resources and support for introducing a new journal in the field at a
time when a number of respectable outlets were already well established. None of them were addressing
the needs in my inaugural editorial that I alluded to
earlier. Bill Lee, then at the University of Houston
and a member of the Academic Liaison Committee
of APICS, and Gary Landis, then president-elect of
APICS, were instrumental in establishing the financial
foundations for the new journal. Along with Bill and
Gary, Elwood Buffa, Jeff Miller, and Gerry Strickland
were members of the Editorial Policy Board. After I
was appointed the editor, I invited Vince Mabert, Jack
Meredith (the same one who is now retiring as editor), Ken Ramsing, Larry Ritzman, Randall Schuler,
and Earle Steinberg (who became editor after my
term ended) to join the first team of associate editors. Together we marched forward, and Journal of
Operations Management (JOM) was born in August
1980.
The 1980s saw the field of operations management
develop into an exciting area in which to do research,
with JOM at the forefront. In the first issue, Buffa
(1980) reminded us that we did not know very much
about the way subsystems in operations, such as inventory, scheduling, aggregate planning, quality, and
planning and control, relate to each other. He encouraged us to focus more on strategic planning, positioning strategy, location choice, and subsystem linkages
in detailed planning areas, in both manufacturing and
service environments. Dick Chase (1980) noted that
our research to date had been micro oriented and

Introduction / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 118

dominated by a narrow focus on the application of

techniques to problems of scheduling and materials
allocation. He called for us to expand our research to
include global, rather than local, measures of effectiveness, and to look more at the big picture. Perhaps because of these sage thoughts, or maybe also
because the Japanese showed the world how operations can be a competitive weapon, the field embarked
on a body of research that had a significant emphasis on strategy, linkages to operating subsystems and
other functional areas, and the big picture. We discovered new terms to translate market needs into operating capabilities, including competitive priorities,
order winners and qualifiers, organizational priorities
and generic capabilities, production competence, and
service order winners and qualifiers. More effort was
made to be realistic in the research problems addressed (prompted by reviewers and editors, I might
add).
Thinking of operations management issues from the
perspective of their relationships to the entire enterprise saved the field in the 1980s in much the same
way the introduction of MS/OR tools rescued the field
in the 1960s. It enabled us to focus our research efforts
in a way that would be perceived as relevant to outsiders. We expanded the boundaries of traditional OM
problems, addressed new ones, and broadened our objective functions to include more considerations than
just cost. Some operations management researchers
retooled and developed skills in empirical research
methods involving the survey or case methods. The
road was often bumpy as we learned to use methodologies our colleagues in marketing and organizational
behavior had been using for decades. Nonetheless,
over time, we managed to become skillful in empirical research methods and these new approaches were
added to our collective arsenal of tools.
Indeed, there was a ground swell of activity in empirical research that fueled a demand for faculty with
expertise in that avenue of research. This was not unlike the demand in the 1970s for researchers with
MS/OR skills. OM journals, however, were slow to
accept articles reporting empirical research, partly because the authors were not familiar enough with the
research protocols in empirical methods, and partly
because the editors and reviewers consisted mostly
of researchers most comfortable with using MS/OR
tools. Nonetheless, by the end of the 1980s empirical

research had a strong foothold in the research stream

of our field and was making significant contributions.
We had to fully immerse ourselves in what was happening in the business world if we were to make
significant contributions to the academic as well as
practicing communities.

3. Many opportunities
During the latter part of the 1980s and all through
the 1990s the field of operations management was exposed to a host of research opportunities. The growth
of the Internet and the speed of modern computers
enabled expanded access to information and the implementation of methodologies that heretofore were
considered impractical because of lengthy execution times. Beyond the opportunities made available
by the surge in technology, researchers began to attack non-traditional OM problems. For example, a
greater concern for the environment spawned research
efforts into green planning and control systems that
monitor and control industrial waste as well as remanufacturing issues that impact manufacturing processes
and inventories. In addition, the advent of enterprise
resource planning (ERP) systems drove home the need
for operations support systems that recognize information flows from various functional areas; it also created
an interest in discovering the characteristics of firms
that found such systems beneficial and how they were
implemented.
Perhaps the greatest impact on the operations management research stream in this time frame was supply chain management. We realized that what we had
before studied for single firms should now be examined from the perspective of a chain of firms. Material
and information dependencies between firms brought
on a great number of interesting issues ranging from
the strategic level to the operating level. Empirical researchers as well as modelers have worked on issues
in supply chain management and generated many papers on the topic. For example, we have seen studies
relating to flexibility in supply chains, buyersupplier
power, inventory replenishment, and the bull whip effect, just to name a few. Toward the end of the 1990s,
the demand for faculty with research expertise in supply chains and modeling increased significantly. This
decade saw an increase in the appreciation of MS/OR

Introduction / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 118

techniques, largely brought on by the technology explosion.

4. The future
The decade of the 1990s fostered a resurgence of the
importance of operations management in the eyes of
the practitioner. The popular press was full of instances
where Cinderella dot-com companies were failing because they did not match the importance of operations
with that of marketing. As I reflect on the inaugural
editorial and the three needs I mentioned, I do believe
we have made progress. As a field of researchers, we
are indeed more relevant by virtue of the problems we
address. Our thrust into empirical research has helped
in this regard. Further, we have done a better job of
putting the word management back into operations
management.
As for truly interdisciplinary research, I think we
still have a long way to go. We have placed more
effort on expanding the boundaries of our problems
to include other functional areas, but that is not really
interdisciplinary research. My suspicion is that we
could revisit this discussion 10 years from now and
similar conclusions would be drawn. Part of this problem is the way academics tend to align themselves
and publish in the journals their institutions consider
important for tenure and promotion. These journals
are traditionally aligned by functional area and tend
to have difficulty evaluating research that cuts across
those traditional lines. JOM is in a position to foster
this research as a journal, but the hurdles are big.
As a field, operations management should not focus on empirical research only, or MS/OR modeling
only. Neither avenue of research by itself provides
what we need to do. Empirical research is appropriate for understanding what is currently happening in
our field. However, by virtue of the fact that it bases
its findings on current field data, it is limited to what
the practicing community is already doing, which may
not be the best that can be done. We will always be
behind the practicing communitys learning curve if
we stop there. On the other hand, MS/OR modeling
is useful for providing the means for making rational
decisions, however, its findings are often limited to
very stringent conditions that make general applications difficult. Too often the focus is narrow, and the

big picture, so important to operations management,

is not considered.
In my opinion, our focus as a community of researchers should be on decision-making. We should
be working to provide managers with guidance as to
how to make strategic as well as operating decisions
in light of current as well as potential situations in the
future. As academics we should get ahead of current
practice and lead the way for improved, more effective operations in the future, while never losing sight
of what is happening in the business world around
us. This thrust will require linking empirical research
with MS/OR modeling to focus on common problem areasempirical researchers finding out what relationships exist between key variables and modelers
developing decision systems that make use of those
relationships. New empirical as well as MS/OR techniques may have to be developed, but that is what
academicians are good at. Studies using that approach
may require more time and resources, but as a research
community we need to focus efforts on key problems
currently in the practicing community and those problems managers may be concerned about for the future.
As we develop our field, let us not lose sight of our
roots. We need to provide answers when a manager
asks, What should I do?.

References
Buffa, E.S., 1980. Research in operations management. Journal of
Operations Management 1 (1), 17.
Dick Chase, R.B., 1980. A classification and evaluation of research
in operations management. Journal of Operations Management
1 (1), 914.
Krajewski, L.J., Ritzman, L.P, 2001. Operations Management:
Strategy and Analysis, 6th Edition. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.

Lee Krajewski
College of Business Administration
University of Notre Dame, P.O. Box 0399
Notre Dame, IN 46556-0399, USA
Tel.: +1-219-631-9062
E-mail address: krajewski.2@nd.edu
(L. Krajewski)
PII:S0272-6963(01)00083-3

Introduction / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 118

Five challenges for the operations management

research community

1. Introduction
When Jack Meredith invited me to write this short
piece on research in operations management, I took the
opportunity to reflect on what I have seen in my nearly
25 years as a professor of operations management and
as the co-editor of Journal of Operations Management (JOM) from 1993 to 1995. My goal in writing
this is to be provocative without being offensive, and
hopefully add some value to our profession. I came
up with five principles that I hope will challenge the
new editorial board and the community of researchers
in operations management as a whole to continue to
pursue excellence in our research. I, thereby, nail my
five principles to the door of this journal.

ity circles, OPT, and Advanced Planning and Scheduling systems, for the most part, the operations management research community (and JOM in particular) has
avoided this snake oil sales syndrome. Do we have the
right precautions in place for us to avoid selling snake
oil (or St. Johns Wort) in our journals? Do we have
the right review process?
1.2. Principle 2: do not miss the penicillin
In contrast to the above point, some might suggest
that we have been too cautious. It took medical researchers a long time to figure out that penicillin mold
could fight infection. Would operations management
researchers find the operations penicillinor would
we reject it because it is outside of our narrow research
methods and paradigms? Where are the tiny spores of
ideas that need to be cultured and allowed to grow into
full-fledged theories?

1.1. Principle 1: avoid selling snake oil

1.3. Principle 3: continue to reinvent the profession

An acquaintance of mine works with a pyramidselling organization to sell high-priced vitamins and
natural food supplements with outrageous claims.
One of the food supplements is St. Johns Wort, which
is claimed to have health benefits such as relief from
anxiety and mild-depression. One website listed the
following internal uses for St. Johns Wort: AIDS,
anxiety, cough, depression, diarrhea, dysmenorrhea,
fatigue, flu, gout, grief, herpes, HIV, hydrocephalus,
insomnia, irritability, jaundice, menopause, neuralgia,
rheumatism, ulcers, viral infections, arthritis, backache, bruises, burns, electric shock, hemorrhoids, hysteria, nerve pain, neuralgia, paralysis, rheumatism, sciatica, sunburn, tumors, varicose veins, and wounds.
However, recent research suggests that St. Johns Wort
has potentially serious interactions with other drugs
and is not considered effective (Health Central, 2001;
Featured Herb Review on St. Johns Wort, 2001). Evidently, some people promoting St. Johns Wort were
motivated by financial incentives, which led them to
hyperbole, self-deception, and deceptive advertising.
They did not examine their assumptions and were
uncritical of the facts. Borrowing a term from the
Federal Reserve Chair, they were guilty of irrational
exuberance. While some might question the hyperbole surrounding some operations topics such as qual-

Every discipline has a life cycle. Clearly, 80% of the

contributions are made in the first 20% of the life of
the discipline. In the early life of the discipline, many
new ideas are generated, the vocabulary is defined, and
people position themselves for influence and reputation. Later in the life of the discipline, the molecules
become solidified, few really new ideas are proposed,
and those in power ensure that they stay in power, only
to be succeeded by those in their own institutions, their
graduates, and close friends. How can the operations
management discipline continue to revive itself? What
new problem domains and research tools should we
add to our standard fare? How can we avoid the death
cycle that other disciplines are now experiencing?
1.3.1. Principle 4: seek to be leaders, not just
reporters
When I read scientific journals in other disciplines,
I am fascinated to learn about academic researchers
making fundamental contribution to their fields in
medicine, engineering, and basic science. However,
when I consider the seminal developments in the operations management field in the last 25 years, I cannot think of a single one that came out of academia.
Academics have often accelerated the development
of these concepts by serving as reporters and by

Introduction / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 118

fine-tuning some of the concepts. However, it seems

clear to me that few, if any, operations management
academics have had the vision and leadership skills
to identify and develop fundamentally new concepts
that have added significant value to our society. Why
are we not having more of an impact? What is missing from our approach to research? Do we need a
larger scale of operation (million dollar projects), new
partnerships (with consulting firms, industrial firms,
or government), or a simply new self-image (leaders
rather than reporters)?
1.4. Principle 5: be careful to have your ladder
against the right wall
An old story talks about a man who worked hard
to climb a ladder to get to the top only to find that his
ladder was up against the wrong wall and that all of
his work was wasted. Similarly, operations management researchers need to be sure that we are addressing the right problemsproblems that will make a
difference in the longer run. After hundreds of articles
were published on lotsizing heuristics for time-varying
demand, Prof. Jim Evans at Cincinnati noted that the
problem can be formulated as a min-cost network
problem and solved very quickly, even for very large
problems. All of the hype about the WagnerWhitin
algorithm requiring too much computation time was
just flat wrong. But even more importantly, we were
studying lotsizing algorithms when the real issues of
the day were much more fundamental. Firms in North
America were struggling with major strategic operations issues such as overseas competition, appropriate
use of automation, MRP system implementation, and
quality. Firms around the world were struggling with
fundamental quality, process design, and systems issues. We were rearranging the deck chairs while the
ship was sinking. What are the ship sinking issues
of the 21st century? Are the operations management
researchers today still asleep at the helm?

venate the profession with expansive thinking about

problem domains and research methodologies (to continue to reinvent the profession), (4) be innovators and
leaders (to avoid just being reporters), and (5) address
relevant and important problems (to make sure we
have our ladder on the right wall). The JOM should
continue to demand that the research published in its
hallowed pages pass the dual litmus tests of relevance
and rigor. We need problem-driven research relevant to
managersand we need appropriate research methodologies so that we can have confidence that what we
say is true and authoritative.
Jack Meredith has done an outstanding job of maintaining these five principles for the JOM and for the
operations management research communityand we
owe him a loud thank you Jack for his service over
the last 6 years. I am very confident that Rob Handfield and his new editorial board will continue to do
the same in the future.
References
Health Central. St. Johns Wort Ineffective in Treating Major
Depression. http://www.healthcentral.com/News/NewsFullText.
cfm?ID=51561&storytype=APNews, 18 April 2001.
Featured Herb Review on St. Johns Wort. Viable Herbal Solutions.
http://www.viable-herbal.com/feature/features.htm, 19 April
2001.

Arthur V. Hill
Operations & Management Science Department
Curtis L. Carlson School of Management
University of Minnesota, 321 19th Avenue South
Room 3-140, Minneapolis
MN 55455-0413, USA
Tel.: +1-612-624-4015; fax: +1-612-624-8804
E-mail address: ahill@csom.umn.edu (A.V. Hill)
PII:S0272-6963(01)00084-5

Reflecting back on 7 years

2. Conclusions
1. The good
In conclusion, if we are going to have real impact on
the world, we need to (1) use strong research methodologies (to avoid the snake oil), (2) nurture new ideas
(to avoid missing the penicillin), (3) continue to reju-

I very much looked forward to the editorial tasks

when I wrote the proposal for taking responsibility for
Journal of Operations Management (JOM) in 1994. I

Introduction / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 118

was at the proper place in my career, I wanted to help

my profession in a significant way, and I thought that
this responsibility might well be the most important
contribution I made during my career. Seven years and
looking back, I believe I was correct. In retrospect,
however, what JOM probably needed most desperately
at the time was simply some stability for enough years
to be recognized as the excellent (top 20) journal that it
was. Although I had not expected this to be my major
contribution, it probably was.
Along the way, however, our JOM team of associate editors, special issue editors, publisher, advisory
board, reviewers, and others has achieved some other
noteworthy accomplishments as well. For example, including the special issues currently in progress, about
a dozen will have been initiated and published. In addition, the journal has moved from being a quarterly to
a bi-monthly. And a crucially-important awards program has been established to reward authors, reviewers, and associate editors for their outstanding work in
and for JOM.
In the process of giving JOM some stability, I believe the entire editorial-publishing process has also
achieved some stability. We have a smooth, professional process for making editorial and reviewer transitions, we have a standard process for approving and
completing special issues, we have a regular process
for executing the annual awards program, and we have
an efficient process for processing manuscripts submitted for publication, as well as a process for making
changes in these processes (which Rob Handfield is
doing even now).

2. The bad
On the other hand, one of my top goals when taking
over the journal has not seen much progress. It was
to encourage professors to get out of their office and
go into the real world to develop relevant, managerial
theory instead of solving hypothetical problems with
sophisticated mathematical models. What I had hoped
for was more case and field studies, action research,
qualitative studies, ethnographies, grounded theory.
What I see instead are more survey studies: sending
out scores of questionnaires to managers and developing managerial theory based on the responses. I
have not been able to get very many professors out of

their offices, but at least more of them are talking to

real managers and developing managerial (instead of
mathematical) theory. More promising, I now occasionally see submissions with some excellent creative
field work that is conducted rigorously and makes insightful, exciting conclusions. I only wish there were
more, but perhaps my paddle is at least having some
small effect in redirecting the operations management
(OM) ocean liner.
In the same vein, I have been roundly castigated for
this heavy-handedness in not keeping the journal open
to all forms of OM research. On the surface, this seems
like a reasonable request. Should not the top journal
in a field publish all types of well-conducted research
that is done in that field, including the development of
mathematical theory, the solution of managerial problems, the addressing of hypothetical dilemmas?
I had no intention when assuming editorial responsibility for JOM of excluding these kinds of submissions, but as I got further into the philosophy, I had
to ask myself whether JOM should also be open to
teaching papers, software evaluations, and other unexpected types of papers (an editor gets all kinds of
strange submissions). Looking around at the top journals in each of our sister fieldsmanagement, marketing, finance, etc.I found that they were in fact quite
narrow, focusing on a relatively narrow set of requirements, and excelling at it. If one of these sister fields
wanted to entertain other types of work, they started
a new journal instead of compromising the quality of
the original journal (e.g. when the Academy of Management recently initiated their Executive journal).
For that matter, I was more than happy to entertain
any research methodology, as long as the work was focused on a real situation and developed management
theory. However, I rarely received either management
science or even simulation papers that met these dual
criteria. I thus encouraged some colleagues to propose
a special issue on simulation that included these criteria, and they received some excellent papers. So it
can be done and it does exist out there. Hopefully,
this special simulation issue will encourage more such
management science submissions.
Last, I have had to move people around some.
Although it is always a pleasure to welcome a new
reviewer, a new associate editor, or a new editorial
advisor, it is much tougher to de-select people in
these positions, particularly if it is through no fault of

Introduction / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 118

3. The successful

and just saying that they like or do not like a paper is

a sufficient review.
Instead, I have promoted people to the Editorial Review Board, and then to the level of associate editor,
who consistently do quality work in a reasonable time
frame, regardless of their publishing record in JOM.
Many of the current associate editors will spend 58
pages pointing out to authors what they need to do to
make the paper publishable, and they get this response
to me within 4 weeks. Appropriately, the Associate
Editors and the people on the Editorial Review Board
are exceptional. Inevitably, when new professors start
off their careers, they do excellent (or very good) reviewing and get high scores on quality and timeliness.
However, as they progress in their careers and get
busier, the scores sometimes start sliding. Once they
get tenured, the scores may drop significantly. And
as they become full professors, they may degenerate
even more. However, some academics do not display
this typical behavior, keeping their scores up, even after tenure and promotions. These are the people I tend
to select for associate editors.
There are some other helpful activities that can contribute also. For example, offering to edit a special issue in a field in which you are recognized brings good
editorial experience. And volunteering to help with
special issues or in conferences or other such meetings
can also add valuable experience.
Last, I turn to successful authorship, perhaps the
most important element of an academics career. Here
is my advice to aspiring authors, distilled from 7 years
of experience:

The final two issues I want to address are how to

successfully become a editor, and how to become a
successful author. In terms of getting an editorship,
there are two primary routes up the editorial ladder.
One is to be a successful author, who thus, obviously
knows what it takes to publish in that journal. However, I do not put much stock in this approach. I have
tried using people who are extremely well published
in JOM as reviewers and associate editors but they are
often slow in responding, or do not put anywhere near
as much effort into reviewing other peoples work as
they do in writing up their own. I also have had the
problem that eminent authors seem to conclude that
since they have proven themselves, they do not need
to explain or justify their criticisms of others work,

Submit only appropriate papers: ones that are empirical (clearly based on the real world, even if no
numerical data are used) and develop management
theory. Even after 7 years, I still reject 30% of the
papers that come in because they do not seem to
know what JOM publishes. I see papers full of mathematical theorems, consulting assignments, plant
tours, essays, novels, and all else.
Expect to go through the full editorial process. In
7 years, and more than 700 papers, I have only
accepted a paper on first review twice. That means
your chances of getting your paper accepted in
the first round are less than a third of 1%. Expect
to have to revise the paper at least twice, once
for the reviewers and once for the associate edi-

their own. Elsevier limits the number of people who

get free copies, which means the associate editors
and advisory board. Thus, if an associate editor or
reviewer suddenly runs into trouble getting responses
back to me on time, or cannot review as often as previously, I may need to replace that person with someone
who can; I cannot just add another associate editor.
Or sometimes, JOM simply stops getting very many
of the type of papers that some associate editors or
reviewers specialize in and starts getting inundated
with a new topic, such as supply chain management,
or e-operations. Then I need to replace an associate
editor or reviewer with someone else who can review
in that topic. Most colleagues understand, but it still is
difficult.
Also difficult, always, is rejecting a paper. Worse
is rejecting a paper from someone I know personally
since they sometimes take it personally. But the worst
is rejecting a paper from someone I know personally
and who is well recognized in the field. I have even
lost some friendships because of this. However, even
good authors sometimes write bad papers. More appropriately, some authors who felt their paper was rejected for the wrong reason wrote or e-mailed back to
explain how they thought they could correct the paper
to address the criticisms. Many of these papers were
subsequently successful and got published in JOM (I
believe that the job of an editor is to help authors get
published, not to keep authors out).

10

Introduction / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 118

tor, if not three times (once for the editor), before

acceptance.
Submit a professional-looking and reading paper. A
paper that is smudged, dog-eared, messy, has typos
in the first few pages, is stilted in its English, or
is organized differently from what is expected, will
probably be rejected early, if not up-front by the
editor. Sloppy and uncaring preparation inevitably
translates into sloppy and inaccurate research.
Papers are evaluated on the basis of their value,
which simply equals their contribution divided by
the number of pages. If you send in a 50-page-paper
(excluding exhibits), the contribution better be massive. Invariably, the reviewers complain about the
length and ask the author to cut it down to the main
contribution. On the other hand, if you have a study
that offers a small contribution but the paper can be
written briefly and rigorously, it may still be publishable, perhaps as a note.
Follow the expected mechanics; any other creative,
unique organization of the paper or mechanics will
probably confuse the reviewers and result in the
paper being rejected. What are the expected mechanics? The paper should start with a brief abstract
that states the issue, how it was addressed, and the
results. This should be followed by an introduction
that identifies why this is an important problem.
Then the literature review should identify all related work, what existing theory in this area is, and
where this papers research fits. Next, the methodology should be justified and described, followed
by the description and justification of the real world
data collection. Then the results are presented, followed by a discussion that identifies the important
findings and their contribution to management theory. The conclusions then reiterate the findings,
identify their implications for research and practice, and describe the revised state of management
theory.
Jack R. Meredith
Babcock Graduate School of Management
Wake Forest University, P.O. Box 7659
Winston-Salem, NC 27109, USA
Tel.: +1-336-758-4467; fax: +1-336-758-4514
E-mail address: jom@mba.wfu.edu (J.R. Meredith)
PII:S0272-6963(01)00085-7

Writing the ideal paper for JOM: a new editors

perspective

1. Introduction
As I assume the role of the new editor-in-chief of
the Journal of Operations Management (JOM), 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 (OM) 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: 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 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 field such 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 5 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 OM 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 knowl-

Introduction / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 118

edge in this form involves the process of conducting

theory-driven empirical research.

2. Where I stand as a researcher and an editor

Every editor of a journal (and for that matter, every
reviewer), has 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 a researcher and/or editor
are formed by the individuals 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. Rather
than 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 5 years as the editor-in-chief.
The editor of JOM for the last 7 years, Jack
Meredith, has encouraged the publication of empirical research that contributes to theory development in
the field of OM. 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 theorybuilding
approach, (3) managerial relevance.

11

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 the concept 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 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
organizations 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.
2.2. Methodological rigor and the scientific method

2.1. Cross-functional and cross-enterprise

decision-making
An important theme in my academic and managerialrelated 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

A second important theme in my editorial policy is a

willingness to consider non-traditional research methods to explore relevant research questions, so long as
they adhere to proven scientific methods of investigation. The field of OM has been characterized by a dominant positivist epistemology over the last 50 years.
While other business fields such as marketing, organizational behavior, and finance have matured through
the process of the scientific theorybuilding process,
OM has been slow to shrug off its methodological
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 exist that publish OR-based research

12

Introduction / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 118

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 which 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 methods, including qualitative approaches (structured and unstructured interviews, coding and matrix analysis),
meta-analysis, critical event techniques, simulation,
quasi-experiments, lab studies, 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 researchers, (in 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 which must
be utilized to drive methodological rigor into OM empirical research. If there is any weakness 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.

2.3. 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 OM practitioners. The nature of these problems
has been changing over time. Some 1015 years ago,
practitioners wanted specific solutions to constrained,
well defined problems bounded by many assumptions.
They wanted to know how much inventory to order
so that they could reduce the associated costs. They
wanted to know how to schedule jobs through either
an assembly line or a job shop so that they (the managers) could improve on-time delivery or reduce the
average flow time of jobs. They wanted to know how
to generate effective and efficient production plans or
where to best locate their plants. In short, they wanted
procedures that generated numerical answers to specific numerically based problems that could be solved
through linear optimization models with appropriate
constraints. These problems still exist. However, they
have in many cases become overshadowed by a different set of problems.
The problems facing operations managers today are
often less well defined. Managers are now more interested in understanding what factors, for example,
affect the successful deployment of new technologies involving coordination between multiple organizations, or how to measure and manage strategic
alliances with these parties. They are seeking how
to deploy global manufacturing facilities, and create
multi-echelon distribution systems that support B2B
e-commerce initiatives. Managers are faced with having to develop methods of meeting ever-increasing demands for better customer service and higher fill rates,
yet are also pressured to keep less inventory on-hand
and manage a proliferating number of SKUs. They
are being asked to do more with less: fewer resources,
lower capital investment budgets, and fewer people to
manage these resources. To aid managers in solving
these dilemmas, I believe that OM researchers must
turn to theory-driven empirical research. This emphasis on theory is critical if OM is to continue evolving

Introduction / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 118

into a field of scientific investigation. Researchers often discuss the fact that OM is a field that is action
oriented but lacks a unifying theory. The researcher
would be very pressed to identify a true theory
in OM (Dubin, 1969). Often, this lack of theories
has forced researchers in our field to borrow theories from other fields such as organizational behavior,
marketing and strategy. By focusing on theory, more
specifically good theory, I believe OM researchers
can confront many of the problems faced by managers
and help them to solve their problems, thus, rediscovering the dictum of Lewin (1945) and re-iterated by
Van De Ven (1989) that nothing is so practical as a
good theory.
In the remainder of this introduction, I will briefly
describe my personal views on how I believe OM research should be conducted and effectively communicated to other scholars. Specifically, I will provide
some guidelines for producing a high quality piece of
research, as well as criteria for effective communication of the results to the OM community. In doing so I
do not mean to imply that articles which do not meet
these criteria are not relevant or worthwhile; however,
they are not likely to end up being published in the
JOM under my editorship over the next 5 years!

3. Where we have been: cutting our empirical

research teeth
The first issue of JOM was published in 1980 and
included two calls to expand the methods and topics
domain of OM research (Chase, 1980; Buffa, 1980).
Even before this time, however, Beged-dov and Klein
(1970) described the need to recognize the contribution that empirical methods can make to OM. Since
1980, no fewer than six articles have been published
that continue to call for broader acceptance of empirical research in OM. But the big-tent really has not
materialized. Each of these studies clearly shows that
mathematical methods dominate empirical methods,
and of the relatively few empirical methods-based publications, large sample methods dominate small sample methods. It is our positivist tradition at work.
But why does OM refuse to budge from mathematically based research that seeks to optimize functions
that may not truly aid managers with decision-making?
For one reason, no one has ever convinced the field that

13

empirical methods really can provide unique insights

that mathematical research cannot. 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 cannot. 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 to 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 OM researchers 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 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 was collected, one could find
the patterns and results, summarize them, and provide
insights into what was really happening. Clearly, this
meant that the data was driving the theory, and not

14

Introduction / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 118

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
supports or fails 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 resultsand researchers start to drive the
research agenda in a direction that is influenced by
this body of research (studies which review results
in an area and summarize 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 operations in a review by the Academy of Management Journal (Trieschmann et al., 2000), and has
also been highlighted as one of the top 35 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 that is 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 us 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.
4. 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 well developed. The research in these areas is well developed,
and much of the current 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
OM practices, management of contract manufacturers, knowledge-based management, 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 criterion 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 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 ifthen 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
researchers selection criteria, which should include
judgments of whether the relationship is interesting,
plausible, consistent, or appropriate. The researcher

Introduction / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 118

15

must be careful at this stage to maintain consistency

in criteria when evaluating different conjectures. Examples of selection criteria include the following:

that was taken for granted by the readers. Interesting

theories present following one of two types of arguments (Davis, 1971, p. 311):

1. That is interesting (Davis, 1971)is the relationship not obvious at first?

2. That is connected (Crovitz, 1970)are the
events related when others have assumed they are
unrelated?
3. That is believable (Polanyi, 1989)is the relationship convincing?
4. That is real (Campbell, 1986; Whetten, 1989)
is the relationship useful to managers?
5. That is obvious (Whetten, 1989)is the relationship so obvious that the reader loses interest right
away?

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

What is accepted as X is actually non-X.

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? However, these criteria are not enough.
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 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
still of 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

The assumptions attacked by interesting theories

cannot be ones strongly held by the readers. Papers
presenting such arguments are examples of that is
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. 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 of new
products and outsourcing 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 which merely confirm views, assumptions or
frameworks already accepted by the audience are not
interesting. Such theories represent the that is 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 ques-

16

Introduction / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 118

tion and why it is interesting. It should quickly get

to the pointwhat is the research questionbut 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 do not do this,
then the reader is likely to go elsewhere, and skip the
remainder of the article.

you diverge, you will lose the readers attention (so

what is your point?) The natural outcome 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.

6. Hypotheses and propositions: articulated

theories
5. 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 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 have got the readers attention in the introduction,
think of this section of your article as the background
to the issue, which helps to build your case. You need
to be careful heremany interesting questions have
already had a lot of work done on them in other fields.
If you ignore this work, the reviewer is likely to slam
the door on you, thinking that you clearly have not really looked in the literature closely enough and that,
therefore, you really do not know what you are 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 exerciseyou 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 did
not 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 sectionyou 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. 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

A succinct review of the literature immediately sets

up the hypotheses and/or 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 natureas 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 specify relationships between groups
of constructs and/or conceptswhich 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 of failure is an attempt to try to explain the
world; it is better to bite off a smaller chunk, then
aggregate your results later through a meta-analytical
study.

7. Methodology: what did 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

Introduction / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 118

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
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 appropriate methodology 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.

8. 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

17

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 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 have learned? (Remember, if you do not
have something useful that they can take away when
they leave, they will eat you alive.)

9. Summary of editorial philosophy

Based on these themes, my editorial philosophy can
be summarized as follows:
I will encourage the publication of research
that reflects cross-functional and cross-enterprise
decision-making, that is methodologically rigorous
and based on a solid theoretical foundation, and which
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, meta-analysis, behavioral simulations, 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. quasi-experiments
(Cook and Campbell, 1979), qualitative research

18

Introduction / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 118

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 5 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 cannot promise to make changes
in response to everyones input, I am certainly open
and willing to consider any thoughts for improving the
Journal that you may have.
References
Beged-dov, A.G., Klein, T.A., 1970. Research methodology in
the management sciences: formalism or empiricism. Operations
Research Quarterly 21 (3), 311326.
Blalock Jr., H.M., Introduction to Social Research. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1970.
Buffa, E.S., 1980. Research in operations management. Journal of
Operations Management 1 (1), 17.
Chase, R.B., 1980. A classification and evaluation of research
in operations management. Journal of Operations Management
1 (1), 914.
Cook T., Campbell, D., 1979. Quasi-Experimentation: Design and
Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.
Crovitz, H.F., 1970. Galtons Walk. Harper, NY.
Davis, M., 1971. That is interesting! Towards a phenomenology
of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of
the Social Sciences 1, 309344.
Dubin, R., 1969. TheoryBuilding. Free Press, New York.
Lewin, K., 1945. The research center for group dynamics at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sociometry 8, 126
135.

Handfield, R., Melnyk, S, 1998. The scientific theorybuilding

process: a primer using the case of TQM. Journal of Operations
Management 16 (4), 320339; special issue on theorybuilding
in operations management.
Malhotra, M., Grover, V., 1998. An assessment of survey research
in POM: from constructs to theory. Journal of Operations
Management 16 (4), 407425.
Melnyk, S., Handfield, R. 1998. May you live in interesting
times . . . the emergence of theory-driven empirical research.
Journal of Operations Management 16 (4), 310319; special
issue on theorybuilding in operations management.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis:
A Sourcebook of New Methods. Sage Publications, Newbury
Park, CA.
Polanyi, L., 1989. Telling the American Story. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Simon, H.A., 1967. The business school: a problem in
organizational design. Journal of Management Science 4, 116.
Trieschmann, J.S., Dennis, A.R., Northcraft, G.B., Niemi Jr., A.W.,
2000. Serving mulitple constituencies in business schools: MBA
program vs. research performance. Academy of Management
Journal 43 (6), 11301141.
Weick, K.E., 1989. Theory construction as disciplined imagination.
The Academy of Management Review 14 (4), 515531.
Whetten, D.A., 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution?
The Academy of Management Review 14 (4), 490495.
Van De Ven, A.H., 1989. Nothing is quite so practical as a good
theory. The Academy of Management Review 14 (4), 486489.

Robert Handfield
College of Management
North Carolina State University, CB 7229
Raleigh, NC 27695-7229, USA
Tel.: +1-919-515-4674; fax: +1-919-515-6943
E-mail address: robert handfield@ncsu.edu
(R. Handfield)
PII:S0272-6963(01)00086-9