Effective supply chain research via the quick

scan audit methodology

P. Childerhouse
Management Systems, Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand, and
D.R. Towill
Logistics Systems Dynamic Group, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to provide an answer to the important question of how can accurate assessment of supply chain practice and performance
be conducted? By conducting audits across a sample of value streams it is thereby possible to identify the components of “good practice” via evidence-
based procedures.
Design/methodology/approach – Quick scan audit methodology (QSAM) is a site-based, team-oriented action research-led investigative technique
for establishing meaningful “snapshots” of value stream behaviour. The participants cover both academic researchers and host organisation staff.
Findings – QSAM is found to output repeatable results enabling the transfer of technique between companies, between businesses, between market
sectors, and between countries.
Research limitations/implications – Care must be taken when training new auditors and QSAM teams to ensure the required degree of consistency.
There is no substitute for operating a “watch one, share one, do one” regimen.
Practical implications – The research purpose is to establish the performance vectors to enable effective value stream health comparisons to be
made. Additionally “quick hits” (not “quick fixes”) may well be identified specific to an individual host organisation.
Originality/value – QSAM has already made an important contribution in enabling the gap between case-based and survey-based logistics research
to be properly bridged.

Keywords Auditing, Research, Supply chain management

Paper type Research paper

Introduction Epistemological shortcoming of 25 years of SC

The practical context of supply chain management (SCM) is
complex and convoluted and the unit of analysis can be broad
(e.g. supply network) or narrow (e.g. internal integration).
SCM is a particularly difficult phenomenon to study because it
involves the interactions between most of the business
functions of an organisation but especially those that span
between businesses. Furthermore SCM research can be
conducted at all levels of management decision making;
operational (e.g. optimising flows), tactical (e.g. CPRF) and
strategic (e.g. outsourcings). Given this context our research
seeks to address the question “how can an accurate assessment
of supply chain practice and performance be conducted?”
To this end a rigorous supply chain assessment procedure
called quick scan audit methodology (QSAM) was developed
in the late 1990s. It has been continuously enhanced and
validated through 48 applications in four countries. More
than thirty researchers from six different universities are now
involved. The purpose of this paper is to briefly conceptualise
QSAM. We shall both justify the approach and identify the
international progressional timeline herein.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-8546.htm
research
The majority of supply chain management concepts can be
seen to emanate from a systems perspective (Christopher,
1998). However when it comes to studying the phenomena
under question most researchers actually use reductionism
(Frankel et al., 2005). A number of assumptions are often
stated and then the wider ramifications are conveniently
discounted. As most empirically based researchers well know
this is a critical mistake that directly contradicts the subject’s
essential major ontological perspective of systems thinking.
This disparity between the most common epistemology used
whilst conducting SCM research and the underlying context
of supply chains has led to a dominance of positivist research.
Arguably this has restricted the development of a commonly
accepted SCM theory.
Many supply chain researchers seem to overlook the
practical complexities of our subject and simply collect data
by asking for specific answers and hope through large samples
that the complexity is averaged out. This may be theoretically
feasible for well-constructed hypotheses but the resultant
need to ensure externally valid findings when answering
precise questions is often of minimal value because there is no

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
16/1 (2011) 5–10
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1359-8546]
[DOI 10.1108/13598541111103458]
The authors would like to thank all the researchers and host companies
that have participated in the 48 quick scans performed worldwide during
the past 13 years. Without doubt it is this rich and diverse set of experts
and their first-hand experience of using the approach in practice that have
led to its continual refinement and resultant validity.

5
 Effective supply chain research
P. Childerhouse and D.R. Towill
such thing as an average organisation or supply chain context.
There are, however, those supply chains which following site-
based and subsequent statistical significance testing amongst
samples may be classified according to perceived
performance. This enables some observed commonalities to
be grouped together as features frequently associated with
good practice (Childerhouse and Towill, 2004).
The major obstacle to real-world supply chain excellence is
the behaviour of people (Andraski, 1994; Towill et al., 2002;
Halldorsson et al., 2008; Böhme, 2009). The social setting,
political landscape and industry norms greatly affect the way
SCM plays out in practice. Organisational and behavioural
complexities are often underestimated (Storey et al., 2005).
To simply overlook these factors when conducting research is
a major shortcoming. The motivation of the respondent and
the industry context has a direct effect on the accuracy and
meaning of any data collected. To fully appreciate these
complexities observation based research that triangulates
information from multiple sources is essential.
The multi-disciplinary nature of supply chains is well
documented (e.g. Porter’s (1985) value chain) but once again
many supply chain researchers do not practice what they
preach. Hence, in order to study SCM there is a need to
comprehend the associated wider management concepts, e.g.
marketing (Svensson, 2002). Arguably to obtain a true picture
of a supply chain we therefore need to use a mutli-disciplinary
team to perform the research. For example rather than
dismissing the financial or HR impacts on the supply research
via well constructed assumptions we can take a wider systems
perspective when developing and testing management theory.
Case-based logistics research
SCM in a relatively new subject hence on average practice is
significantly lagging behind theory (Fawcett and Magnan,
2002). In most organisations because supply chain skills are
still being developed, the managerial comprehension of the
key concepts is often sadly missing. As a result the data
collected through singular interviews or survey questions is
more often than not questionable due to the actual capability
of those questioned to correctly interpret the implied
meaning. More worryingly there is frequently failure to
understand their own organisations actual competences,
operations and performance (they do not know what they
do not know). Hence direct observation and triangulation of
data sources are a must to ensure the truth is obtained.
Conflicting conclusions, such as appeared in Matson and
Matson (2007) might then be resolved.
The need for more case-based logistics research to
supplement the more popular survey and analytical
modelling methods forms the basis for this research
(Naslund, 2002; New and Payne, 1995; Solem, 2003).
Frankel et al. (2005) have identified a “white space” in
logistics research that needs to be populated to ensure our
discipline becomes more scientifically robust. In 1997, Cardiff
University’s Logistics Systems Dynamics Group developed a
supply chain diagnostic approach named the quick scan audit
methodology (QSAM) to specifically address such
epistemological shortcomings of supply chain research.
Since being first applied and prototyped in the automotive
sector (Lewis et al., 1998) and presented at the Florence
International Symposium on Logistics (Childerhouse et al.,
1999) and formalised by Naim et al. (2002). Since then the
6
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 16 · Number 1 · 2011 · 5 –10
method has been continually updated, revised, and applied in
a wide variety of settings (Towill and Childerhouse, 2006).
The descriptor “quick scan” first appeared in a EUNIL
Report from the University of Eindhoven (Schaeffer, 1992). It is
an apt name for our approach. The purpose of this paper is to
specifically argue the merits of the QSAM procedure which will
be achieved through the following means. Firstly, a detailed
description of the methodology will be provided to highlight the
rigorous nature to our audit approach. This will identify the
three forms of triangulation utilised (Mentzer and Flint, 1997;
Denzin, 1989) that make the QSAM superior for the specific
goal of obtaining reliable evaluations of real world supply chains.
The generic applicability of QSAM will be demonstrated
through global applications (Barker et al., 2000; Basnet and
Childerhouse, 2003; Banomyong et al., 2005) and the wide
variety of supply chains examined to date. The QSAM has two
primary outputs; guidance for the target organisation and rich
research data (Naim et al., 2002). The accuracy of the audit is
evidenced in the discussion section by the subsequent positive
feedback from target organisations and the resultant original
contributions enabled through analysis of quick scan data.
The quick scan audit methodology
QSAM is a diagnostic approach designed to perform a health
check of a supply chain. It has been specifically developed to
minimise the disturbance to the target organisation(s) whilst
still acquiring an accurate performance and operational
assessment. Typically, in total, it takes four researchers one
week to fully audit the supply chain of a medium-sized
organisation; during this period only half of the time is spent
onsite disrupting managers. It is important to note that
QSAM is team based and essentially contains “players” from
the host organisation. Both sides contribute considerable and
comparable inputs to the audit programme. The six major
process steps involved in conducting the quick scan,
associated key objectives and the reasoning supporting each
are provided in Table I.
The process illustrated in Table I is simply an overall
framework that has been specifically developed to allow a
variety of researchers with a range of expertise to work together
and build a consensus on real world supply chains. A battery of
tools and checklists are used within this procedure that ensures
comparability and standardisation. For instance the process
mapping follows a standard approach to aid the identification
and transfer of best practice. Along the same lines a database of
good, bad and indifferent practise is added to every time a
quick scan is conducted. The archive of these better practices is
then accessed when highlighting the improvement
opportunities for the current supply chain under audit. There
are a range of quantitative and attitudinal questionnaires that
facilitate cross-comparisons and triangulation of subjective data
sources. A set of standard interview protocols and semi-
structured questions for each possible managerial role within
the supply chain is also activated.
To summarise, the key QSAM elements that result in a
successful supply chain audit are:
.
A team of four researchers ensures comprehensive
investigator triangulation.
.
The use of four data collection pathways provides
methodological triangulation.
.
The considerable skills and knowledge of the QSAM team
additional to that in supply chain topics ensures the multi-
 Effective supply chain research Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
P. Childerhouse and D.R. Towill Volume 16 · Number 1 · 2011 · 5 –10

Table I Overview of the team-based quick scan process

QS process
Preliminary presentation
Evaluate supply chain status
Brainstorm supply chain inhibitors Offline 1 day
Hypotheses investigation
Analyse the findings
Feedback presentation
Loc./Dur. Key objectives
Onsite 2 hours Identify a value stream
Issue data requests
Obtain buy-in
Onsite 1 day Collect questionnaires
Conduct interviews
Process map
Identify good and bad practices
Develop hypotheses
Indentify further data reqs
Onsite 1 day Collect archival data
Conduct probing interviews
Observe current practice
Offline 1 day Identify major pain(s)
Cause and effect analysis
Develop improvement
opportunities
Onsite 3 hours Present findings to management This is the most important stage for the target company, as the
Initiate a round table discussion objective is a group understanding of the key shortcomings of the
Agree on an action plan
Reasoning
The selection of one or two representative value streams allows
focus and detailed investigation within the limited QS duration
Pre-emptive requests for archival data and the issuing of questionnaires
minimises wasted time during intensive onsite data collection
Successful buy-in is key for access to data and to avoid political
game-playing via the distortion and withholding of information
Methodological triangulation significantly reduces the errors of each
individual data collection approach
Different researches collect each of the data types, hence reducing
bias via investigator triangulation
Initial impressions are first discussed between the team members
The inter-relationships and possible causes of the bad practices are
hypothesised and the data required to validate each identified
Specific historical data such as time series inventory levels are
collected to test each hypothesis
Further interviews are conducted that delve into why current
practices are indifferent
The material flow process is observed and documented, especially
when there is a lack of archival data
The over-riding problem(s) is (are) first identified
The heart of the analysis is the development of a cause and effect
diagram based around the major pain that inter-relates all the bad
practices and identifies the root causes
Improvement opportunities for the root causes are identified and
ranked by benefit, time and cost to implement
supply chain and the agreement of an action plan to rectify the most
significant poor practices

disciplinary nature of the subject matter is adequately
addressed.
.
Direct involvement of practitioners during the data
collection and analysis coupled with the verification
during the feedback presentation greatly enhances the
reliability of the audit.
.
The buy-in obtained during the preliminary presentation,
based around the win-win situation of the identification of
improvement opportunities provides open access to
research data and participation of practitioners.
.
The application of a refined, systematic and hence holistic
methodology makes it feasible to conduct a comprehensive
assessment of a complex phenomenon.
Quick scan auditing methodology evolution
To date, the QSAM has been applied in 48 real-world
scenarios in a wide range of settings. It has been successful in
different industrial sectors including; dairy, timber,
automotive, utility and retail enterprises. Quick scan has
also been shown to be applicable in different countries with
applications in the UK, Germany, New Zealand and
Thailand. The approach has been successfully applied in
global, medium, SME and family-run businesses, highlighting
the important fact that organisational size is no barrier to its
application. Furthermore, the method has been used on a
“zoom and focus” basis with audits, ranging from a single
focal organisation to the examination of three sequential
echelons. Table II lists the quick scans together with the wide
range of countries, industries and universities in which the
method has been tested.
The right hand column of Table II shows in outline how the
quick scan validity and rigour was developed. By the turn of
the century it had been shown to provide reliable and valuable
insight (Towill et al., 2000) and therefore the next step was to
further develop the robustness of the method. QSAM was
then refined for a range of industrial settings and the
complexities of country of origin and associated cultural
context was tackled. Throughout the past thirteen years a
major focus has been on standardisation and transferability of
the quick scan process. To enable these goals, more than
thirty different researchers from six different institutions from
the Pacific Rim and Europe have conducted quick scans. The
extended supply chain has also been audited via quick scan.
To move beyond the typical focal company perspective of
SCM quick scans have been conduced on five representative
suppliers and their interface with a key customer.
Furthermore, three sequential echelons have also been
evaluated in both the steel and automotive sectors to verify

7
 Effective supply chain research Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
P. Childerhouse and D.R. Towill Volume 16 · Number 1 · 2011 · 5 –10

Table II Timeline for undertaking quick scan

ID Date University Industry Country Research objective
1 1997 Cardiff Automotive England Prototyping
2 1998 Cardiff Automotive England
3 1998 Cardiff Automotive England
4 1998 Cardiff Automotive England Automotive sector capability
5 1998 Cardiff Automotive England
6 1998 Cardiff Automotive Scotland
7 1998 Cardiff Automotive England
8 1998 Cardiff Automotive Germany Country and cultural capability
9 1998 Cardiff Automotive England
10 1999 Cardiff Automotive Germany
11 1999 Cardiff Logistics service provider Wales
12 1999 Cardiff Automotive Wales
13 1999 Cardiff Automotive Wales
14 2000 Cardiff Automotive Wales
15 2000 Cardiff Utility service provider England
16 2003 Waikato Heavy engineering New Zealand
17 2004 Waikato Food New Zealand
18 2004 Cardiff Food England
19 2004 Thamasat Heavy engineering Thailand
20 2004 Thamasat SME manufacturing Thailand Multi-sector capability
21 2004 Thamasat SME manufacturing Thailand
22 2004 Thamasat SME manufacturing Thailand
23 2004 Thamasat Electronics Thailand
24 2004 Thamasat Electronics Thailand
25 2005 Thamasat Steel Thailand
26 2005 Thamasat Service sector Thailand
27 2005 Thamasat Heavy engineering Thailand
28 2005 Cardiff Steel Wales
29 2005 Cardiff Steel Wales
30 2006 Waikato Timber New Zealand
31 2006 Waikato Food New Zealand
32 2006 Waikato Heavy engineering New Zealand
33 2007 Waikato and Kasel Health New Zealand Multi-institution capability
34 2007 Brighton Food England
35 2007 Cardiff and Newport SME manufacturing Wales
36 2007 Cardiff and Newport Electronics Wales
37 2007 Cardiff and Newport SME manufacturing Wales
38 2007 Cardiff and Newport SME manufacturing Wales
39 2008 Waikato Heavy engineering New Zealand
40 2008 Cardiff Steel Wales
41 2009 Thamasat Automotive Thailand
42 2009 Thamasat Food Thailand
43 2009 Thamasat Timber Thailand
44 2009 Waikato and Cardiff Logistics service provider New Zealand
45 2009 Thamasat Food Thailand
46 2009 Thamasat Food Thailand
47 2009 Thamasat Health Thailand
48 2009 Thamasat Automotive Thailand

the approach at auditing the critical inter-organisational
context of SCM.
Discussion
If the old saying that “the proof of the pudding is in the
eating” then the practical value of quick scan is already
evident. The feedback from host supply chains is certainly
encouraging and shows real value to business. Typical
comments revealed are:
Quick scan was a worthwhile investment giving us actionable results. Totally
win/win (Keith Cooke – managing director – Metso Minerals).
For Heinz Wattie’s Ltd the supply chain quick scan audit had tremendous
value for us. The formal review process followed by executive summary and

8
 Effective supply chain research
P. Childerhouse and D.R. Towill
documented detailed findings from the review was the perfect route map for
us to change our behaviour and address major shortcomings. We are
confident that from what we have seen of our performance in a relatively
short time we will continue to deliver the desired improvements in our end to
end supply chain (Max Birt – supply chain manager – Heinz Watti’s Ltd).
Likewise the QSAM has yielded a very valuable and varied
pool of empirical data to test and further investigate leading
academic theories on supply chain integration, time
compression, the bullwhip effect and simplified material flow,
typified by Potter et al. (2009). The understanding gained from
the multiple quick scans has manifestly enabled the
development of new management theory, and validation and
further refinement of research ideas. It has also been exploited
to good effect in assessing the effectiveness of business process
improvement programmes simply by sequentially auditing at
agreed points in time (Phillips et al., 2008). This aspect of
quick scan appears ripe for further expansion (Böhme, 2009).
It is expected that causal relationships within the particular BPI
programme can thereby be rigorously established.
Much of the follow up research from quick scan audits is
based around the use of an uncertainty metric (Mason-Jones
and Towill, 1998). This is taken directly from control
engineering, which measures the overall integration level of a
supply chain. The concept of a manufacturing system
(Parnaby, 1979) provides the necessary link to transfer the
idea from chemical process modelling to production of
discrete parts. Hence QSAM is firmly embedded within the
systems movement.
Conclusions
There is a significant need for more investigator-involved,
qualitative research on supply chains. However, there is a
significant gap with regard to proven methodologies to conduct
such research in the context of supply chain management. The
research described herein fills this gap with a tried and tested
method to diagnose a supply chain’s performance, while also
collecting rich empirical data. Over the past 12 years this
method has been applied by multiple researchers in a multitude
of settings, resulting in a refined generic research method
capable of auditing almost any type of supply chain. However,
this avenue of research is far from exhausted.
We believe further uptake of QSAM and applications in
more industrial sectors and countries will facilitate continuous
refinement and improvement of the diagnostic tool. Potential
industrial and academic partners who may be interested in
adopting the quick scan should feel free to make contact.
However a great deal of further information including
handbooks, questionnaires and interview questions are
available on request. “Watch one; share one; do one” is the
preferred dictum for training new audit teams so as to achieve
the desired level of consistency essential to progress research.
References
Andraski, J.C. (1994), “Foundations for a successful
continuous replenishment programme”, International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Banomyong, R., Basnet, C., Childerhouse, P., Dekins, E.,
Disney, S.M., Naim, M.M. and Towill, D.R. (2005),
“Internationalising the quick scan audit methodology”,
Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Production
Research, Salerno.
9
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 16 · Number 1 · 2011 · 5 –10
Barker, R., Hong-Minh, S.M. and Naim, M.M. (2000),
“The terrain scanning methodology: assessing and
improving construction supply chains”, European Journal
of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 6, pp. 179-93.
Basnet, C. and Childerhouse, P. (2003), “Application of a
supply chain diagnostic to a New Zealand manufacturer”,
Proceedings of the 38th ORSNZ Conference, Hamilton, NZ.
Böhme, T. (2009), “Supply chain integration”, PhD thesis,
School of Management, University of Waikato, Waikato.
Childerhouse, P. and Towill, D.R. (2004), “Reducing
uncertainty in European supply chains”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 15 No. 7,
pp. 585-98.
Childerhouse, P., Disney, S.M. and Naim, M.M. (1999),
“A quick scan method for supply chain diagnostics”,
Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Logistics,
Florence, pp. 755-60.
Christopher, M. (1998), Logistics and Supply Chain
Management, Pitmans, London.
Denzin, N.K. (1989), The Research Act, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Fawcett, S.E. and Magnan, G.M. (2002), “The rhetoric and
reality of supply chain integration”, International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 32 No. 5,
pp. 339-61.
Frankel, R., Naslung, D. and Bolumole, Y. (2005), “The
‘white space’ of logistics research: a look at the role of
methods usage”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 185-208.
Halldorsson, A., Larson, P.D. and Poist, R.F. (2008), “Supply
chain management: a comparison of Scandinavian and
American perspectives”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 126-42.
Lewis, J., Naim, M.M., Wardle, S. and Williams, E. (1998),
“Quick scan your way to supply chain improvement”, IOM
Control, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 14-16.
Mason-Jones, R. and Towill, D.R. (1998), “Shrinking the
supply chain uncertainty circle”, IOM Control, Vol. 24
No. 7, pp. 17-22.
Matson, J.E. and Matson, J.O. (2007), “‘Just-in-time’
implementation issues among automotive supplies in the
Southern USA”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 12 No. 6,
pp. 432-43.
Mentzer, J.T. and Flint, D.J. (1997), “Validity in logistics
research”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 199-216.
Naim, M.M., Childerhouse, P., Disney, S.M. and Towill, D.R.
(2002), “A supply chain diagnostic methodology:
determining the vector of change”, Computers and Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 43, pp. 135-57.
Naslund, D. (2002), “Logistics needs qualitative research:
especially action research”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 32 No. 5,
pp. 321-8.
New, S.J. and Payne, P. (1995), “Research frameworks in
logistics”, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 60-77.
Parnaby, J. (1979), “Concept of a manufacturing system”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 123-35.
Phillips, G., Thomas, A., Childerhouse, P. and Towill, D.R.
(2008), “Enhancing supply chain effectiveness through a
 Effective supply chain research
P. Childerhouse and D.R. Towill
strategic business model”, Proceedings of 13th International
Symposium on Logistics, Bangkok, Thailand.
Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Potter, A., Towill, D.R., Böhme, T. and Disney, S.M. (2009),
“Influence of multi-product production strategy on factory-
induced bullwhip”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 27 No. 20, pp. 5739-59.
Schaeffer, G. (1992), “Exchange of quick scan know-how in
EUNiL”, Draft DW1392-b, internal document, Eindhoven
University, Eindhoven.
Solem, O. (2003), “Epistemology and logistics: a critical
overview”, Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 16
No. 6, pp. 437-54.
Storey, J., Emberson, C. and Reade, D. (2005), “The barriers
to customer responsive supply chain management”,
International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 242-60.
Svensson, G. (2002), “The theoretical foundation of supply
chain management”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 32 No. 9,
pp. 734-54.
Towill, D.R. and Childerhouse, P. (2006), “Enabling the
seamless supply chain by exploiting the four smooth
material flow controls”, Production Planning and Control,
Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 756-68.
Towill, D.R., Childerhouse, P. and Disney, S.M. (2000),
“Speeding up the progress curve towards effective supply
chain management”, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 5 Nos 3/4, pp. 122-30.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
10
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 16 · Number 1 · 2011 · 5 –10
Towill, D.R., Childerhouse, P. and Disney, S.M. (2002),
“Integrating the automotive supply chain: where are we
now?”, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 79-95.
Further reading
Childerhouse, P. (2002), “Enabling seamless market-
orientated supply chains”, PhD thesis, LSDG, Cardiff
University, Cardiff.
Childerhouse, P. and Towill, D.R. (2003), “Simplified
material flow holds the key to supply chain integration”,
OMEGA, Vol. 31, pp. 17-27.
Childerhouse, P., Aitken, J. and Towill, D.R. (2002),
“Analysis and design of focused demand chains”, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 675-89.
Coughlan, P. and Coghlan, D. (2002), “Action research for
operations management”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 220-40.
Revans, R.W. (1976), Action Learning in Hospitals: Diagnosis
and Therapy, McGraw-Hill, London.
Westbrook, R. (1995), “Action research”, International
Journal of Operations and Research Management, Vol. 15
No. 12, pp. 6-20.
Corresponding author
D.R. Towill can be contacted at: adamse27@cardiff.ac.uk