EXECUTIVESUMMARYDue to the heritage and history of operations management, its research methodologies have been confined mainly to that of quantitative modeling and, on occasion, statistical analysis. The field has been changing dramatically in recent years. Firms now face numerous worldwide competitive challenges. many of which require major improvements in the operations function. Yet, the research methodologies in operations have largely remained stagnant. The paradigm on which these methodologies are based, while useful, limits the kinds of questions researchers can address.This paper presents a review and critique of the research in operations, itemizing the shortcomings identified by researchers in the field. These researchers suggest a new research agenda with an integrative view of operations' role in organizations, a wider application of alternative research methodologies, greater emphasis on benefit to the operations manager, cross-disciplinary research with other functional areas, a heavier emphasis on sociotechnical analysis over the entire production system, and empirical field studies. Some of the alternative research methodologies mentioned include longitudinal studies, field experiments, action research, and field studies.Following a description of the nature of research, three stages in the research cycle are identified: description, explanation, and testing. Although research can deal with any stage in this cycle, the majority of attention currently seems to focus on the explanation stage. The paper then discusses historical trends in the philosophy of science, starting with positivism, expanding into empiricism, and then leading to post-positivism.The impacts of each of these trends on research in operations (which remains largely in the positivist mode) are described. Discussion of the importance of a plurality of research methods concludes the section.A framework for research paradigms is then developed based on two key dimensions of research methodologies: the rational versus existential structure of the research process and the natural versus artificial basis for the information used in the research. These dimensions are then further explored in terms of thirteen characteristic measures. Next, research methodologies commonly used in other fields as well as operations are described in reference to this framework. Methodologies include those traditional to operations such as normative and descriptive modeling, simulation, surveys, case and field studies as well as those more common to other fields such as action research, historical analysis, expert panels, scenarios, interviewing, introspection, and hermeneutics. Examples from operations or allied fields are given to illustrate the methodologies.Past research publications in operations are plotted on the framework to see the limitations of our current paradigms relative to the richness of other fields. We tind that operations methodologies tend to ManuscriptJournal of Operations Management lie on the more rational end of the framework while s...

This research uses three in‐depth case studies to establish the drivers and sources of volume flexibility. We find that in all three firms, there is significant concern among managers for gaining competitiveness through volume flexibility. We also find that there are several avenues for developing a volume flexible response and that deployment of these tactics is dependent on the availability of resources and systems. To verify some of these propositions we report on the outcomes of a field survey that measures the importance firms place on volume flexibility as well as the corresponding actions they take to remain volume flexible. Our critical finding is that short‐ and long‐term sources of volume flexibility have a positive, albeit differential, impact on a firm’s performance.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to leverage the lessons learned from three published studies on volume flexibility in the capital goods industry to demonstrate the effective use of methodological triangulation in operations management research.Design/methodology/approachThe paper uses lessons learned from three published studies to address several issues that researchers encounter when using methodological triangulation. It also develops a coherent framework for developing a research strategy that uses methodological triangulation.FindingsIn demonstrating the use of triangulation, the paper documents several tradeoffs that researchers face including: outlining a triangulation strategy; considering the strengths and weaknesses of different data sources; assessing convergent, complementary divergent and meta inference; and paying attention to errors of inference during the triangulation process.Research limitations/implicationsAs with every research method, methodological triangulation has limitations that can be amplified by method specific issues and assumptions related to across‐method generalization and inference.Practical implicationsProvides a detailed example of why and how researchers make critical decisions on the appropriate use of methodological triangulation.Originality/valueThis work will assist future researchers who use triangulation to better position their work and to make informed choices that ultimately lead to more complete theories. This work would also be on interest to practitioners interested in keeping up with academic literature.

No abstract

This paper presents a theoretical framework for measuring volume flexibility and relating these measures to firm performance. We develop four metrics using the principle that a volume flexible firm can handle similar levels of uncertainty (as measured by sales variability) with smaller fluctuations in inputs (as measured by variability in cost of goods sold and variability in inventory levels). Then, using 20 years of Compustat data on 550 firms in the capital goods industry, we find that on three of four process‐based measures, small firms are more volume flexible. However, when we incorporate financial performance into our fourth metric, we find that large firms are more volume flexible. We conclude that, to be volume flexible is one thing, but to benefit from this flexibility, firms need to focus on the cost of being flexible.