The issue of operations management (OM) research agendas was first advanced in the literature in 1980 with updates and additions in 1981, 1987, and 1989. We believe that the time is ripe for an analysis of the OM research agenda in the decade of the 90's. In this study, we examine operations management research methodologies and output during the period 1992–1997. Amoako‐Gyampah and Meredith [Amoako‐Gyampah, K., Meredith, J.R., 1989. Journal of Operations Management 8, 250‐262] published a study in which they examined operations management research output from 1982 through 1987. Our objectives are to examine the state of operations management research in the 1990s from the standpoint of topics and methodologies to look for trends, and to determine implications for future research. We assessed the state of research in operations management by examining the research topics addressed and the methodologies used in a subset of seven academic journals that are representative of publications in operations management research. We also surveyed pipeline research in the operations management area by analyzing the topics discussed in national conferences attended by operations management academicians and researchers. Our findings show some significant changes in the kind of research being performed in the 1990s vs. the 1980s. Greater interest in strategy and quality are now apparent in the literature. OM research in the 1990s is also more integrative in nature. We were surprised to find no apparent shift away from modeling solution methods nor any significant shift toward empirical methodologies.

Product development occurs in multiproject environments where preemption is often allowed so that critical projects can be addressed immediately. Because product development is characterized by time-based competition, there is pressure to make decisions quickly using heuristics methods that yield fast project completion. Preemption heuristics are needed both to choose activities for preemption and then to determine which resources to use to restart preempted activities. Past research involving preemption has ignored any completion time penalty due to the forgetting experienced by project personnel during preemption and the resulting relearning time required to regain lost proficiency. The purpose of this research is to determine the impact of learning, forgetting, and relearning (LFR) on project completion time when preemption is allowed. We present a model for the LFR cycle in multiproject development environments. We test a number of priority rules for activity scheduling, activity preemption, and resource assignment subsequent to preemption, subject to the existence of the LFR cycle, for which a single type of knowledge worker resource is assigned among multiple projects. The results of the simulation experiments clearly demonstrate that LFR effects are significant. The tests of different scheduling, preemption, and resource reassignment rules show that the choice of rule is crucial in mitigating the completion time penalty effects of the LFR cycle, while maintaining high levels of resource utilization. Specifically, the worst performing rules tested for each performance measure are those that attempt to maintain high resource utilization. The best performing rules are based on activity criticality and resource learning. Subject Areas: Heuristics and Project Management.

No abstract

Knowledge-worker development projects are often performed where multiple projects are always in progress, and where preemption often occurs for solving time-critical customer service projects. The following nonlinear model for learning-intense situations demonstrates that the choice of preemption policy significantly impacts project completion times. Within this model, the authors identify policies that reduce the detrimental effects of preemption. The best policy preempts the activity that has the most slack and has been in progress the shortest time, and restarts the activity quickly with qualified resources as soon as possible.

No abstract