Deconstructing the reinvention of operations management

Abstract

Purpose The purpose is to provide an intellectual history of Operations Management, particularly noting recent developments and its underlying continuity with earlier systems and thinking. Operations Management as a discipline identifies its “modern” incarnation as dating from the 1960s when it became more rigorous and managerially focused. This re-invention constructed a “narrative” that the profession still follows, yet a critical perspective reveals significant, though under-appreciated continuity with earlier theory and practice. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a comprehensive literature review and comparative analysis of historic developments in management and academia. Findings In the early 1900s, F. W. Taylor’s Shop Management established Operation Management, but its main component, Scientific Management, had stagnated by the 1950s. At that point, the rise of Management Science both reinvigorated Operations Management and threatened it with a competing new discipline. To compete Operations Management then modernized by redefining itself, reasserting its interest in several areas and co-opting Operational Research tools for those. It also contracted, withdrawing from areas considered vocational, or more suited to Industrial Engineering. Research limitations/implications This historical overview shows the critical importance of drawing research agenda from practical managerial concerns. Practical implications Practitioners benefit from the intellectual rigor that academics provide and a historical perspective shows that the relationship has been mutually beneficial. Social implications The disciplines of Operations Management, Operations Research and Industrial Engineering are complementary and competitive in addressing many problems that transcend their boundaries, and use common ideas and techniques. The demands of “academic rigor” have had a deleterious effect on the practical managerial relevance of these disciplines. Originality/value A long-term, cross-disciplinary perspective provides a unique understanding of the research interests and practical orientations of these disciplines.

Lessons from CSCMP Supply Chain Hall of Famer Henry Ford and the research that they call for in modern supply chains

“…There was no ignorance about demand levels and the value of managing production and inventory in relation. Figure 4, for example, illustrates how production was closely matched to highly variable sales, while minimizing inventories (Wilson, 2018). In the Ford factories there were multiple production lines, some of which could be temporarily closed or reopened depending upon demand volumes.…”

Bridging the Gap between Practice and Undergraduate Teaching of Operations Management: The Case of Public Liberal Arts Colleges

“…This was a short-lived period of modernization because the shift turned out to be ineffective. Wilson (2018) observed that with the shift, practical ideas shared by practitioners which dominated in the past became neglected or ignored. These were replaced by "theoretical constructs of an abstract reality" expressed in OR models which were then analyzed to produce optimized results "written in arcane jargon published in low circulation."…”

Operation manager and its role in the enterprise

“…In contrast to traditionally standardized production, where producer impose their standard products to customer, customized production is flexible, the products are adapted to the very customer's demand. Customer product can be perceived as a product modified according to customer's needs (Wilson, 2018;Fiorentino, 2018). Customization generates higher product differentiation, which furtherly leads to product diversity increase, and starts with negotiations with the customer on the details of the order, which continue in the course of design, production and sale of the product.…”