Why is management research irrelevant?

Abstract

At least since 1980, there has been a practically continuous, but somewhat fragmented discussion on the relevance of management research. This discussion has addressed practically all fields of management; here, besides general management, operations management, project management and construction management are examined in more detail. Although many different proposals have been made to rectify the situation, no definitive resolution has been found. In this paper, it is argued that prior analyses have not reached the root causes of the irrelevance problem. By an analysis of the recent history of management research, the following novel findings are reached. First, the root cause of the irrelevance is argued to lie in the 1959 reports on American business education, written by Pierson and Gordon & Howell. Second, while the proposed direction in the 1959 reports was deficient in several ways, the rejection of production as an integral part of organizations and management has been perhaps the most damaging feature of those reports. Third, current research on management suffers from a variety of immediate causes for irrelevance, insufficiently recognized by the scholarly community. It is suggested that reaching the root causes for irrelevance will facilitate finding suitable cures.

Tolerance Management in Construction: A Conceptual Framework

“…The empirical data in this study is essential to deviate from theoretical knowledge without practical relevance, towards effective solutions for real-world problems [32]. While the management research in general [30], and TM in particular [24,40], have been criticised for practical irrelevance, this research contributes to support better links between theory and practice in TM.…”

“…This is because (a) the dominant approach for dimensional and geometric variations is to use rule of thumb or trial and error strategies [4,24]; (b) existing software, e.g., Building Information Models, do not support those approaches for most conventional construction projects [4]; and (c) a reluctance prevails in the industry to use manufacturing methodologies that are not supported by organisations developing construction standards [18,24]. In fact, knowledge transfer from manufacturing to construction must be treated with caution because the level of maturity of processes and practices is different [4], otherwise it is solely of interest to academics, without the possibility of application in practice [30].…”

“…This is because a set of practical steps of an effective process for TM were clearly presented along with real examples for further demonstration. The review of such good TM practice is currently missing in the literature, while the process of reviewing good practices before attempting to improve existing practices is essential [28][29][30][31][32]. The explored process can be adapted by other companies and can be continuously improved to eventually develop a standard for TM rather than reinventing the wheel with each new project.…”

“…This paper explores TM good practices in a civil engineering consultancy. The process of reviewing 'good practices' before attempting to improve existing practices is expected to (a) capture the accumulated learning about a process [28], (b) allow others to build upon practice and continuously improve it [29], and (c) ensure the relevance of management research to industrial practice [30][31][32]. In this paper, the term 'good practice', also referred to as 'one best way' [33], does not mean that there is only one path to success [28,33,34], but it is defined as "a process or method that, when executed effectively, leads to enhanced project performance" [35].…”

The futures of construction management research

“…The aim is to account for the potential effects of a number of emerging trends and contribute to the nascent discussion on the future directions of CMR in this journal (e.g. Bresnen, 2017;Koskela, 2017;Leiringer and Dainty, 2017).…”