Samenvatting
Samenvatting artikelen Contemporary Theories on B&M (EBB098A05)
Nagenoeg alle artikelen samengevat. Deze samenvatting mist 1 artikel en is zeker niet de beste. Meer om alles efficiënt door te kunnen nemen.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 36 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 36 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Verkoper
Volgen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Week 1 2artikel 1 Holmström 2
Artikel 2 Shapira 5
Artikel 3 Whetten 7
Week 2 8
Artikel 2 Barney 8
Artikel 3 Greve 13
Week 3 16
Artikel 1 Campbell 16
Artikel 2 Donaldson 18
Artikel 3 Mitchel 22
Week 4 26
Artikel 1 Boivie 26
Artikel 2 Conelly 32
Deze samenvatting mist 1 artikel en is zeker niet de beste. Meer om alles efficient door te
kunnen nemen.
,Week 1
artikel 1 Holmström
This article argues that Operations Management (OM) research should not only focus on
developing and testing theories but also on problem-solving and discovery. The article
suggests that design science can be a useful approach for OM researchers to actively
engage in problem-solving while still conducting scientific research. The article discusses the
difference between design science research and traditional empirical research and highlights
the importance of both approaches. The article also describes the four phases of design
science research, which involve problem-framing, solution refinement, theoretical relevance,
and theoretical generalization. The article suggests that design science can provide valuable
contributions to both practice and theory in OM research.
INTRODUCTION
The article argues that while contemporary operations management (OM) research primarily
focuses on developing and testing theoretical hypotheses, there is a need to complement
this approach with a focus on problem-solving and discovery. The article suggests that
design science can offer a valuable approach for OM researchers to actively engage in
problem-solving activities while still conducting scientific research. The article raises
important questions about whether OM researchers should extend their role beyond
theoretical explanation to actual problem-solving and how this can lead to scientific
contributions. The article highlights the historical roots of OM theories arising from attempts
to solve real-life problems and argues for a methodological basis that allows OM researchers
to shape phenomena actively.
DESIGN SCIENCE AS THE BASIS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING RESEARCH
The article argues that there is a bias in the Operations Management (OM) literature towards
well-defined problems and research questions. It encourages the scientific OM community to
consider alternatives, such as conducting explorative research addressing ill-structured
management problems, which involves many methodological challenges unfamiliar to those
focusing on evaluative research. To meet these challenges, there is a rich research tradition
in engineering and architecture entitled design science, which specifically focuses on
tackling ill-structured problems in a systematic manner. The article adopts a definition of
design science that emphasizes the process of exploration through design. Successful
scientists are (and should be) as much active problem solvers and designers as observers
and theorists. The article argues that more significant impact to practice could be achieved if
attempts to solve ill-structured problems were included in OM research. The article highlights
that ill-structured problems are what managers must address in their work.
Contrasting Exploration and Explanation Research
The article discusses the difference between design science and explanatory research
in Operations Management (OM). Explanatory research seeks to explain existing
phenomena while design science research requires the creation of artificial phenomena or
artifacts. The goals of the two approaches are also different, with explanatory research
focused on theoretical explanations while design science is primarily concerned with
,improving practice. The disciplinary bases of the two approaches are also different, with
design science being rooted in engineering and architecture. The article suggests that the
emphasis on explanatory research in OM PhD programs may explain why design science
research in OM is scarce.
Exploration and Explanation Research as Complements
The article argues that exploration research (i.e., design science) and explanation research
(i.e., traditional empirical research) are not mutually exclusive and are highly complementary.
Exploratory research creates artifacts that can be used for evaluative research, which tests
the artifacts in different contexts and evaluates their effectiveness. The article highlights the
importance of design science in providing raw material for evaluative research and ultimately
improving practice. The complementary roles of both research approaches are summarized
in Table 2, and the article provides a more detailed description of design science
methodology.
FROM EXPLORATION TO EXPLANATION: FOUR PHASES OF RESEARCH
The article discusses the position of design science in relation to contemporary OM research
and methodology, and elaborates on the four phases of research that describe the process
of moving from new ideas to tested ideas to mid-range theory and formal theory. The focus
of contemporary OM research is on the last two phases, which are labeled theoretical
science, and are characterized by a cognitive and theoretical research interest. In contrast,
design science focuses on generating raw material and phenomena for theoretical OM. The
article introduces the idea of means-ends analysis, which is a critical aspect of design
science.
Means-Ends Analysis
Means-ends analysis is a method of goal-directed scientific inquiry that is based on
representations of present and desired states, the differences between them, and the
actions needed to change the present situation to achieve the desired state. Design science
relies on means-ends analysis to move towards the desired state. The specific form of
means-ends analysis used in each phase of the research is discussed in detail in the context
of the four phases of design science.
Phase 1: Solution Incubation
The article discusses the challenges in problem-solving in factories and supply chains,
where identifying problems is not the challenge, but rather framing the problem in a unique
way. The solution incubation phase, which involves framing the problem and developing
potential solution designs, requires subjective and multidisciplinary input, which involves
scientific reasoning that is less familiar to operations management (OM) researchers.
Abductive reasoning is an essential part of this phase and is often used in scientific
discovery and detective work. The phase involves problem-solving and solution spotting to
achieve specific goals.
Phase 2: Solution Refinement
, The second phase of exploration research involves subjecting a rudimentary solution design
to empirical testing, refining it through iterations to determine what works and what does not.
The process involves confirming and disconfirming conjectures embedded in the solution
design through an iterative trial-and-error-type process. The refinement phase may require
abductive reasoning and further detective work to pinpoint the sources of unintended
consequences. The refinement process is highly iterative and incorporates the idea of
co-opting unintended consequences as an important element. In this phase, means-ends
analysis includes design patterns and technological frames. Design patterns are
documented successful solution designs, and technological frames place the solution design
into the context of objectives and understanding of different stakeholders in the
implementation.
Phase 3: Explanation I—Substantive Theory
The article discusses the need for design science researchers to move beyond just
developing solutions to problems and focus on creating theoretical contributions. The article
suggests that design scientists should aim to cover Phases 3 and 4, but at a minimum,
Phase 3 should be considered, which is the Explanation I phase, where the theoretical
relevance of the solution design is established. This involves evaluating the artifact from a
theoretical, not pragmatic point of view, and focusing on the development of substantive
theory of the mid-range variety. In this phase, researchers seek theoretical justification as
well as demonstration of theoretical utility. Theoretical contributions are measured in terms of
novel insight and understanding they offer, not in dollars. The role of substantive theory is
not to offer results that are generalizable across contexts; that is the goal of Phase 4.
Phase 4: Explanation II—Formal Theory
The majority of empirical OM research aims to develop formal theory, which are theoretical
propositions that can be applied beyond the specific empirical context studied. Transaction
cost economics and structural contingency theory are two well-known formal theories that
can be understood without reference to a specific empirical context. Formal theories are
aimed at broader generalizability and often develop from substantive theories. Theoretical
contribution tends to be prioritized over managerial relevance in empirical OM research.
Formal theoretical propositions express the relationship between theoretical constructs and
do not require an empirical context to be understood.
DESIGN SCIENCE AS PART OF OM RESEARCH
The article discusses the importance of integrating exploratory research with explanatory
research in design science. The authors suggest that the key to linking these two types of
research is to strengthen the link between Phases 2 and 3. They argue that conducting both
types of research simultaneously would improve the managerial relevance of explanatory
research. The authors also discuss the benefits of Phase 3 researchers engaging in Phase 2
research, including better understanding of the behavior of solution design in its application
context and the potential to develop and test theoretical hypotheses. Conversely, the
benefits of using Phase 3 expertise in Phase 2 include introducing theoretical understanding
to guide iterative development efforts.
CONCLUSION
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper SDW0702. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €5,48. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 53340 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen