Contemporary Theories on B&M
EBB098A05
,Table of Contents
Lecture 1 - Introduction to the course 2
Holmström, J.,Ketokivi, M.and Hameri, A. P.,2009. Bridging Practice and Theory: A
Design Science Approach. Decision Sciences,40 (1), pp. 65-87. 2
Shapira,Z., 2011. “I’ve Got a Theory Paper –Do You?”: Conceptual, Empirical, and
Theoretical Contributions to Knowledge in the Organizational Sciences. Organization
Science,22 (5), pp.1312 -1321. 11
Whetten, D. A.,1989. What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of
Management Review,14 (4), pp. 490-495. 16
Lecture 2 - Corporate Social Responsibility 20
Campbell, J. L. 2007. Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An
institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy ofManagement Review,
32(3): 946–967. 20
Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. E. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation:
Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65–91.
28
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts.
Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 853-886. 38
Lecture 3 46
Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. (2003). The cross-national diversity of corporate
governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of Management Review, 28(3),
447–465. 46
Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R., & Cannella, A. A. (2003). Corporate governance: Decades of
dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 371–382. 60
Lecture 4 64
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1), 99-120. 64
Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic
management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 41-56. 68
McGahan, A. M. (2021). Integrating Insights from the Resource-Based View of the Firm
into the New Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Management 72
1
,Lecture 1 - Introduction to the course
Holmström, J.,Ketokivi, M.and Hameri, A. P.,2009. Bridging Practice and
Theory: A Design Science Approach. Decision Sciences,40 (1), pp. 65-87.
Introduction
Contemporary operations management (OM) research is driven mainly by a desire to create
knowledge and to expand our understanding by explaining various empirical phenomena.
Consequently, OM methodology is based on the premise that empirical research should be used
to develop and test theoretical hypotheses. This premise follows the legacy of logical empiricism
( → scientific knowledge is the only kind of factual knowledge) and has been adopted both in
general management as well as OM research.
While theory building, theory testing, and explanation undoubtedly remain indispensable, we
argue in this article, that additional focus on discovery and problem solving can complement
extant methodologies, advance OM as a science, and enhance the practical relevance of our
work.
Meredith (2001) argued that OM has always been a practical field and that OM research deals
with practical problems. We extend this idea by asking whether we are merely observers and
evaluators of the practitioners’ problem-solving activity or whether we as researchers become
problem solvers.
While there is considerable bias for the former approach with regard to problem-solving
management research, a number of management researchers have indeed assumed the role of
problem solver in their research, actively seeking to develop solutions, not merely explanations
Explaining Long lead times ( → time it takes to complete a process from beginning to end) is
different from taking action to reduce them. Design scientists are not content with merely
explaining and perhaps predicting but indeed shaping the phenomenon of interest
The goal of this article is to examine the methodological basis for research where the scientist
assumes an active role in shaping phenomena and to establish its link to the more conventional
theoretically oriented explanatory research used in OM.
→ the article also questions whether the OM scientists are able to engage in solving real-life
problems under the rubric of scientific research
Design Science as the basis of problem-solving research
There is a considerable bias in the extant methodology literature toward problems and research
questions that are well defined. We also often encourage doctoral candidates to avoid taking
risks by sticking to well-defined research questions in their dissertations.
2
, While this is understandable, there are questions of both managerial and theoretical import that
can be relatively ill structured ( → real world problems that possess multiple solutions) , to use
Simon’s terminology. By ill structured we mean decision situations where decision makers may
not know or agree on the goals of the decision, and even if the goals are known, the means by
which these goals are achieved are not known and requisite solution designs (e.g.,
technologies) to solve the problem may not even exist. Development of solution designs or
artifacts thus becomes prerequisite to evaluative research and researchers who restrict
themselves to an evaluative research strategy must wait for the decision maker to act and
subsequently, in a backward-looking manner, evaluate these actions through a
hypothetico-deductive or inductive research ( → inductive reasoning aims at developing a
theory while deductive reasoning aims at testing an existing theory). There is a time and a
place for evaluation research, but we encourage the scientific OM community to consider
alternatives.
To be sure, conducting exploratory research addressing ill-structured management problems
involves many methodological challenges unfamiliar to those focusing on evaluative research.
To meet the challenges associated with practical and technological problem solving, however,
there is a rich research tradition in engineering and architecture entitled design science, which
specifically focused on tackling ill-structured problems in a systematic manner.
Design science is fundamentally different from both the theory-building and theory-testing
approaches, which model themselves after the natural sciences and seek explanation based on
observation. In this article, we adopt a definition of design science that emphasizes the process
of exploration through design: design science is research that seeks (i) to explore new solution
alternatives to solve problems, (ii) to explain this explorative process, and (iii) to improve the
problem-solving process.
Labels aside, the common goal in all these endeavors is the same: the researcher is interested
in developing “a means to an end,” an artifact to solve a problem. Either the means or the end,
or both, must be novel. In contrast, action research that focuses on, say, problem-solving
processes or group dynamics in a specific problem situation—without an explicit development of
artifacts—would not be considered design science. Action research must explicitly focus on the
design and implementation of a means to an end to be considered design science.
The idea that successful scientists are (and should be) as much active problem solvers and
designers as observers and theorists is well established and is at least indirectly supported by
the editorial policies of many prominent academic OM journals, where significant impact to
practice is encouraged. We believe more significant impact to practice could be achieved if we
included attempts to solve ill-structured problems in the domain of OM research.
“[i]in the field of OM, however, it is not clear whether much of anything would change in practice
if the entire group of academics suddenly disappeared. What makes a theory practical, and how
are practical theories generated?” → crucial question in OM
3
EBB098A05
,Table of Contents
Lecture 1 - Introduction to the course 2
Holmström, J.,Ketokivi, M.and Hameri, A. P.,2009. Bridging Practice and Theory: A
Design Science Approach. Decision Sciences,40 (1), pp. 65-87. 2
Shapira,Z., 2011. “I’ve Got a Theory Paper –Do You?”: Conceptual, Empirical, and
Theoretical Contributions to Knowledge in the Organizational Sciences. Organization
Science,22 (5), pp.1312 -1321. 11
Whetten, D. A.,1989. What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of
Management Review,14 (4), pp. 490-495. 16
Lecture 2 - Corporate Social Responsibility 20
Campbell, J. L. 2007. Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An
institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy ofManagement Review,
32(3): 946–967. 20
Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. E. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation:
Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65–91.
28
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts.
Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 853-886. 38
Lecture 3 46
Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. (2003). The cross-national diversity of corporate
governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of Management Review, 28(3),
447–465. 46
Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R., & Cannella, A. A. (2003). Corporate governance: Decades of
dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 371–382. 60
Lecture 4 64
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1), 99-120. 64
Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic
management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 41-56. 68
McGahan, A. M. (2021). Integrating Insights from the Resource-Based View of the Firm
into the New Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Management 72
1
,Lecture 1 - Introduction to the course
Holmström, J.,Ketokivi, M.and Hameri, A. P.,2009. Bridging Practice and
Theory: A Design Science Approach. Decision Sciences,40 (1), pp. 65-87.
Introduction
Contemporary operations management (OM) research is driven mainly by a desire to create
knowledge and to expand our understanding by explaining various empirical phenomena.
Consequently, OM methodology is based on the premise that empirical research should be used
to develop and test theoretical hypotheses. This premise follows the legacy of logical empiricism
( → scientific knowledge is the only kind of factual knowledge) and has been adopted both in
general management as well as OM research.
While theory building, theory testing, and explanation undoubtedly remain indispensable, we
argue in this article, that additional focus on discovery and problem solving can complement
extant methodologies, advance OM as a science, and enhance the practical relevance of our
work.
Meredith (2001) argued that OM has always been a practical field and that OM research deals
with practical problems. We extend this idea by asking whether we are merely observers and
evaluators of the practitioners’ problem-solving activity or whether we as researchers become
problem solvers.
While there is considerable bias for the former approach with regard to problem-solving
management research, a number of management researchers have indeed assumed the role of
problem solver in their research, actively seeking to develop solutions, not merely explanations
Explaining Long lead times ( → time it takes to complete a process from beginning to end) is
different from taking action to reduce them. Design scientists are not content with merely
explaining and perhaps predicting but indeed shaping the phenomenon of interest
The goal of this article is to examine the methodological basis for research where the scientist
assumes an active role in shaping phenomena and to establish its link to the more conventional
theoretically oriented explanatory research used in OM.
→ the article also questions whether the OM scientists are able to engage in solving real-life
problems under the rubric of scientific research
Design Science as the basis of problem-solving research
There is a considerable bias in the extant methodology literature toward problems and research
questions that are well defined. We also often encourage doctoral candidates to avoid taking
risks by sticking to well-defined research questions in their dissertations.
2
, While this is understandable, there are questions of both managerial and theoretical import that
can be relatively ill structured ( → real world problems that possess multiple solutions) , to use
Simon’s terminology. By ill structured we mean decision situations where decision makers may
not know or agree on the goals of the decision, and even if the goals are known, the means by
which these goals are achieved are not known and requisite solution designs (e.g.,
technologies) to solve the problem may not even exist. Development of solution designs or
artifacts thus becomes prerequisite to evaluative research and researchers who restrict
themselves to an evaluative research strategy must wait for the decision maker to act and
subsequently, in a backward-looking manner, evaluate these actions through a
hypothetico-deductive or inductive research ( → inductive reasoning aims at developing a
theory while deductive reasoning aims at testing an existing theory). There is a time and a
place for evaluation research, but we encourage the scientific OM community to consider
alternatives.
To be sure, conducting exploratory research addressing ill-structured management problems
involves many methodological challenges unfamiliar to those focusing on evaluative research.
To meet the challenges associated with practical and technological problem solving, however,
there is a rich research tradition in engineering and architecture entitled design science, which
specifically focused on tackling ill-structured problems in a systematic manner.
Design science is fundamentally different from both the theory-building and theory-testing
approaches, which model themselves after the natural sciences and seek explanation based on
observation. In this article, we adopt a definition of design science that emphasizes the process
of exploration through design: design science is research that seeks (i) to explore new solution
alternatives to solve problems, (ii) to explain this explorative process, and (iii) to improve the
problem-solving process.
Labels aside, the common goal in all these endeavors is the same: the researcher is interested
in developing “a means to an end,” an artifact to solve a problem. Either the means or the end,
or both, must be novel. In contrast, action research that focuses on, say, problem-solving
processes or group dynamics in a specific problem situation—without an explicit development of
artifacts—would not be considered design science. Action research must explicitly focus on the
design and implementation of a means to an end to be considered design science.
The idea that successful scientists are (and should be) as much active problem solvers and
designers as observers and theorists is well established and is at least indirectly supported by
the editorial policies of many prominent academic OM journals, where significant impact to
practice is encouraged. We believe more significant impact to practice could be achieved if we
included attempts to solve ill-structured problems in the domain of OM research.
“[i]in the field of OM, however, it is not clear whether much of anything would change in practice
if the entire group of academics suddenly disappeared. What makes a theory practical, and how
are practical theories generated?” → crucial question in OM
3
