Summary Contemporary Theories on B&M
Summary of articles
Contains the six articles of lecture 1 & 2
Articles of Contemporary Theories on B&M
Holmström, J., Ketokivi, M. & Hameri, A. P., 2009. Bridging Practice and Theory: A Design Science
Approach. Decision Sciences ................................................................................................................... 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. ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
Whetten, D. A., 1989. What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of Management
Review, 14 (4), pp. 490-495................................................................................................................... 13
Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1),
99-120.................................................................................................................................................... 16
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. .......................................................... 21
Greve, H. R. 2021. The resource-based view and learning theory: Overlaps, differences, and a shared
future. Journal of Management, 47(7), 1720-1733............................................................................... 25
,Holmström, J., Ketokivi, M. & Hameri, A. P., 2009. Bridging Practice
and Theory: A Design Science Approach. Decision Sciences
The goal of making academic research relevant to practice remains elusive: theoretical and academic
research interests do not seem to coincide with the interests of management practice.
This article proposes a design science approach to bridge practice to theory rather tan theory to
practice. Building on the work of Herbert Simon that additional focuses on discovery and problem
solving can complement extant methodologies and enhance the practical relevance of our work
nowadays. Towards this end, design science has much to offer, which will be discussed in this
summary.
Operations management is a more practical field → researchers become problem solvers. The goal
for this article is to examine the methodological basis for research where scientists assume an active
role in shaping the phenomena and to establish its link to more conventional theoretically oriented
explanatory research used in Operations Management (OM).
In OM, it is important to recognize and build upon the complementarity of problem-solving research
and theoretical academic research on each other. Because problem-solving oriented research
produces the building blocks that OM research then evaluates in an attempt to build an explanatory
theory.
The question here is if OM scientist should extend beyond theoretical explanation to actual problem
solving.
Design science focus on tackling ill-structured problems in a systematic manner and is fundamental
different from theory-building and theory-testing
Holmström et al. (2009) adopt a definition of design science that emphasise the process of
exploration through design.
Design science is research that seeks:
1. To explore new solution alternatives to solve problems
2. To explain this explorative process
3. To improve the problem-solving process
The common goal of design science is that researchers are interested in developing a ‘means to end’:
an artefact (object/tool) to solve a problem.
Action research, unlike design science, is about problem-solving processes or group dynamics in a
specific problem, without an explicit development of artifacts.
➢ Action research focuses on problem-solving processes or group dynamics in a specific
problem situation.
➢ Action research must focus on the design and implementation of a means to an end
to be considered design science.
➢ The idea that scientists should be as much active problem-solvers and designers as
observer and theorists is well established.
,The most familiar example of design science to the OM audience is Activity-based costing. For
example, Design science = activity-based costing and the balanced scorecard.
Activity-based costing = Labelled as action innovation research by Kaplan. A way of allocating
indirect costs to products and services. It is a technique used by controllers in determining the
cost.
Besides activity-based costing, design science is hardly used in OM
Contrasting Exploration and Explanation Research
The fundamental philosophical difference between exploratory and explanatory research is
ontological (=the question of which things (or a specific thing) really exist and what their essential
nature is). See Table 1.
• Explanatory research (theoretical science): phenomenon to be studied already exists and the
goal is to understand it.
• Exploratory research (design science): the phenomenon must be created before it can be
evaluated
The difference between the two is shown in the end product, and thus the goals of the researcher.
There are differences in the two research traditions and clearly indicate different research interests.
➢ Explanatory theories are primarily focused on seeking theoretical explanations and perhaps
prediction. Explanatory focus could also be labelled as Theoretical-cognitive research.
➢ The Design Scientist, while ultimately interested in explanation as well, is interested in
creating an artifact that solves a practical problem with empirical evaluation (=experiments).
Most of the existing OM research is more cognitive (Explanatory) than pragmatic (Exploratory) in its
orientation: the primary goal of research articles is to advance theory and to produce academic
publications, not to improve practice.
Finally, the disciplinary bases of the two traditions are different, and this may also be one
explanation for why design science research in OM is scarce.
, Exploration and explanation research as complements
Exploration and explanation are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, they are both essential and
highly complementary.
➢ Exploration research complements explanation research by producing artifacts that can be used as
raw material for evaluation research
But… Without design science, evaluative research would have nothing to evaluate
➢ Evaluative research in turn complements exploration by evaluating the merits/added values of
various artifacts in different contexts: what are the limits of applicability of, say, just in time, cell
manufacturing, or Six Sigma?
The complementary roles of explanation and exploration research are summarized in Table 2.
From exploration to explanation: The four phases of research
The four phases describe the process of moving from new ideas to tested ideas to mid-range theory
and, ultimately, formal theory.
The first two phases provide a practical solution, the last two are labelled theoretical science.
Contemporary OM research is dominated by the last two phases.
Means-ends analysis is the central method through which goal-directed scientific inquiry can be
conducted. Means-ends analysis is based on representations of present states, desired states, the
differences between the two states, as well as the actions that change the present situation.
-The goal of the means-end analysis is ultimately to move toward the desired state. Design science
provides the details on how this can happen. → Design science provides the details on how this can
happen.
Summary of articles
Contains the six articles of lecture 1 & 2
Articles of Contemporary Theories on B&M
Holmström, J., Ketokivi, M. & Hameri, A. P., 2009. Bridging Practice and Theory: A Design Science
Approach. Decision Sciences ................................................................................................................... 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. ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
Whetten, D. A., 1989. What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of Management
Review, 14 (4), pp. 490-495................................................................................................................... 13
Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1),
99-120.................................................................................................................................................... 16
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. .......................................................... 21
Greve, H. R. 2021. The resource-based view and learning theory: Overlaps, differences, and a shared
future. Journal of Management, 47(7), 1720-1733............................................................................... 25
,Holmström, J., Ketokivi, M. & Hameri, A. P., 2009. Bridging Practice
and Theory: A Design Science Approach. Decision Sciences
The goal of making academic research relevant to practice remains elusive: theoretical and academic
research interests do not seem to coincide with the interests of management practice.
This article proposes a design science approach to bridge practice to theory rather tan theory to
practice. Building on the work of Herbert Simon that additional focuses on discovery and problem
solving can complement extant methodologies and enhance the practical relevance of our work
nowadays. Towards this end, design science has much to offer, which will be discussed in this
summary.
Operations management is a more practical field → researchers become problem solvers. The goal
for this article is to examine the methodological basis for research where scientists assume an active
role in shaping the phenomena and to establish its link to more conventional theoretically oriented
explanatory research used in Operations Management (OM).
In OM, it is important to recognize and build upon the complementarity of problem-solving research
and theoretical academic research on each other. Because problem-solving oriented research
produces the building blocks that OM research then evaluates in an attempt to build an explanatory
theory.
The question here is if OM scientist should extend beyond theoretical explanation to actual problem
solving.
Design science focus on tackling ill-structured problems in a systematic manner and is fundamental
different from theory-building and theory-testing
Holmström et al. (2009) adopt a definition of design science that emphasise the process of
exploration through design.
Design science is research that seeks:
1. To explore new solution alternatives to solve problems
2. To explain this explorative process
3. To improve the problem-solving process
The common goal of design science is that researchers are interested in developing a ‘means to end’:
an artefact (object/tool) to solve a problem.
Action research, unlike design science, is about problem-solving processes or group dynamics in a
specific problem, without an explicit development of artifacts.
➢ Action research focuses on problem-solving processes or group dynamics in a specific
problem situation.
➢ Action research must focus on the design and implementation of a means to an end
to be considered design science.
➢ The idea that scientists should be as much active problem-solvers and designers as
observer and theorists is well established.
,The most familiar example of design science to the OM audience is Activity-based costing. For
example, Design science = activity-based costing and the balanced scorecard.
Activity-based costing = Labelled as action innovation research by Kaplan. A way of allocating
indirect costs to products and services. It is a technique used by controllers in determining the
cost.
Besides activity-based costing, design science is hardly used in OM
Contrasting Exploration and Explanation Research
The fundamental philosophical difference between exploratory and explanatory research is
ontological (=the question of which things (or a specific thing) really exist and what their essential
nature is). See Table 1.
• Explanatory research (theoretical science): phenomenon to be studied already exists and the
goal is to understand it.
• Exploratory research (design science): the phenomenon must be created before it can be
evaluated
The difference between the two is shown in the end product, and thus the goals of the researcher.
There are differences in the two research traditions and clearly indicate different research interests.
➢ Explanatory theories are primarily focused on seeking theoretical explanations and perhaps
prediction. Explanatory focus could also be labelled as Theoretical-cognitive research.
➢ The Design Scientist, while ultimately interested in explanation as well, is interested in
creating an artifact that solves a practical problem with empirical evaluation (=experiments).
Most of the existing OM research is more cognitive (Explanatory) than pragmatic (Exploratory) in its
orientation: the primary goal of research articles is to advance theory and to produce academic
publications, not to improve practice.
Finally, the disciplinary bases of the two traditions are different, and this may also be one
explanation for why design science research in OM is scarce.
, Exploration and explanation research as complements
Exploration and explanation are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, they are both essential and
highly complementary.
➢ Exploration research complements explanation research by producing artifacts that can be used as
raw material for evaluation research
But… Without design science, evaluative research would have nothing to evaluate
➢ Evaluative research in turn complements exploration by evaluating the merits/added values of
various artifacts in different contexts: what are the limits of applicability of, say, just in time, cell
manufacturing, or Six Sigma?
The complementary roles of explanation and exploration research are summarized in Table 2.
From exploration to explanation: The four phases of research
The four phases describe the process of moving from new ideas to tested ideas to mid-range theory
and, ultimately, formal theory.
The first two phases provide a practical solution, the last two are labelled theoretical science.
Contemporary OM research is dominated by the last two phases.
Means-ends analysis is the central method through which goal-directed scientific inquiry can be
conducted. Means-ends analysis is based on representations of present states, desired states, the
differences between the two states, as well as the actions that change the present situation.
-The goal of the means-end analysis is ultimately to move toward the desired state. Design science
provides the details on how this can happen. → Design science provides the details on how this can
happen.
