Discussion: View Thread

Listen to the Editors, ep. 5: Journal of Operations Management, with Suzanne de Treville and Tyson R. Browning.

  • 1.  Listen to the Editors, ep. 5: Journal of Operations Management, with Suzanne de Treville and Tyson R. Browning.

    Posted 06-01-2019 02:10

    This is the fifth episode of Listen to the Editors, a series of interviews with journal editors to unveil the trends in research for Operations and Supply Chain Management.

     

    In this episode we are interviewing the co-editors-in-chief for the Journal of Operations Management, Suzanne de Treville and Tyson R. Browning.

     

    We discussed how to integrate research and practice (via design research or interventionist research). According to the editors, if a researcher joins a consulting project and everything goes well, there is no paper. However, if the researcher finds something new, a theory that does not work in the real world, and that novelty can bring insights that advance the knowledge, that paper might interest JOM.

     

    We also discussed the reasons for the 60% of papers that are desk-rejected by JOM. Among other reasons, such as lack of fit, poor methodology, or non-empirical papers, the editors mentioned the lack of "delta". The delta is what do you learn from the paper. The editors are working harder to provide more feedback to those authors that have papers rejected at this stage.

     

    The editors are also looking into ways to deepen their relationship with ASCM (formerly known as APICS). They are attending the ASCM this year for the first time. They are also willing to receive research proposals for gathering data on the ASCM corporate members and responding to problems that the executives of such firms are interested in.

     

    This is a really long interview, but we believe you might enjoy, if you want to learn where the journal is heading to.

     

    The host for this show is Iuri Gavronski, Associate Professor for the Graduate Program in Business for the UNISINOS Jesuit University.

     

    Listen to the editors is an initiative of the Operations and Supply Chain Management division of the Academy of Management. We post our interviews monthly in our division website. You can discuss any of the topics of this episode using our interactive tool, https://connect.aom.org.

     

    Using the discussion section of our site, you can also post suggestions for questions, journal editors you would like to hear from, and requests for clarifications.

     

    You can also subscribe to our podcast in Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or with the Podcast Addict app on Android.

     

     

    Papers cited in this episode:
    =============================

     

    Example of a JOM paper based on a consulting project (Browning 2010 JOM):  http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2009.11.007

     

    Editorial on recent developments at JOM:  (Browning & de Treville 2018, JOM):  http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2018.12.005

     

    Methods for JOM, general (Guide & Ketokivi 2015, JOM):  http://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(15)00056-X

    PLS (Rönkkö et al. 2016, JOM):  http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2016.05.002

    Level of analysis and single informants in surveys (Ketokivi 2019, JOM):  http://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1011

     

    Endogeneity:

    (Ketokivi & McIntosh 2017, JOM):  http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2017.05.001

    (Lu et al. 2018, JOM):  http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2018.10.001

     

    OM case study methodology:

    (Handfield & Melnyk 1998, JOM):  http://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00022-0

    (Meredith 1998, JOM):  http://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00023-0

    (Stuart et al. 2002, JOM):  http://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00022-0

    (Barratt et al. 2011, JOM):  http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.06.002

    (Ketokivi & Choi 2014, JOM):  http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.03.004

    Example of single-case study (Browning 2009, JOM):  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2008.03.009

     

     

     

     

    Website for the Journal:

    ========================

     

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/18731317

     

    Editor Bios:

    ============

     

    Dr. Suzanne de Treville is Full Professor of Operations Management at HEC Lausanne, University of Lausanne. Her research areas include: Competitive manufacturing in a high-cost environment, Supply chain management and lead time reduction, Lean production, Process consistency improvement, Health care operations, and Queuing theory-based mathematical modeling of operations.

     

    Dr. Tyson R. Browning is a full Professor of Operations Management in the Neeley School of Business at Texas Christian University, where he conducts research on managing complex projects (integrating managerial and engineering perspectives) and teaches MBA courses on project management, operations management, risk management, and process improvement.

     

     

    Background music:

    =================

    "Night & Day" by Dee Yan-Key is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA

     

    http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Dee_Yan-Key/years_and_years_ago/08--Dee_Yan-Key-Night___Day

     

    2019-05-31 - Episode 005



    ------------------------------
    Iuri Gavronski
    Associate Professor
    UNISINOS Jesuit University
    Brazil
    +55-51-99954-8460
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Listen to the Editors, ep. 5: Journal of Operations Management, with Suzanne de Treville and Tyson R. Browning.

    Posted 06-05-2019 16:42
    Thank you, Iuri, for the professional interview and recording.  It was a pleasure to share some of our latest thinking about the current and future state of JOM.  We are grateful for the vibrant and exciting community of operations and supply chain management scholars, and there are many exciting research questions before us.  This is a great combination for interesting days ahead!

    ------------------------------
    Tyson R. Browning, Ph.D. | Professor of Operations Management | www.TysonBrowning.com
    Neeley School of Business | Texas Christian University | Fort Worth, Texas, USA
    Co-Editor-in-Chief | Journal of Operations Management
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: Listen to the Editors, ep. 5: Journal of Operations Management, with Suzanne de Treville and Tyson R. Browning.

    Posted 06-06-2019 09:45
    Hi Tyson,

    I am still thinking about the interview. I was specially intrigued by the idea of publishing interventionist research. Do you believe it is something that PhD candidates or junior faculty could pursue or tenured faculty, without the time pressure from tenure clock or PhD dissertation, would be more suitable to go after?

    Best regards,

    Iuri.

    ------------------------------
    Iuri Gavronski
    Associate Professor
    UNISINOS Jesuit University
    Brazil
    +55-51-99954-8460
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: Listen to the Editors, ep. 5: Journal of Operations Management, with Suzanne de Treville and Tyson R. Browning.

    Posted 06-20-2019 03:23
    Hi Iuri,

    Great question!

    We've got an author working on a Forum piece about interventionist research.  We hoping to have it published later this year.  It should shed some further light on the method.

    Meanwhile, my answer to your question is "no, at least not exclusively."  I don't think it would be prudent for a junior scholar to focus mainly on interventionist research.  Publishing it in top journals is still too risky, for several reasons:
    (1) Most top journals are still figuring out what it is and how to evaluate it.
    (2) Interventions are not guaranteed to yield sufficiently interesting, significant results to warrant publication.  One in three doing so would probably be a great "batting average."
    (3) Interventions can take a long time to undertake.

    At JOM, we're actively working to address (1), but risks (2) and (3) will remain.  This area is developing relatively rapidly, so stay tuned for forthcoming articles!

    ------------------------------
    Tyson R. Browning, Ph.D. | Professor of Operations Management | www.TysonBrowning.com
    Neeley School of Business | Texas Christian University | Fort Worth, Texas, USA
    Co-Editor-in-Chief | Journal of Operations Management
    ------------------------------



  • 5.  RE: Listen to the Editors, ep. 5: Journal of Operations Management, with Suzanne de Treville and Tyson R. Browning.

    Posted 06-21-2019 11:46
    Hi Tyson,

    Your response reminded me a recent blog post from the London School of Economics on the hidden costs of "co-production of research":
    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2019/06/19/coming-to-terms-with-the-hidden-costs-of-co-production/

    I am reproducing here a snip from their post:

    Collaborative research may be more uncertain, slower, or less innovative than non-collaborative research. These challenges may be experienced throughout the research process, as the table below indicates.
      Challenges which may arise Costs
    Developing mixed research teams Stakeholders not homogenous, and can disagree The research process may take more time compared to a traditional research process
    'Usual suspects' can take over, where coproductive discussions are dominated by certain individuals Shared decision-making is threatened when process dominated by certain voices or interests
    Framing research questions Stakeholders and researchers may have different priorities and values Damage to interpersonal or organisational relationships
    Useful research can lack originality Damage to research careers
    Research can be co-opted by partners, for example, to justify status quo or historical decisions Damage to researcher independence and credibility
    Collecting data Researchers may pressure stakeholders to allow their organisational resources to be used to facilitate data collection –e.g. using staff time or applying pressure for site access Damage to interpersonal or organisational relationships, particularly with more powerful stakeholders
    Analysing and interpreting data Stakeholders may want to know which participant agreed to participate or what they contributed to the dataset Violation of research ethics obligations
    Stakeholders may want to help analyse the data Researcher needs to train stakeholders and format data in an appropriate way to conform with research ethics obligations
    Formulating recommendations May be little agreement about the importance of research Findings are misrepresented
    Researchers may be pressed to frame findings in particular ways Damage to researcher independence and credibility
    Disseminating research Researchers or stakeholders may be prevented from sharing unwanted findings Damage to researcher independence and credibility
    Stakeholders may want to share findings before researchers are ready Damage to the credibility of the research process
    Implementing change Tension between advocating for research, or advocating for policy/practice changes Can damage relationship with practice or policy colleagues
    Researchers show little interest in providing assistance with implementation efforts Implementation of research findings fail
    Table 1: Challenges and costs of coproduction



    ------------------------------
    Iuri Gavronski
    Associate Professor
    UNISINOS Jesuit University
    Brazil
    +55-51-99954-8460
    ------------------------------