Many antecedents identified as essential to supply chain resilience (SCR) are often studied independently, without considering their synergistic effects. Based on a case study and resource orchestration theory, this article focuses on configurations of different antecedents regarding supply chain integration and big data analytics capability to develop proactive and reactive SCR. Using survey data from 277 Chinese manufacturing firms, we consider three dimensions of supply chain integration, information integration, operational integration and relational integration, and three dimensions of big data analytics capability, technical skills, managerial skills and data driven-decision culture, and conduct fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to explore antecedent configurations generating high proactive and reactive SCR. We find that multiple antecedent configurations can achieve high SCR and configurations for high proactive and reactive SCR are not identical, which may involve alternative effects across different antecedents. We further implement propensity score matching analysis and reveal that firms following these configurations for high SCR also have better economic and operational performance. Moreover, we check the robustness of findings by using secondary data and attributes analysis with machine learning. This article complements and extends existing SCR literature from the configurational perspective and provides practical insights for managers to build SCR.
{"title":"Antecedent configurations toward supply chain resilience: The joint impact of supply chain integration and big data analytics capability","authors":"Yisa Jiang, Taiwen Feng, Yufei Huang","doi":"10.1002/joom.1282","DOIUrl":"10.1002/joom.1282","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Many antecedents identified as essential to supply chain resilience (SCR) are often studied independently, without considering their synergistic effects. Based on a case study and resource orchestration theory, this article focuses on configurations of different antecedents regarding supply chain integration and big data analytics capability to develop proactive and reactive SCR. Using survey data from 277 Chinese manufacturing firms, we consider three dimensions of supply chain integration, information integration, operational integration and relational integration, and three dimensions of big data analytics capability, technical skills, managerial skills and data driven-decision culture, and conduct fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to explore antecedent configurations generating high proactive and reactive SCR. We find that multiple antecedent configurations can achieve high SCR and configurations for high proactive and reactive SCR are not identical, which may involve alternative effects across different antecedents. We further implement propensity score matching analysis and reveal that firms following these configurations for high SCR also have better economic and operational performance. Moreover, we check the robustness of findings by using secondary data and attributes analysis with machine learning. This article complements and extends existing SCR literature from the configurational perspective and provides practical insights for managers to build SCR.</p>","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"70 2","pages":"257-284"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138966737","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Our 6 years at the helm of <i>JOM</i> have been a real pleasure—and a lot of work. In this editorial, we reflect on some of the developments during our time in office, provide insights on some current policies, and review some items of interest to the <i>JOM</i> community.</p><p>As we began our terms in 2018, our foremost challenge was to increase the number of high-quality submissions to the Journal. Our strategy for this centered on emphasizing underutilized regions of <i>JOM</i>'s scope and widening the solution space for contributions (in terms of types, topics, and methods), developing authors and reviewers, and injecting our enthusiasm for OM into the scholarly community. We signaled our interest in additional types of submissions by creating new departments (Empirical Research Methods, Innovation and Project Management, Public Policy and Industry Studies) and broadening others (Design Science became Intervention-based Research, and Marketing and Retail became Operations Interfaces). Our initial editorial (Browning & de Treville, <span>2018</span>) welcomed new and underrepresented types of submissions such as literature reviews, conceptual papers, and those contributing empirically grounded research questions. <i>JOM</i>'s 40th anniversary in 2020 provided an ideal opportunity to reflect on where our field came from and where it could broadly and boldly go (Browning, <span>2020</span>). We aimed to provoke discussions in our field about the nature and role of topics such as Lean (Browning & de Treville, <span>2021</span>; Cusumano et al., <span>2021</span>; Hopp & Spearman, <span>2021</span>) and Six Sigma (de Treville, Browning, Holweg, & Shah, <span>2023</span>), where stubborn gaps persist between theory, teaching, and practice. These developments and debates are not standing still; they continue to provide opportunities for our community to engage and move forward. We wrote and accepted editorials and Forum articles on topics such as intervention-based research (Chandrasekaran et al., <span>2020</span>; Oliva, <span>2019</span>), warranted claims (Ketokivi & Mantere, <span>2021</span>), replication studies (Pagell, <span>2021</span>), and empirically grounding analytics research (de Treville, Browning, & Oliva, <span>2023</span>). Intervention-based research and the empirical grounding of analytics represent relatively unexplored territory whose development will dramatically contribute to the production of knowledge that will be highly relevant to practice. Building our contributions around warrant rather than futile attempts to “prove” a knowledge claim leads to sounder knowledge creation, as does ensuring the replicability of results. In contrast to calls for more replication, Pagell (<span>2021</span>) focused on the replication process, such that replication is built into ongoing research. Finally, everything that we have done has emphasized the use of formal conceptual definitions (Wacker, <span>2004</sp
{"title":"Reflecting on 6 years as co-Editors-in-Chief of JOM","authors":"Tyson R. Browning, Suzanne de Treville","doi":"10.1002/joom.1283","DOIUrl":"10.1002/joom.1283","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Our 6 years at the helm of <i>JOM</i> have been a real pleasure—and a lot of work. In this editorial, we reflect on some of the developments during our time in office, provide insights on some current policies, and review some items of interest to the <i>JOM</i> community.</p><p>As we began our terms in 2018, our foremost challenge was to increase the number of high-quality submissions to the Journal. Our strategy for this centered on emphasizing underutilized regions of <i>JOM</i>'s scope and widening the solution space for contributions (in terms of types, topics, and methods), developing authors and reviewers, and injecting our enthusiasm for OM into the scholarly community. We signaled our interest in additional types of submissions by creating new departments (Empirical Research Methods, Innovation and Project Management, Public Policy and Industry Studies) and broadening others (Design Science became Intervention-based Research, and Marketing and Retail became Operations Interfaces). Our initial editorial (Browning & de Treville, <span>2018</span>) welcomed new and underrepresented types of submissions such as literature reviews, conceptual papers, and those contributing empirically grounded research questions. <i>JOM</i>'s 40th anniversary in 2020 provided an ideal opportunity to reflect on where our field came from and where it could broadly and boldly go (Browning, <span>2020</span>). We aimed to provoke discussions in our field about the nature and role of topics such as Lean (Browning & de Treville, <span>2021</span>; Cusumano et al., <span>2021</span>; Hopp & Spearman, <span>2021</span>) and Six Sigma (de Treville, Browning, Holweg, & Shah, <span>2023</span>), where stubborn gaps persist between theory, teaching, and practice. These developments and debates are not standing still; they continue to provide opportunities for our community to engage and move forward. We wrote and accepted editorials and Forum articles on topics such as intervention-based research (Chandrasekaran et al., <span>2020</span>; Oliva, <span>2019</span>), warranted claims (Ketokivi & Mantere, <span>2021</span>), replication studies (Pagell, <span>2021</span>), and empirically grounding analytics research (de Treville, Browning, & Oliva, <span>2023</span>). Intervention-based research and the empirical grounding of analytics represent relatively unexplored territory whose development will dramatically contribute to the production of knowledge that will be highly relevant to practice. Building our contributions around warrant rather than futile attempts to “prove” a knowledge claim leads to sounder knowledge creation, as does ensuring the replicability of results. In contrast to calls for more replication, Pagell (<span>2021</span>) focused on the replication process, such that replication is built into ongoing research. Finally, everything that we have done has emphasized the use of formal conceptual definitions (Wacker, <span>2004</sp","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"69 8","pages":"1212-1218"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joom.1283","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138534726","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
One important question in public-private (PP) projects is how to manage coopetition—simultaneous cooperation and competition among project members. Prior studies on the governance of PP projects showed the importance of governance mechanisms to deal with major events such as technical or organizational disruptions but paid limited attention to the management of coopetition. At the same time, research on the management of coopetition mostly focused on industrial coopetition, whereas PP projects also entail public-private coopetition. Seeking to better understand how governance mechanisms may help manage coopetition in PP projects, we conducted an in-depth study of Galileo—a large PP project aimed at delivering Europe's own satellite-based navigation system. The findings show how three core aspects of project governance—(i) mechanisms (joint vs. separate use of contractual and relational mechanisms), (ii) form (lead organization vs. shared governance), and (iii) goals (to promote cooperation and/or prevent competition)—jointly explained the emergence and (mis)management of knowledge- and value-related coopetitive tensions. In turn, these tensions prompted a series of adaptations in the governance of the project. Our study contributes to a co-evolutionary understanding of the governance of PP projects and offers implications for practitioners seeking to (re)design PP project governance.
{"title":"Co-evolution of governance mechanisms and coopetition in public-private projects","authors":"Audrey Rouyre, Anne-Sophie Fernandez, Isabel Estrada","doi":"10.1002/joom.1281","DOIUrl":"10.1002/joom.1281","url":null,"abstract":"<p>One important question in public-private (PP) projects is how to manage coopetition—simultaneous cooperation and competition among project members. Prior studies on the governance of PP projects showed the importance of governance mechanisms to deal with major events such as technical or organizational disruptions but paid limited attention to the management of coopetition. At the same time, research on the management of coopetition mostly focused on industrial coopetition, whereas PP projects also entail public-private coopetition. Seeking to better understand how governance mechanisms may help manage coopetition in PP projects, we conducted an in-depth study of Galileo—a large PP project aimed at delivering Europe's own satellite-based navigation system. The findings show how three core aspects of project governance—(i) mechanisms (joint vs. separate use of contractual and relational mechanisms), (ii) form (lead organization vs. shared governance), and (iii) goals (to promote cooperation and/or prevent competition)—jointly explained the emergence and (mis)management of knowledge- and value-related coopetitive tensions. In turn, these tensions prompted a series of adaptations in the governance of the project. Our study contributes to a co-evolutionary understanding of the governance of PP projects and offers implications for practitioners seeking to (re)design PP project governance.</p>","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"70 1","pages":"50-79"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138534696","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Drawing on real options and resource dependence theories, this study examines how firms adjust their innovation investments to address trade policy effect uncertainty (TPEU), a type of firm-specific, perceived environmental uncertainty capturing managers' difficulty in predicting the impacts of potential policy changes on business operations. To develop a context-dependent, time-varying measure of TPEU, we apply bidirectional encoder representations from transformers, an advanced deep learning technique. We analyze the texts of mandatory management discussion and analysis sections of annual reports from 3181 publicly listed Chinese firms. Our sample comprises 22,669 firm-year observations spanning the years 2007 to 2019. The econometric analyses show that firms experiencing higher TPEU will reduce innovation investments. This effect is stronger for firms facing lower competition, involving more foreign sales, and not owned by the state. These findings provide clarity on previously inconclusive results by showcasing the significant influence of policy effect uncertainty, as opposed to policy state uncertainty, on firms' decisions regarding innovation investments. Additionally, these findings underscore the importance of resource dependence factors as crucial contextual factors in this decision-making process.
{"title":"Understanding the impact of trade policy effect uncertainty on firm-level innovation investment","authors":"Daniel Chen, Nan Hu, Peng Liang, Morgan Swink","doi":"10.1002/joom.1285","DOIUrl":"10.1002/joom.1285","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Drawing on real options and resource dependence theories, this study examines how firms adjust their innovation investments to address trade policy effect uncertainty (TPEU), a type of firm-specific, perceived environmental uncertainty capturing managers' difficulty in predicting the impacts of potential policy changes on business operations. To develop a context-dependent, time-varying measure of TPEU, we apply bidirectional encoder representations from transformers, an advanced deep learning technique. We analyze the texts of mandatory management discussion and analysis sections of annual reports from 3181 publicly listed Chinese firms. Our sample comprises 22,669 firm-year observations spanning the years 2007 to 2019. The econometric analyses show that firms experiencing higher TPEU will reduce innovation investments. This effect is stronger for firms facing lower competition, involving more foreign sales, and not owned by the state. These findings provide clarity on previously inconclusive results by showcasing the significant influence of policy effect uncertainty, as opposed to policy state uncertainty, on firms' decisions regarding innovation investments. Additionally, these findings underscore the importance of resource dependence factors as crucial contextual factors in this decision-making process.</p>","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"70 2","pages":"316-340"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138603464","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jens K. Roehrich, Andrew Davies, Beverly B. Tyler, Anant Mishra, Elliot Bendoly
<p>Organizations are becoming more reliant on projects to adapt and survive in an increasingly volatile, fast-moving, and competitive environment (e.g., Ramasesh & Browning, <span>2014</span>; Roehrich et al., <span>2023</span>; Tatikonda & Rosenthal, <span>2000</span>). Terms such as “projectification” (Midler, <span>1995</span>), “project society” (Lundin et al., <span>2015</span>), and “project economy” (Nieto-Rodriguez, <span>2021</span>) have been introduced to describe the growth of projects involved in delivering a large share of temporary interorganizational activities such as research and development (R&D), technology and new product development (NPD), capital goods and services, infrastructure, events, and organizational change. Some scholars have even suggested that projects have replaced continuous process structures (especially in the Western world), such as manufacturing activities, as the dominant form of organization in the 21st century (e.g., Nieto-Rodriguez, <span>2021</span>; Shenhar & Dvir, <span>2007</span>). While a large body of literature has identified that projects vary considerably in their complexity, novelty, uncertainty, and dynamism (Davies & Hobday, <span>2005</span>; Loch et al., <span>2006</span>), and that an increasing number are massive in scale (Flyvbjerg et al., <span>2003</span>; Miller & Lessard, <span>2000</span>; Scott et al., <span>2011</span>), research on how multiple organizations in large interorganizational projects (LIPs) are governed is still in its infancy.</p><p>This special issue (SI) of the <i>Journal of Operations Management</i> explores the key challenges and tensions involved in governing LIPs. We use the adjective “large” loosely to refer to interorganizational projects conducted at scale (here we loosely refer to factors such as physical size, impact, duration, as well as number of people and organizations involved), rather than focus on projects above an arbitrarily chosen value (e.g., $1 billon). Projects are “interorganizational” when comprised of multiple (often a mix of public, private, non-for-profit) organizations, working jointly to coordinate the production of unique, or customized, products and/or services in uncertain and dynamic environments (Jones & Lichtenstein, <span>2008</span>; Sydow & Braun, <span>2018</span>). LIPs are the organizational form most often used to produce basic science, create new products (or solutions), build public infrastructure, tackle problems related to social, economic, political, or environmental issues, and respond to natural disasters (e.g., Roehrich & Kivleniece, <span>2022</span>). LIPs deliver transformational outcomes for communities and societies (Flyvbjerg, <span>2014</span>) and are increasingly important in many industries and sectors such as healthcare, defense, aerospace, mining, telecommunications, information technology (IT), transport, utilities, “big science” experiments, and major cultural and
组织越来越依赖于项目来适应和生存在一个日益不稳定、快速变化和竞争的环境中(例如,Ramasesh &褐变,2014;Roehrich et al., 2023;Tatikonda,罗森塔尔,2000)。“项目化”(Midler, 1995)、“项目社会”(Lundin et al., 2015)和“项目经济”(Nieto-Rodriguez, 2021)等术语被引入来描述项目的增长,这些项目涉及提供大量临时组织间活动,如研发(R&D)、技术和新产品开发(NPD)、资本货物和服务、基础设施、事件和组织变革。一些学者甚至提出,项目已经取代了连续的过程结构(特别是在西方世界),如制造活动,成为21世纪的主要组织形式(例如,Nieto-Rodriguez, 2021;申哈,Dvir, 2007)。虽然大量文献已经确定项目在复杂性、新颖性、不确定性和动态性方面差异很大(Davies &;Hobday 2005;Loch等人,2006),而且越来越多的人规模庞大(Flyvbjerg等人,2003;米勒,Lessard, 2000;Scott et al., 2011),关于大型组织间项目(lip)中的多个组织如何治理的研究仍处于起步阶段。本期《运营管理杂志》特刊探讨了管理lip的主要挑战和紧张关系。我们使用形容词“大”来指代大规模实施的组织间项目(这里我们粗略地指代诸如物理大小、影响、持续时间以及涉及的人员和组织数量等因素),而不是关注任意选择的价值(例如,10亿美元)以上的项目。当项目由多个(通常是公共、私人、非营利组织的混合)组织组成时,项目是“跨组织”的,在不确定和动态的环境中共同协调独特的或定制的产品和/或服务的生产(Jones &;利希滕斯坦,2008;Sydow,布劳恩,2018)。lip是最常用于基础科学研究、创造新产品(或解决方案)、建设公共基础设施、解决与社会、经济、政治或环境问题相关的问题以及应对自然灾害的组织形式(例如Roehrich &Kivleniece, 2022)。lip为社区和社会带来变革性成果(Flyvbjerg, 2014),并且在许多行业和部门中越来越重要,例如医疗保健、国防、航空航天、采矿、电信、信息技术(IT)、运输、公用事业、“大科学”实验以及重大文化和体育活动(Bendoly &曹国伟,2016;Caldwell et al., 2017;Mishra et al., 2020)。虽然项目通常被认为是运营和供应链管理(OSCM;例如,本多利&;做苦工,2007;Bendoly, 2014;Roehrich,刘易斯,2014;Mishra,褐变,2020;Mishra et al., 2020;Salvadore et al., 2021),对lip的大部分研究都是由项目管理(PM)或邻近学科(例如创新管理)的学者进行的,他们使用各种理论视角来理解管理、组织、制度和治理安排。这项研究经常使用一系列标签来描述lip,包括“重大项目”(Morris, 1994,2013)、“大型工程项目”(Miller &Lessard, 2000),“系统的系统”项目(Davies &Hobday 2005;申哈,Dvir, 2007), 10亿美元或更多的“大型项目”(Flyvbjerg, 2017),“组织间项目”(Sydow &Braun, 2018)和“全球项目”(Scott et al., 2011)。我们在lip的标签下汇集了以前的研究,以便为治理讨论提供清晰度和连贯性。我们提请注意这样一个事实,即需要对lip进行进一步的OSCM研究,以解决许多未解决的组织间治理挑战。在日益复杂、新颖、不确定和快速变化的环境中,lip的治理尤其具有挑战性,从而产生了对实践和政策具有重要意义的未解决的理论问题(Chakkol等人,2018;Ramasesh,褐变,2014;申哈,2001)。lip面临着重大的治理挑战,需要契约和关系治理,以及多个组织之间的协作形式,这些组织通常具有不同的目标、不同的利益,以及不同的能力和资源水平(Roehrich &;刘易斯,2014;Zheng et al., 2008)。PM和相关学科的研究已经确定了在不同环境中组织和管理lip所涉及的挑战(例如,Davies等人,2023;申哈,Dvir, 2007),并开始解决组织间项目治理(例如,m<e:1>勒等人,2023)。 然而,借鉴关于项目、计划和基于项目的组织治理的各种理论观点(m<s:2> ller等人,2023),项目管理对项目治理的研究,除了少数例外(例如,Levitt等人,2019),忽视了协作(例如,Gulati等人,2012)、关系和契约治理(Bercovitz &泰勒,2014;Poppo,曾庆红,2002;Roehrich,Lewis, 2014)和合作(Bengtsson &Kock, 2000)适用于唇部。为了填补这一空白,管理和OSCM学者最近探索了lip的治理,包括如何需要协作来建立各方之间的合作,控制和协调相互依存的任务,并使lip中涉及的不同各方的目标和利益保持一致(例如,Aben等人,2021;Hartmann et al., 2014;奥利维拉,Lumineau, 2017;Tee等人,2019;Zheng et al., 2008)。然而,这样的调查很少,需要对lip的治理进行进一步的研究,以了解如何调整激励,分配决策权和责任,并确保信息流和知识交换以满足共同目标(经济和社会)价值观和绩效目标(Roehrich et al., 2020;Sarafan et al., 2022)。我们目前讨论的目标是鼓励学者们对lip治理的性质、挑战和动态进行进一步的研究。特别是,我们鼓励学者借鉴一般管理、OSCM、PM和相关文献的见解,为如何提高大规模努力的绩效和应对21世纪社会面临的重大挑战做出新颖而有趣的理论贡献(George et al., 2016)。本SI中出现的四篇论文强调了各种理论观点、分析单元和方法,以加深我们对lip治理的理解。他们考察了各种行业、机构背景和设置中的项目,并探索了lip之间和内部已经(或尚未)成功的实践。以这些研究为背景,并以下面的讨论为指导,我们希望未来对lip的研究将进一步推进概念、理论和方法上的贡献,并支持这一重要领域的科学、实践和政策的进步。
{"title":"Large interorganizational projects (LIPs): Toward an integrative perspective and research agenda on interorganizational governance","authors":"Jens K. Roehrich, Andrew Davies, Beverly B. Tyler, Anant Mishra, Elliot Bendoly","doi":"10.1002/joom.1280","DOIUrl":"10.1002/joom.1280","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Organizations are becoming more reliant on projects to adapt and survive in an increasingly volatile, fast-moving, and competitive environment (e.g., Ramasesh & Browning, <span>2014</span>; Roehrich et al., <span>2023</span>; Tatikonda & Rosenthal, <span>2000</span>). Terms such as “projectification” (Midler, <span>1995</span>), “project society” (Lundin et al., <span>2015</span>), and “project economy” (Nieto-Rodriguez, <span>2021</span>) have been introduced to describe the growth of projects involved in delivering a large share of temporary interorganizational activities such as research and development (R&D), technology and new product development (NPD), capital goods and services, infrastructure, events, and organizational change. Some scholars have even suggested that projects have replaced continuous process structures (especially in the Western world), such as manufacturing activities, as the dominant form of organization in the 21st century (e.g., Nieto-Rodriguez, <span>2021</span>; Shenhar & Dvir, <span>2007</span>). While a large body of literature has identified that projects vary considerably in their complexity, novelty, uncertainty, and dynamism (Davies & Hobday, <span>2005</span>; Loch et al., <span>2006</span>), and that an increasing number are massive in scale (Flyvbjerg et al., <span>2003</span>; Miller & Lessard, <span>2000</span>; Scott et al., <span>2011</span>), research on how multiple organizations in large interorganizational projects (LIPs) are governed is still in its infancy.</p><p>This special issue (SI) of the <i>Journal of Operations Management</i> explores the key challenges and tensions involved in governing LIPs. We use the adjective “large” loosely to refer to interorganizational projects conducted at scale (here we loosely refer to factors such as physical size, impact, duration, as well as number of people and organizations involved), rather than focus on projects above an arbitrarily chosen value (e.g., $1 billon). Projects are “interorganizational” when comprised of multiple (often a mix of public, private, non-for-profit) organizations, working jointly to coordinate the production of unique, or customized, products and/or services in uncertain and dynamic environments (Jones & Lichtenstein, <span>2008</span>; Sydow & Braun, <span>2018</span>). LIPs are the organizational form most often used to produce basic science, create new products (or solutions), build public infrastructure, tackle problems related to social, economic, political, or environmental issues, and respond to natural disasters (e.g., Roehrich & Kivleniece, <span>2022</span>). LIPs deliver transformational outcomes for communities and societies (Flyvbjerg, <span>2014</span>) and are increasingly important in many industries and sectors such as healthcare, defense, aerospace, mining, telecommunications, information technology (IT), transport, utilities, “big science” experiments, and major cultural and ","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"70 1","pages":"4-21"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2023-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joom.1280","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138534689","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The practice of offering refurbished products has become increasingly prevalent, yet limited research has studied the potential consequences of this emerging product strategy on the market performance of the corresponding brand-new products. This study addresses this gap by examining the impact of refurbished products in markets characterized by network effects and standards competition, while considering the developmental stage of the technology standard employed by the products. Introducing refurbished products, primarily remanufactured from returned items, can pose challenges such as sales cannibalization and negative perceptions of product quality. We propose that introducing refurbished products can also generate positive effects, because the availability of refurbished products can be perceived as an indication of sizable prior sales of the brand-new counterparts, alleviating consumers' concerns regarding an insufficient user base and limited availability of complementary products. Our empirical and experimental studies consistently demonstrate that the availability of refurbished products adversely affects the market value and purchase intention of the corresponding brand-new products employing established technology standards. In contrast, the introduction of refurbished products does not have such a detrimental effect on products utilizing unestablished standards. Moreover, for a specific group of consumers, this green product strategy increases their purchase intention of brand-new products. The managerial implications of the findings are discussed.
{"title":"Friend or foe? The impact of refurbished products in markets with network effects and standards competition","authors":"Yilong (Eric) Zheng, Qi Wang, Chang Hee Park","doi":"10.1002/joom.1279","DOIUrl":"10.1002/joom.1279","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The practice of offering refurbished products has become increasingly prevalent, yet limited research has studied the potential consequences of this emerging product strategy on the market performance of the corresponding brand-new products. This study addresses this gap by examining the impact of refurbished products in markets characterized by network effects and standards competition, while considering the developmental stage of the technology standard employed by the products. Introducing refurbished products, primarily remanufactured from returned items, can pose challenges such as sales cannibalization and negative perceptions of product quality. We propose that introducing refurbished products can also generate positive effects, because the availability of refurbished products can be perceived as an indication of sizable prior sales of the brand-new counterparts, alleviating consumers' concerns regarding an insufficient user base and limited availability of complementary products. Our empirical and experimental studies consistently demonstrate that the availability of refurbished products adversely affects the market value and purchase intention of the corresponding brand-new products employing established technology standards. In contrast, the introduction of refurbished products does not have such a detrimental effect on products utilizing unestablished standards. Moreover, for a specific group of consumers, this green product strategy increases their purchase intention of brand-new products. The managerial implications of the findings are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"70 2","pages":"224-242"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135680072","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There has been a resurgence of interest in the role of operational focus in the healthcare operations literature in the backdrop of increasing demand for efficient and effective care. However, the evidence on the benefits of focus in healthcare is mixed. Our study proposes that a key piece of this puzzle that is been largely missing is an explicit consideration of the complexity of patient care needs. Specifically, our study serves to answer the questions: How does the complexity of care requirements affect care delivery operations? How does focus across the hierarchical levels of care affect care delivery outcomes across complexity regimes? The empirical analysis in the study is based on a large generalizable dataset of 246,663 patient discharges across 26 categories at 154 hospitals. We develop a multi-factor measure of complexity of care requirements. The study results point to the deleterious impact of complexity on the costs of care. Next, our findings highlight the differential impact of focus across hierarchical levels (task-level focus, category-level focus, and selective focus in related areas) on the costs of care. Third, our study findings highlight the role of focus in mitigating the effects of complexity on costs in a healthcare setting. We discuss the implications of the study findings for theory and practice, and the directions for future research.
{"title":"Mitigating the curse of complexity: The role of focus and the implications for costs of care","authors":"Sriram Thirumalai, Sarv Devaraj","doi":"10.1002/joom.1278","DOIUrl":"10.1002/joom.1278","url":null,"abstract":"<p>There has been a resurgence of interest in the role of operational focus in the healthcare operations literature in the backdrop of increasing demand for efficient and effective care. However, the evidence on the benefits of focus in healthcare is mixed. Our study proposes that a key piece of this puzzle that is been largely missing is an explicit consideration of the complexity of patient care needs. Specifically, our study serves to answer the questions: How does the complexity of care requirements affect care delivery operations? How does focus across the hierarchical levels of care affect care delivery outcomes across complexity regimes? The empirical analysis in the study is based on a large generalizable dataset of 246,663 patient discharges across 26 categories at 154 hospitals. We develop a multi-factor measure of complexity of care requirements. The study results point to the deleterious impact of complexity on the costs of care. Next, our findings highlight the differential impact of focus across hierarchical levels (task-level focus, category-level focus, and selective focus in related areas) on the costs of care. Third, our study findings highlight the role of focus in mitigating the effects of complexity on costs in a healthcare setting. We discuss the implications of the study findings for theory and practice, and the directions for future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"70 1","pages":"157-179"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2023-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joom.1278","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135413446","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The apparel and textile industry (AT) is considered one of the most polluting industries in the world due to the complexity of the supply chain and the high volume of natural resources and toxic chemicals used during manufacturing. Closed loop supply chains (CLSC) for apparel and textile are unique and therefore the circular economy solutions that exist for other industries, especially the electronics industry where these solutions are used extensively, may not be successful. This study aims to evaluate the practices of fashion brands that currently employ a CLSC to better understand the existing strategies and prevalent issues in comparison to the electronics industry. We developed a framework based on factors that identify the delineating aspects of a CLSC and performed a content analysis of the publicly available sustainability reports of companies. The results show the need for different solutions between the industries and indicate a need for research that is informed by the AT specific contextual factors since one-fits-all solutions will not work well across industries.
{"title":"Closed loop supply chains in apparel: Current state and future directions","authors":"Meltem Denizel, Caroline Z. Schumm","doi":"10.1002/joom.1274","DOIUrl":"10.1002/joom.1274","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The apparel and textile industry (AT) is considered one of the most polluting industries in the world due to the complexity of the supply chain and the high volume of natural resources and toxic chemicals used during manufacturing. Closed loop supply chains (CLSC) for apparel and textile are unique and therefore the circular economy solutions that exist for other industries, especially the electronics industry where these solutions are used extensively, may not be successful. This study aims to evaluate the practices of fashion brands that currently employ a CLSC to better understand the existing strategies and prevalent issues in comparison to the electronics industry. We developed a framework based on factors that identify the delineating aspects of a CLSC and performed a content analysis of the publicly available sustainability reports of companies. The results show the need for different solutions between the industries and indicate a need for research that is informed by the AT specific contextual factors since one-fits-all solutions will not work well across industries.</p>","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"70 2","pages":"190-223"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joom.1274","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135925574","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Consumer return policies have been long recognized and studied by operations management scholars as an important managerial lever in a retail environment. Yet, the behavioral aspects of return policy decision-making and interaction of return policy decisions with other common operational decisions have not been investigated to date. We present a behavioral analysis of return policy decision-making in a retail environment with aggregate demand and individual product valuation uncertainties. Leveraging a generalized newsvendor context, we conduct a randomized behavioral experiment to understand how individuals make each of the three key retail decisions—refund amount, price, and order quantity—and the causal effect of salvage value on these decisions. We find that decision-makers exhibit behavioral regularities in making decisions across the three levers and they react to changes in the operating conditions in a boundedly rational manner, suggesting the use of heuristics. Based on behavioral regularities that we observe in our data—that is, responses, time-dependent effects, and decision dependencies—we develop a process theory based on behavioral decision-making tenets that offers a new direction with testable hypotheses for future research. The process theory describes a conditional decision-making heuristic that leads to a propagation of decision errors across different levers as well as lever-specific decision biases.
{"title":"Behavioral multi-lever decision-making: A study of consumer return policy, price, and inventory decisions","authors":"Han Kyul Oh, Huseyn Abdulla, Rogelio Oliva","doi":"10.1002/joom.1276","DOIUrl":"10.1002/joom.1276","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Consumer return policies have been long recognized and studied by operations management scholars as an important managerial lever in a retail environment. Yet, the behavioral aspects of return policy decision-making and interaction of return policy decisions with other common operational decisions have not been investigated to date. We present a behavioral analysis of return policy decision-making in a retail environment with aggregate demand and individual product valuation uncertainties. Leveraging a generalized newsvendor context, we conduct a randomized behavioral experiment to understand how individuals make each of the three key retail decisions—refund amount, price, and order quantity—and the causal effect of salvage value on these decisions. We find that decision-makers exhibit behavioral regularities in making decisions across the three levers and they react to changes in the operating conditions in a boundedly rational manner, suggesting the use of heuristics. Based on behavioral regularities that we observe in our data—that is, responses, time-dependent effects, and decision dependencies—we develop a process theory based on behavioral decision-making tenets that offers a new direction with testable hypotheses for future research. The process theory describes a conditional decision-making heuristic that leads to a propagation of decision errors across different levers as well as lever-specific decision biases.</p>","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"70 1","pages":"137-156"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joom.1276","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44378647","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Xinyue Zhang, Juliano Denicol, Paul W. Chan, Yun Le
The transition from projects to operations requires a spanning from more temporary, goal-oriented, and evolving organizational forms to more permanent, routine, and ongoing organizational forms. A question of practical and theoretical significance is how to organize the transition to operations in large inter-organizational projects. To answer this question, we conducted a longitudinal case study of Beijing Daxing International Airport, which is the largest transportation hub in China to date, and provides rich evidence for successfully managing the transition to operations. By analyzing the organizational design strategy, structures, processes, and management of people in the transition, we provide a synthetic framework for designing the transition to operations in large inter-organizational projects. The framework provides a set of considerations to design organizational boundaries that build connections, emphasize coordination, and achieve continuity between projects and operations. This study contributes to the nexus of operations management and project management and the organizational design of large inter-organizational projects.
{"title":"Designing the transition to operations in large inter-organizational projects: Strategy, structure, process, and people","authors":"Xinyue Zhang, Juliano Denicol, Paul W. Chan, Yun Le","doi":"10.1002/joom.1275","DOIUrl":"10.1002/joom.1275","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The transition from projects to operations requires a spanning from more temporary, goal-oriented, and evolving organizational forms to more permanent, routine, and ongoing organizational forms. A question of practical and theoretical significance is how to organize the transition to operations in large inter-organizational projects. To answer this question, we conducted a longitudinal case study of Beijing Daxing International Airport, which is the largest transportation hub in China to date, and provides rich evidence for successfully managing the transition to operations. By analyzing the organizational design strategy, structures, processes, and management of people in the transition, we provide a synthetic framework for designing the transition to operations in large inter-organizational projects. The framework provides a set of considerations to design organizational boundaries that build connections, emphasize coordination, and achieve continuity between projects and operations. This study contributes to the nexus of operations management and project management and the organizational design of large inter-organizational projects.</p>","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"70 1","pages":"107-136"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joom.1275","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48409440","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}