PRODUCTION/OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

KEONG LEONG, Feature Editor, Fisher College of Business,
The Ohio State University

BEYOND A SCIENCE OF OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

by Chen H. Chung School of Management, University of Kentucky

In a recent issue of (May 1994), Professor Wacker proposed that Operations Management (OM) be made a science. Although there have been quite a few "perspectives" type of articles in the OM literature, they only tell us what topics are hot, what are not. Despite these perspectives, we probably still don't know what we are doing and what we should be doing. Professor Sprague [1989] points out that "our research agendas focus on the past and present, on the minutiae of existing practice, on methodology." She cautions us that, "unless we shift our focus, we will remain the recorders and analysts, not the creators of progress."

The issue raised by Professor Wacker is as important as Professor Sprague's "warning." But we must ask: Can OM really be a science? Does OM need to become a science? What is a science? If OM is a science, is it a management science? Can management be a science? Is management a science, an art, or both? (Is OM a science, an art, or both?)

It is obvious that the real issue indeed goes beyond whether we can make OM a science. We should not overlook the above "metascientific" questions.

In terms of metascience, Radnitzky [1973] suggested that science can be looked at via a sequence of widening perspectives (italics in original):

(A) One may study their logical, semantical, information-theoretical and epistemological aspects.

(B) Or, one may take a "genetic" perspective and concentrate on the whole system. Then one asks, e.g., "How does scientific knowledge grow?"

(C) Or, one may want to include man, the agent, into the picture, the of scientific knowledge are viewed in a science-in-society perspective, where one may study sociological, psychological, historiographical, culturological, political, etc., aspects of science ("science of science" perspective).

(D) Or, one may be interested in the aggregate and view it as a total system which sets its own aims and can change these aimsşas an "axiothetic" system.

(E) Eventually one may ask what science for man, and furthermore its impact from a futurological point of view ("critical" perspective).

Operations management, even without the name of , has traditionally been built upon the principles of logical or scientific analysis. At least, most OM researchers think they are following these principles, even that their methodologies might be called "non-scientific pure methods." The results of OM research may be used (or intend to be used) for explaining and understanding the reality or for changing the reality so as to solve problems in the reality. The generation and use of information and knowledge are highly cognitive in nature. Issues such as meaning, reference, interpretation and representation become important concerns.

The genetic perspective treats science as a production system. Certainly, theorizing is not the only method for knowledge production in OM. Application is an equally important knowledge production process. As Shubik [1987] points out, "Theory, for theory's sake, can easily degenerate into an uninteresting art form. Yet, practice without theory can quickly become a dull and dangerous occupation." Thus, "an application is when the context is understood, the theory is relevant and the decision process is influenced." However, Novak [1968] suggests that (italics in original), "[I]t is not enough to divide the problem into two: first, scientific method and, second, its application. If science is a set of questions which men put to the universe, it is in a radical way anthropomorphic and subjective. question, then, shall we ask, or we to ask?". There exists no "value-free discourse" or "scientific-neutrality" in the structure of the scientific method and the process of knowledge production in scienceşboth in theorizing and in application.

The science-in-society perspective extends the production model of science to cover the participants and the environment of the (knowledge) production process. The issue shifts its focus from the production process to participants including both the producers and the users of scientific knowledge. Human experiences in both theorizing and application should be recognized.

An aggregate view of science, society and man in the context of a total system takes one step further beyond the "science of science" perspective. Here the issue is not whether to treat organizations as a total system. Rather, what to be studied is the role of science (including OM?) in the total system of science, society, and man.

Finally, an ideological critique and a futurological perspective of science is an important but heretofore largely overlooked area in the management literature. Ideological differences often have tremendous impacts upon the research and practice of management. For example, a bulk of research on hierarchical planning process can be linked to the philosophy and the system of planning economy.

Steffy and Grimes [1986] examine four modes of organizational science. They are:

1. The Natural Science Model,
2. The Phenomenology Model,
3. The Hermeneutics Model, and
4. The Critical Theory Model.

The natural science model refers to the traditional "empirical-analytic" approach to organization science research.

The phenomenology model considers the empirical-analytic approach "methodologically naive in assuming that first-level observed facts are objective and value-free." [Steffy and Grimes, 1986]. This model argues for making explicit the implicit structure and meaning of human experiences.

The hermeneutics model emphasizes the historical dimension of research. It assumes that social processes and events are revealed only in light of the complex interaction between the researcher and the research-domain. The researcher engages in a complex enterprise of interpreting first-level constructs by translating observed symbolic representations in their socio-historical context, while bearing in mind that the researcher's own socio-historical background is influencing the translation.

Critical theory has two basic aims: to include a "critique of ideology" in its research method and to develop an organization science capable of changing organizational processes. Thus, the researcher is not value-free and one needs to recognize the importance of dynamic interplay among research, theory, practice, and organization members.

There is an obvious correspondence between Steffy and Grimes' "four modes" and Radnitzky's "five perspectives." Both can help us OM researchers in assessing what we are doing and pondering what we should be doing. These two questions cannot be adequately answered simply by making OM a science. We should examine OM via the above widening perspectives. Perhaps, by going beyond the natural science model, we would be able to shift our research focus so as to become "the creators of progress."

REFERENCES

[1] Novak, M., ed., , New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, (1968).

[2] Radnitzky, G., , Chicago: Henry Regenery Co., (1973).

[3] Steffy, B. D. and Grimes, A. J., "A Critical Theory of Organizational Science," , 11, 2, (1986), 322-336.

[4] Shubik, M., "What Is an Application and When Is Theory a Waste of Time?", , 33, 12, (Dec 1987), 1511-1522.

[5] Sprague, L. G., "Research Agendas: From the Past or for the Future?" , Spring 1989.

[6] Wacker, J. G., "Making Operations Management a Science," , 25(3), May 1994.

CHEN H. CHUNG, Ph.D., CFPIM, is Professor of Operations Management and Ashland Oil Research Professor at School of Management, College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky.