RESEARCH ISSUES

SHAWNEE VICKERY, Feature Editor, Eli Broad Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University

THEORY DEVELOPMENT IN OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

by Soumen Ghosh, Georgia Institute of Technology

Some recent articles in (Vol. 25, No. 3 and 5) have raised the issue of whether the field of Operations Management should be a science. While the debate on whether Operations Management is, should be, or could be a scientific discipline may continue for a while, it is evident that one of the current dilemma facing many scholars and academics in the Operations Management field is how to make their research more relevant to practice, and at the same time advance the theoretical knowledge frontier in our field. The past has produced an abundance of research that falls in the latter category, but recent emphasis on more empirically driven research has helped to make research findings in Operations Management also be of benefit to practitioners. However, given the flourishing pace with which empirical research is currently being conducted in our field, we need to assess the usefulness of a blanket application of this methodology.

A substantial number of recent empirical-based work in Operations Management seems to employ a rote application of statistical methodology to survey data without adequate conceptualization of the problem. This prevents the development of the underlying logical and mathematical structure (model) of the problem before the application of statistical procedures. This in turn prevents the development of a priori expectations, conjectures, and propositions that are invaluable in the development of concepts, gaining an intimate understanding of the problem, and explaining the results. Without a theoretical framework of the underlying concepts and relationships pertaining to the problem environment, post hoc explanations of the results are weak and cannot adequately address the scientific reasoning behind the hows and whys, or develop new theory. To advance the knowledge frontier in both the theory and practice of our profession, and more importantly, to avoid the pitfalls of doing poor research using empirical data, we must strengthen our skills in developing good theory. Besides, there is no science without theory, and therefore theory development must precede any hope of Operations Management ever becoming a science. According to Van de Ven (1989), ``nothing is quite so practical as a good theory.'' His logic is that good theory is practical precisely because it advances knowledge in a scientific discipline, guides research toward crucial questions, and enlightens the profession.

Kerlinger (1986) defines theory as

A theory is a set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions, and propositions that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables, with the purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomena.

It needs to be clearly understood that a theory explains phenomena. In fact, the basic aim of science is to explain natural phenomena, and such explanations are what we call theories.

Having established the need for theory development in Operations Management, let me review some of the criteria and methods for building good theory from the special forum on theory building (, Vol. 14(4), October 1989).

Eisenhardt (1989) provides a framework for building theories from case study research, and explores its strength and weaknesses. The fundamental steps in the process of building theory from case study research involves (1) getting started (definition of research questions, possible a priori constructs); (2) selecting cases (specify population, select cases by theoretical, not random, sampling); (3) crafting instruments and protocols (multiple data collection methods, combination of qualitative and quantitative data, multiple investigators); (4) entering the field (overlap of data collection and analysis with field notes, flexible and opportunistic data collection methods); (5) analyzing data (within-case analysis, cross-case pattern search using divergent techniques); (6) shaping hypotheses (iterative tabulation of evidence for each construct, replication of logic across cases, searching evidence for ``why'' behind relationships); (7) enfolding literature (comparison with conflicting as well as similar literature); and (8) reaching closure (theoretical saturation when possible). This type of theory building is complementary to incremental theory building, and is particularly useful in the early stages of research on a topic.

Weick (1989) proposes that theory construction can be substantially improved when portrayed as imagination disciplined by evolutionary processes analogous to artificial selection, where the ``discipline'' in theorizing comes from consistent application of selection criteria to trial-and-error thinking, and the ``imagination'' in theorizing comes from deliberate diversity introduced into the problem statements, thought trials, and selection criteria that comprise that thinking. This method implies that the quality of theory produced can vary as a function of the accuracy and detail present in the problem statement that triggers theory building, the number of and independence among the conjectures that attempt to solve the problem, and the number and diversity of selection criteria used to test the conjectures. He argues that interest is a substitute for validation during theory construction, and since a good theory is a plausible theory, a theory is judged to be more plausible and of higher quality if it is interesting rather than obvious, irrelevant or absurd, obvious in novel ways, a source of unexpected connections, high in narrative rationality, aesthetically pleasing, or correspondent with presumed realities. Each of these outcomes is more likely when theorists develop fuller problem statements, create more diverse thought trials, and apply multiple selection criteria more consistently to these thought trials.

In contrast, Poole and Van de Ven (1989) contend that the tensions, inconsistencies, and contradictions (paradoxes) between theories provide important opportunities to develop better and more encompassing theories. They define a logical paradox as consisting of two contrary or contradictory propositions or theses (A and B), where each proposition when taken singly is incontestable, but taken together they seem to be inconsistent or incompatible. Then, instead of suppressing or dismissing these apparent paradoxes, either within or between theories, they propose four ways to consciously pursue them to improve theories; (1) opposition: accept the paradox and use it constructively (keep A and B separate and their contrasts appreciated); (2) spatial separation: clarify levels of analysis and the connections among them (situate A and B at two different levels or locations in the social world (e.g., micro-macro, part-whole); (3) temporal separation: take time into account in exploring when contrary assumptions or processes each exert a separate influence (separate A and B temporarily in the same locations); or (4) synthesis: introduce new concepts that either correct flaws in logic or provide a more encompassing perspective that dissolves the paradox, i.e., introduce new terms to resolve the paradox (find a new perspective which eliminates the opposition between A and B).

Finally, it is important to understand what constitutes a theoretical contribution. Whetten (1989) suggests that a complete theory must contain four essential elements: (i) whatþwhich variables, constructs, and concepts (factors) logically should be considered as part of the explanation of the phenomena of interest, (ii) how þhow are all the factors related, (iii) whyþwhat are the underlying psychological, economic, or social dynamics that justify the selection of factors and the proposed causal relationships, and (iv) who, where, whenþthese are the temporal and contextual factors that set the boundaries of generalizability and pose limitations on the range of the theory. While what and how describe, only why explains, all in the context of who, where, when.

References

Eisenhardt, E. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.

Kerlinger, F.N. 1986. , 3rd Edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.

Poole, M.C. and Van de Ven, A.H. 1989. Using Paradox to Build Management and Organizational Theories. , 14(4), 562-578.

Van de Ven, A.H. 1989. Nothing is Quite so Practical as a Good Theory. , 14(4), 486-489.

Weick, K.E. 1989. Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination. , 14(4), 516-531.

Whetten, D.A. 1989. What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? , 14(4), 490-495.

SOUMEN GHOSH is an associate professor at the School of Management, Georgia Institute of Technology. He received his Ph.D. in operations management and M.S. in industrial and systems engineering from The Ohio State University. His areas of interest include manufacturing planning and control, flexible manufacturing systems, strategic issues in manufacturing, total quality management, and manufacturing-marketing interface.

Dr. Shawnee Vickery
Department of Management
College of Business
239 Eppley Center
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
517-353-5415
fax: 517-336-1111