recognizing, and tolerating no longer, the vast inertia of an educational establishment entrenched in many university faculties...; in well-heeled interest associations, with their bureaucracies, journals, and conventions... On the whole this establishment is well-meaning, and it is not monolithic, all of one mind. But its mainstream, trained and engrossed in the means rather than the academic content..., instinctively resists any reform that starts with content and then lets it shape everything elseþmost certainly the means.
Now Gagnon was speaking of education in general, but could he be speaking of Production/Operations Management (POM) education as well? Of POM research? To me, it sounds a little too much like any established educational structure, and POM is certainly that. Gagnon speaks of the resistance to needed change. Could that be about us as well?
For POM as a functional area of business education, there are fundamental questions whose answers will determine our overall success. Those questions may be obvious, but they are not often seriously asked.
Let me venture some answers, though somehow I expect less agreement than my unchallenged thinking presupposes.
Some will argue that we serve no one but the higher calling of knowledge. Quite aside from the fact that few are willing to pay for abstract knowledge, particularly from a professional school, I worry that such an answer is simply an easy way (some would say, devious way) of avoiding any real question of value. If so, the cost to us could be quite high.
If the answers are at all on mark, two important observations can be made. The first is that rewards are for research that need not be driven by the business community or its needs. The second is that the reward is for research, not teaching.
Along those lines, Malhotra wrote a thoughtful piece in the March 1996 Decision Line about the need for relevance in POM research and teaching. He suggested some excellent avenues:
But perhaps we need to push it a bit further. Relevance does not occur in a vacuum. Structural changes are needed to bring it about. And maybe the most important part of that structural change is the context within which we work. Maybe we what we really need is a change in the context of our work.
One could view scholars as those who know business, but use methodologies (individuals who know business well and use research methodologies to investigate its application). Or alternatively, one could see scholars as those who know methodologies, but use business (individuals use business only as a vehicle). Which do you think we are? Most of us would probably like to say the former, for it has an obvious predisposition to relevance. Personally, I believe that too often it would be a position difficult to defend.
It does bring us back to the question of how to add value. Here in South Carolina, legislators are very critical, if not down right hostile, about academic activities. They seem to believe that the contribution to the community often does not match the resources required. Which is to say, there is some belief that our work, particularly our research, is not relevant to the community.
So how do we push Malhotra's proposals for relevance a bit further? It seems to me the answer lies not in exhortation alone, but in the environmentþin the structure of how we go about our work.
I would propose three pillars that might form a part of that structure:
Together they could help reemphasize the importance of the scholar who knows business. Let's consider these in turn.
1. Content orientationþfocus on content first. Understand the context of problems and relationships in all their richness. Respond to needs, to problems in human endeavor. Only then focus on the means, on the appropriate methodology. Eliminate rigor? Scientific inquiry? Important and useful research tools? Of course not. But Gagnon's pointþcontent before the means: problems defined before solutions proffered; business before methodology; business content before curriculum. When content is clear, then find the means to address it.
2. Respect for the practitionerþrespect for those who experience and know the problems; respect for practitioners. Peter Barr, dean of the business college at Coastal Carolina, also writing in the March 1996 Decision Line, noted the difficulty with the þair of superiorityþ often extended to the business community. Perhaps we misinterpret their failure to articulate a problem in our terms as a lack of understanding. Moreover, perhaps we don't even talk to the practitioners and managers experiencing the problems first hand, to find which needs are truly real.
3. Community as an incentiveþrewarding association with the business practice as an incentive to become knowledgeable about the people and processes, about relevancy. For most POM scholars, there is little incentive beyond personal interest to become more deeply involved in practice. Indeed, the need for concise, tight research probably demands more analytical time than field time. And the peers who review our work are no more likely to have the big picture.
The problem with all of this is that it is easy to say, but difficult to bring about. In fact, demands from reviewers and editors that problems be real hardly tax the intellect of an academic writer at all. The resourceful scholar can always find or invent some context of reality. Real change will take place only if change is operationalized in day-to-day activities. In total this suggests that we could most effectively build these pillars in reverse order.
If we first add community incentives that reward scholars for being intimately involved in business, for actually experiencing problems in the field, then there is an excellent opportunity for scholars to come to know managers personally and to experience business difficulties and frustrations at close-hand. Then, secondly, from the close proximity comes the opportunity to know and respect these individuals personally. Finally, with incentives and a respected, personal connection, content- oriented research will have a tendency to occur. Relevant work will be the more likely outcome. The argument here is that relevant work is a result; the action point starts with incentives for business community involvement followed by personal contact.
Some actions constructing these pillars have already been put into practice by major universities. Here are four examples:
1. (Community) A southeastern business school established outreach to the community as a fourth performance area distinct from the typical three-dimensional research, teaching, and service. This performance and promotion measure rewards connection with business practitioners.
2. (Respect) A midwestern business college funded scholars working in industry for limited periods, such as summer breaks. Six or eight weeks working on a live business problem or responsibility was seen as potentially eye opening. Opportunities for funding by business were useful additional resources.
3. (Respect) A southeastern college providing a week- long tour for new faculty to see the business operations and to meet the business community first-hand.
4. (Respect) A midwestern school established an agency to connect suppliers of expertise in the college with those in practice who had need of it.
All of these actions have the potential of changing the view of the academics involved. In addition, perhaps older ideas could also be used to greater effect, such as participation in consulting or in practitioner societies like APICS.
Content and value of our work will change only if the context of scholars change. Of course, some will have far better ideas than have been expressed in this piece. And others will find change uncomfortable. But the right change is crucial to survival and, indeed, change today is business, the very topic we teach. Perhaps its time to be more urgently about its practice.
Gagnon, Paul, "What should children learn," Atlantic Monthly, December 1995.
Malhotra, Manoj K., "Towards greater relevance in production and operations management," Decision Line, 27:2 (9-11) March 1996.