Action Research For Operations Management

International Journal of Operations & Production Management
Action research for operations management

Paul Coughlan David Coghlan
Article information:
To cite this document:
Paul Coughlan David Coghlan, (2002),"Action research for operations management", International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 Iss 2 pp. 220 - 240
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570210417515
Downloaded by IFES At 12:05 11 July 2015 (PT)
Downloaded on: 11 July 2015, At: 12:05 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 53 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 9454 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

J. Will M. Bertrand, Jan C. Fransoo, (2002),"Operations management research methodologies using
quantitative modeling", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 Iss 2 pp.
241-264 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570210414338
Roy Westbrook, (1995),"Action research: a new paradigm for research in production and operations
management", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 15 Iss 12 pp. 6-20
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443579510104466
Cipriano Forza, (2002),"Survey research in operations management: a process-based perspective",
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 Iss 2 pp. 152-194 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570210414310
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:570962 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm
IJOPM
22,2
220
ACTION RESEARCH
Action research for operations

management
Paul Coughlan and David Coghlan
University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland

Keywords Operations management, Action research, Methodology
Abstract A fundamental methodological question guides this paper: How can operations
managers and researchers learn from the applied activity that characterises the practice of OM?
To address this question, defines and explores the legitimacy of an action-oriented research
approach in OM, and the particular logic and value of applying action research (AR) to the
description and understanding of issues in OM. Begins with a review of the role of empirical
research in OM and how AR features within the OM research literature. Introduces the theory and
practice of AR and outlines the AR cycle and how AR is implemented. Finally, describes the skills
required to engage in AR and explores issues in generating theory. Concludes with the assertion
that AR is relevant and valid for the discipline of OM in its ability to address the operational
realities experienced by practising managers while simultaneously contributing to knowledge.
International Journal of Operations &

Production Management,
Vol. 22 No. 2, 2002, pp. 220-240.
# MCB UP Limited, 0144-3577
DOI 10.1108/01443570210417515
Introduction
To the researcher and to the manager, a running operation is an enigma. On the
one hand, it can be a highly visible entity where people or machines seem to be
working away. On the other hand, a running operation will neither come right nor
stay right of its own accord. Answers to the following questions are not obvious.
What makes it work as it does? Could it work better in its current form? What
different forms could it take and still achieve the same result? What market,
internal or environmental change would cause most trouble to the working of the
operation, and with what effect? To address such questions usefully as a
manager or as a researcher is not easy. Accordingly, the fundamental
methodological question arises: how can operations managers and researchers
learn from the applied activity that characterises the practice of operations
management (OM)? As the name suggests, AR is an approach to research that
aims both at taking action and creating knowledge or theory about that action.
Action research (AR) is a generic term, which covers many forms of actionoriented research, and indicates diversity in theory and practice among action
researchers, so providing a wide choice for potential action researchers as to
what might be appropriate for their research question (Reason and Bradbury,
2001). The outcomes are both an action and research which, unlike traditional
positivist science, aims at creating knowledge only. Westbrook (1995)
presented AR as an approach that could overcome three deficiencies associated
with ``traditional research topics and methods''. It has broad relevance to
practitioners and applicability to unstructured or integrative issues. It can
contribute to theory. He concluded that:
The grounded, iterative, interventionist nature of AR ensures closeness to the full range of
variables in settings where those variables may not emerge all at once (Westbrook, 1995, p. 18).
This paper will explore the themes and challenges facing operations managers
and researchers as they attempt to learn from the applied activity that
characterises the practice of OM, including:
.
What is AR and when can it be used?
.
What is needed before entering into action research?
.
How do you design an AR project?
.
Implementing action research.
.
Action research skills.
.
How do you generate theory?
.
Assessing the quality of action research.
First, however, the paper will begin with a brief review of the status of
empirical research in OM noting, in particular, some of the differing
methodologies applied.
Empirical research in operations management
In their survey of empirical research methods in OM, Flynn et al. (1990)
contended that the development of the field of OM would be enhanced by
empirical work and that `àll types of empirical research'' were needed. Proposing
a systematic approach for empirical research, they identified a number of data
collection methods which, alone or in combination, could be used in conjunction
with the research design. However, their concept of the OM researcher was
largely one of an individual observing from outside of the running operation, or
gathering archival, interview or survey data relating to the historical running of
the operation. Only in their brief description of ``participant observation'' did they
acknowledge a different type of research setting, question and characterisation of
the researcher. For many types of research question, detached observation or
archival study are indeed appropriate. However, the range of these questions
does not define the range of research issues relevant to OM.
Scudder and Hill (1998), reviewing published empirical OM research during
the period 1985-1995, found that the largest proportion of the empirical
research had been done through the use of surveys. Case study methodology
was used in about half as many articles as survey methodology. Notably
absent was any reference to action research.
Pannirselvam et al. (1999) found that empirical studies comprised about 18
per cent of published OM research examined for the period 1992-1997. The
methodologies included survey, case study, field study and laboratory
experiment. While no specific reference was made to action research, they
noted that:
OM research shows a trend toward more integrative research both within the OM area and
also with other business disciplines, such as marketing . . . This kind of integrative research
may require us to be more innovative in the future in our selection of methodologies used to
conduct our research (Panniselvam et al., 1999, p. 111).
Action research
for operations
management
221
IJOPM
22,2
222
In contrast to published research, a review of pipeline research (Scudder and

Hill, 1998; Pannirselvam et al., 1999) in OM can suggest changes in focus and
methodology and future publication. Here, some empirical OM studies based on
an application of AR have been reported. We reviewed the conference
proceedings of the three most recent annual meetings (Coughlan et al., 1998;
Bartezzaghi et al., 1999; Van Dierdonck and Vereecke, 2000). The review of the
pipeline, summarised in Table I, suggests some application of an AR
methodology. However, the low but increasing incidence of conscious
application of AR suggests a potential of unnecessary threats to the validity of
the research findings reported. Such threats might be reduced if the researchers
recognised the demands of the approach being taken and consciously adopted
appropriate strategies to maintain rigour in their research.
In sum, calls for application of empirical methodologies are appropriate as
differing research questions need to be addressed. However, not all questions of
interest to managers and OM researchers can be answered by surveys, case
studies or participant observation. There seems to be little evidence of AR as a
methodology applied in published empirical research in OM, but some evidence
of applications in the pipeline. Here, then, is an opportunity for rigorous
application of AR with potential to contribute to knowledge and to practice.
What is AR and when can it be used?
What is AR?
Several broad characteristics define AR (Foster, 1972; Susman and Evered,
1978; Peters and Robinson, 1984; Argyris et al., 1985; Whyte, 1991; Aguinis,
1993; Coghlan, 1994; Baskerville and Wood-Harper, 1996; Eden and Huxham,
1996; Checkland and Holwell, 1998; Greenwood and Levin, 1998; Gummesson,
2000; McDonagh and Coghlan, 2001):
.
research in action, rather than research about action;
.
participative;
.
concurrent with action;
.
a sequence of events and an approach to problem solving.
We will discuss each in turn.
First, AR focuses on research in action, rather than research about action.
The central idea is that AR uses a scientific approach to study the resolution of
Table I.
Comparison of AR
studies in international
conferences of the
European Operations
Management
Association
Year
Number of papers in
proceedings
Examples of action
research
Characterisation as
action research
1998
1999
2000
96
121
82
9
9
8
1
3
4
Sources: Coughlan et al. (1998), Bartezzaghi et al. (1999) and Van Dierdonck and
Vereecke (2000)
important social or organisational issues together with those who experience

these issues directly. AR works through a cyclical four-step process of
consciously and deliberately: planning, taking action and evaluating the action,
leading to further planning and so on.
Second, AR is participative. Members of the system which is being studied
participate actively in the cyclical process outlined above. Such participation
contrasts with traditional research where members of the system are objects of
the study.
Third, AR is research concurrent with action. The goal is to make that action
more effective while simultaneously building up a body of scientific knowledge.
Finally, AR is both a sequence of events and an approach to problem
solving. As a sequence of events, it comprises iterative cycles of gathering data,
feeding them back to those concerned, analysing the data, planning action,
taking action and evaluating, leading to further data gathering and so on. As
an approach to problem solving, it is an application of the scientific method of
fact finding and experimentation to practical problems requiring action
solutions and involving the collaboration and co-operation of the action
researchers and members of the organisational system. The desired outcomes
of the AR approach are not just solutions to the immediate problems but
important learning from outcomes both intended and unintended, and a
contribution to scientific knowledge and theory.
The origins of AR
AR originates primarily in the work of Kurt Lewin and his colleagues and
associates. In the mid-1940s, Lewin and his associates conducted AR projects in
different social settings. Through the following decades, AR in organisations
developed in organisation development, particularly in the USA (French and Bell,
1999), the industrial democracy tradition in Scandinavia (Greenwood and Levin,
1998) and the socio-technical work of the Tavistock Institute in the UK (Trist and
Murray, 1993). One of the best-known early organisational AR projects was a
study of resistance to change in an industrial plant (Coch and French, 1948). The
researchers were essentially addressing the question of how to introduce
technological change into the company where there was strong resistance to
change. They set up two approaches to introducing the change representative
participation and total participation in discussing the implementation. Using
these two approaches they were able to show differing effects of each approach
on productivity and on the acceptance of the change. The results indicated that
productivity increased faster and further beyond previous levels in groups where
total participation was used as a means of introducing the change.
Contrasts with positivist science
AR can be contrasted with positivist science (Susman and Evered, 1978)
(Table II). The aim of positivist science is the creation of universal knowledge
or covering law, while AR focuses on knowledge in action. Accordingly, the
knowledge created in positivist science is universal while that created through
Action research
for operations
management
223
IJOPM
22,2
224
Table II.
Comparison of
positivist science and
AR
Positivist science
Action research
Aim of research
Universal knowledge
Theory building and testing
Type of knowledge
acquired
Universal
Covering law
Nature of data
Validation
Context free
Logic, measurement
Consistency of prediction and
control
Observer
Knowledge in action
Theory building and testing
in action
Particular
Situational
Praxis
Contextually embedded
Experiential
Researcher's role
Researcher's relationship to
setting
Detached neutral
Actor
Agent of change
Immersed
AR is particular, situational and out of praxis. In AR the data are contextually

embedded and interpreted. In positivist science findings are validated by logic,
measurement and the consistency achieved by the consistency of prediction
and control. In AR, the basis for validation is the conscious and deliberate
enactment of the AR cycle. The positivist scientist's relationship to the setting
is one of neutrality and detachment, while the action researcher is immersed in
the setting. In short, the contrast of roles is between that of detached observer
in positivist science and of an actor and agent of change in action research. As
Riordan (1995, p. 10) expresses it, (AR) is:
. . . a kind of approach to studying social reality without separating (while distinguishing)
fact from value; they require a practitioner of science who is not only an engaged participant,
but also incorporates the perspective of the critical and analytical observer, not as a
validating instance but as integral to the practice (p. 10).
Major characteristics of AR
Gummesson (2000) lays out ten major characteristics of action research. We
will present and discuss each in turn:
(1) Action researchers take action. Action researchers are not merely
observing something happening; they are actively working at making it
happen.
(2) AR always involves two goals: solve a problem and contribute to science.
As we pointed out earlier AR is about research in action and does not
postulate a distinction between theory and action. Hence the challenge
for action researchers is to engage in both making the action happen and
stand back from the action and reflect on it as it happens in order to
contribute theory to the body of knowledge.
(3) AR is interactive. AR requires co-operation between the researchers and
the client personnel, and continuous adjustment to new information and
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
new events. In action research, the members of the client system are coresearchers as the action researcher is working with them on their issue
so that the issue may be resolved or improved for their system and a
contribution be made to the body of knowledge (Reason, 1999). As AR is
a series of unfolding and unpredictable events, the actors need to work
together and be able to adapt to the contingencies of the unfolding story.
AR aims at developing holistic understanding during a project and
recognising complexity. As organisations are dynamic socio-technical
systems, action researchers need to have a broad view of how the system
works and be able to move between formal structural and technical and
informal people subsystems (Nadler and Tushman, 1984). Working with
organisational systems requires an ability to work with dynamic
complexity, which describes how a system is complex, not because of a
lot of detail (detail complexity) but because of multiple causes and
effects over time (Senge, 1990).
AR is fundamentally about change. AR is applicable to the
understanding, planning and implementation of change in business
firms and other organisations. As AR is fundamentally about change,
knowledge of and skill in the dynamics of organisational change are
necessary. Such knowledge informs how a large system recognises the
need for change, articulates a desired outcome from the change and
actively plans and implements how to achieve that desired future
(Beckhard and Harris, 1987; Nadler, 1998; Coghlan and Brannick, 2001).
Such knowledge also includes how change moves through a system
(Rashford and Coghlan, 1994) and the dynamics of organisational
politics (Buchanan and Badham, 1999).
AR requires an understanding of the ethical framework, values and
norms within which it is used in a particular context. In AR ethics
involves authentic relationships between the action researcher and the
members of the client system as to how they understand the process and
take significant action (Coghlan and Brannick, 2001). Values and norms
that flow from such ethical principles typically focus on how the action
researcher works with the members of the organisation.
AR can include all types of data gathering methods. AR does not preclude
the use of data gathering methods from traditional research. Qualitative
and quantitative tools such as interviews and surveys are commonly used.
What is important in AR is that the planning and use of these tools be well
thought out with the members of the organisation and be clearly integrated
into the AR process. It must be remembered that data collection tools are
themselves interventions and generate data. A survey or interview may
generate feelings of anxiety, suspicion, apathy and hostility or create
expectations in a workforce. If action researchers do not attend to this and
focus only on the collection of data, they may be missing significant data
Action research
for operations
management
225
IJOPM
22,2
226
that may be critical to the success of the project. In this vein, it can be seen
how AR makes demands on the whole person of the action researcher.
(8) Action research requires a breadth of pre-understanding of the corporate
environment, the conditions of business, the structure and dynamics of
operating systems and the theoretical underpinnings of such systems.
Pre-understanding refers to the knowledge the action researcher brings
to the research project. Action researchers in OM, therefore, need to have
not only their knowledge of operations and production, but also a
broader knowledge of organisational systems, much of which is tacit
(Nonaka and Takeutchi, 1995) and the dynamics of the operation in its
contemporary business environment. Such a need for pre-understanding
signals that an AR approach is inappropriate for researchers who, for
example, think that all they have to do to develop grounded theory is
just to go out into the field.
(9) AR should be conducted in real time, though retrospective AR is also
acceptable. While AR is a ``live'' case study being written as it unfolds, it
can also take the form of a traditional case study written in retrospect,
when the written case is used as an intervention into the organisation in
the present. In such a situation the case performs the function of a
``learning history'' and is used as an intervention to promote reflection
and learning in the organisation (Kleiner and Roth, 1997).
(10) The AR paradigm requires its own quality criteria. AR should not be
judged by the criteria of positivist science, but rather within the
criteria of its own terms. Reason and Bradbury (2001) point to what
they consider to be choice points and questions for quality in action
research:
.
Is the AR explicit in developing a praxis of relational participation?
In other words, how well does the AR reflect the co-operation
between the action researcher and the members of the organisation?
.
Is AR guided by a reflexive concern for practical outcomes? Is the
action project governed by constant and iterative reflection as part of
the process of organisational change or improvement?
.
Does AR include a plurality of knowing which ensures conceptualtheoretical integrity, extends our ways of knowing and has a
methodological appropriateness? AR is inclusive of practical,
propositional and experiential knowing (Reason, 1999) and so as a
methodology is appropriate to furthering knowledge on different
levels.
.
Does AR engage in significant work? The significance of the project
is an important quality in action research.
.
Does the AR result in new and enduring infrastructures? In other
words, does sustainable change come out of the project?
When is AR appropriate?
In general, AR is appropriate when the research question relates to describing
an unfolding series of actions over time in a given group, community or
organisation; understanding as a member of a group how and why their action
can change or improve the working of some aspects of a system; and
understanding the process of change or improvement in order to learn from it
(Coghlan and Brannick, 2001).
Two examples of published research illustrate appropriate applications of
AR in OM. Westbrook (1993) investigated the preconditions for priority
management by summarising the sources of complexity variety, variation
and volume. He developed a classification scheme with three main dimensions
which had practical application and formed the basis for an orderbook model.
hlstrom (1996) examined the implementation process when
Karlsson and A
implementing lean product development. Lean product development offers the
potential for faster product development with fewer engineering hours,
improved manufacturability of products, higher quality products, fewer
production start-up problems, and faster time to market, so improving the
likelihood of market success. Over two years observing and facilitating one
hlstrom (1996) were
company's efforts to make this transition, Karlsson and A
able to identify various factors that either hindered or supported the
implementation of lean product development.
In each of these cases the problem owners are both the practitioner and the
researcher. Typically, the former will wish to understand the impact of changes
and the process of change with a view to replication at another time or in
another setting. As importantly, the researcher will wish to contribute to the
understanding in the academic world of the issues under investigation.
What role does the action researcher play?
By and large, action researchers are outside agents who act as facilitators of the
action and reflection within an organisation. In such cases, it is useful to talk
about the action researcher and the client system, that is, those in the
organisation who are engaging in the AR in collaboration with the external AR.
The action researcher is acting as an external helper to the client system.
Schein (1999) distinguishes between two main models of helping. One is the
expert model as in the doctor-patient model as in the situation where patients
go to doctors for expert diagnosis and prescriptive direction. The other is the
process consultation model in which helpers work in a facilitative manner to
help the clients inquire into their own issues and create and implement
solutions. In this latter model, helpers work as action researchers (Schein, 1987,
1995; Coghlan, 1994). It is an approach such as this that we must apply to AR.
There is also a growing experience of AR being done from within
organisations as when practising managers undertake AR projects in and on
their own organisations (Bartunek et al., 2000). This is increasingly common in
the context of managers participating in academic programmes (Perry and
Zuber-Skerritt, 1994; Coghlan, 2001; Coghlan and Brannick, 2001). In such
Action research
for operations
management
227
IJOPM
22,2
228
contexts managers acting as action researchers take on the role of researcher in

addition to their regular organisational roles.
What is needed before entering into AR?
Essentially what is needed is a real issue of both research and managerial
significance upon which a group or organisation is embarking, which has an
uncertain outcome and which the group or organisation is willing to subject to
rigorous inquiry, particularly the analysis and implementation of action. As
AR is what we might term a ``live'' case in real time, the action researcher has to
gain access and to be contracted as an action researcher (Schein, 1987, 1995;
Gummesson, 2000). This contract involves the key members of the organisation
recognising the value of the AR approach and being willing to have the action
researcher working with them in a process consultation mode. Developing the
contract, a key element of the pre-step (defined in the following section)
involves recognition of the different stakeholders, their differing expectations
and inter-relationships.
For example, in their study of total productive maintenance implementation
in the newspaper industry, Bennett and Lee (2000) took an AR approach. They
noted that:
. . . Action Research not only investigated and improved management practice but also
developed managerial competences of those involved in the research . . . An Action Research
team of organisation personnel was specially formed to undertake the necessary fieldwork.
The team members who were specialists in their own area participated voluntarily in the
study. Their satisfaction was the experience they gained from the project and the opportunity
to work together as a team (Bennett and Lee, 2000, p. 35).
Similarly, in an AR study of process improvement in product development,

Coughlan and Brady (1995) sought to establish benchmarks of current practice,
to increase awareness of areas of management choice, and to understand the
dynamics of conceptually-based collaboration among researchers and
managers. The five participating firms had their expectations which served to
guide specific emphases in the project. For example, one firm stated:
We want to understand how we can achieve cycle time reduction (getting it right first time will
be a subset of this). To do this we need to understand the detail of the product development
process. As we don't know how to benchmark, we need a facilitator (the researchers) to provide
the structure for analysing the process. We will then analyse the data ourselves to identify what
we need to do to achieve cycle time reduction (Coughlan and Brady, 1995, p. 43).
Parallel action research projects

When the action researchers are enrolled in an academic programme, such as one
leading to a doctorate, it is useful to note that typically there are two AR projects
co-existing in parallel (Coghlan and Brannick, 2001). First there is the core AR
(Perry and Zuber-Skerritt, 1994) which is the project on which the student-action
researcher is working within the organisation. This project has its own identity
and may proceed, irrespective of whether or not it is being studied. There is also
the thesis AR project (Perry and Zuber-Skerritt, 1994). This involves the action
researcher's inquiry into the organisational project. This distinction is useful as it

is the thesis project which will be submitted for examination, rather than the core
project. While the core project may be unsuccessful as reflected in the thesis
project, the researcher's inquiry into the lack of success may be successful for the
academic award the student-action researcher is pursuing.
Action research
for operations
management
How do you design an AR project?

Framing the issue
Framing and selecting an issue is a complex process (Coghlan and Brannick,
2001). In Bartunek et al. (2000), several examples of the scope of research
projects are evident. In one case, that of a bank, the project was a practical
operational issue there was a recurring problem which management wanted
researched and resolved. This issue was identified as improving relationships
between the bank and a client. Bartunek et al. (2000) also provide a more
complex case. In this case, that of a manufacturing company, the development
of an integrated manufacturing system involved radical changes in how the
company did its business.
For the action researcher the questions of who selects the scope of the
project, who provides access and who is involved in it are critical, as they are in
any research project. It is common that action researchers have a project
steering group, which enables them to manage the project, by:
.
having a team with which to work in planning, implementing and
evaluating; and
.
building insider knowledge of the organisation (Bartunek and Louis,
1996).
229
This group also acts as a learning group and reflects on the emergent learning
from the project (Bushe and Shani, 1991).
An emergent process
An AR project is emergent, that is it emerges through the unfolding of a series
of events as the designated issue is confronted, and attempts at resolution by
the members of the organisation with the help of the action researcher. The
enactment of the cycles of planning, taking action and evaluating can be
anticipated but cannot be designed or planned in detail in advance. The
philosophy underlying AR is that the stated aims of the project lead to
planning the first action, which is then evaluated. So the second action cannot
be planned until evaluation of the first action has taken place. As Eden and
Huxham (1996) point out, the process of exploration of the data, rather than
collection, must demonstrate a high degree of method and orderliness in
reflecting about and holding onto the emerging research content of each
episode and the process whereby issues are planned and implemented.
For example, Coughlan et al. (2001) reported on an AR initiative dealing with
adopting ``world class'' operations practices in five well-established
organisations. At the core of this initiative was the development of an action
IJOPM
22,2
230
learning model which would help managers and organisations to develop the
capabilities of the learning organisation, enabling them to transform
themselves continuously through learning to the benefit of their stakeholders.
The model would be of a contingency nature, standardised in so far as is
possible, and replicable both in Ireland and in Europe generally.
Working with the researchers, the firms analysed the profile of practices and
performance emerging from the first self-assessment carried out as part of the
project, validated the gaps appearing and explained them. Issues were identified
and, in collaboration with the researchers, the firms traced the origins of these
issues. It was concluded that resolution of these issues would require a great deal
of change in areas such as the definition of the mission of the firms, the alignment
of the organisational structure to the strategy of the firms, and in the balancing of
power across differing roles. In taking action to address the emerging issues, the
firms recognised their lack of data in key related process areas. As the actions
progressed, the firms were helped to crystallise out these observations through
their active participation in the network meetings facilitated by the researchers,
carrying out the assignments set by the researchers, and through the discussions
with the other firms based on their presentations.
Implementing action research
The AR cycle comprises three types of step, as illustrated in Figure 1:
(1) a pre-step to understand context and purpose;
(2) six main steps to gather, feed back and analyse data, and to plan,
implement and evaluate action;
(3) a meta-step to monitor.
It is the meta-step which is the focus of the academic dissertation. The
researcher's AR project inquires into how the organisational AR cycles are
enacted.
Pre-step: understanding context and purpose
The pre-step is driven by two questions concerning the rationale for action and
for research.
Figure 1.
Action research cycle
What is the rationale for action? The AR cycle unfolds in real time and begins
with the key members of the organisation developing an understanding of the
context of the action project:
.
Why is this project necessary/desirable?
.
What are the economic, political, social and technical forces driving the
need for action?
The analysis of these forces identifies their source, their potency and the nature
of the demands they are making on the system. A second key contextual
element is the degree of choice the client system has in taking action. Choices
are not absolute. While there may be no control over the forces demanding
action, there is likely to be a great deal of control over how to respond to those
forces. In that case there is likely to be a good deal of scope as to what changes,
how, and in what time scale the action can take place.
What is the rationale for research? The complementary pre-step is to ask
what the rationale for the research is. This involves asking why this action
project is worth studying, how AR is an appropriate methodology to adopt and
what contribution it is expected to make to knowledge.
Main steps
The six main steps relate first to the data and then to the action. These steps are
detailed as follows:
(1) Data gathering. Data are gathered in differing ways depending on the
context. There is what are sometimes referred to as the ``hard'' data. These
data are gathered through, for example, operational statistics, financial
accounts and marketing reports. Then there is what are sometimes
referred to as the ``soft'' data. These are gathered through observation,
discussions and interviewing. The supposed ``softness'' lies in the fact that
these data are largely perceptual and may be difficult to interpret validly.
For the action researcher, data generation comes through active
involvement in the day-to-day organisational processes relating to the AR
project. Not only are data generated through participation in and
observation of teams at work, problems being solved, decisions being
made and so on, but also through the interventions which are made to
advance the project. Some of these observations and interventions are
made in formal settings meetings and interviews; many are made in
informal settings over coffee, lunch and other recreational settings.
In AR, directly observable behaviour is an important source of data for
the action researcher. Observations of the dynamics of groups at work
for example, communication patterns, leadership behaviour, use of
power, group roles, norms, elements of culture, problem solving and
decision making, relations with other groups provide the basis for
inquiry into the underlying assumptions and their effects on the work
and life of these groups (Schein, 1999). So, the action researcher is dealing
Action research
for operations
management
231
IJOPM
22,2
232
(2)
(3)
(4)
(3)
(4)
with directly observable phenomena in the organisations with which

they are working. Here, the critical issue is that of how to be helpful to the
client system and, at the same time, how to inquire in what is being
observed. Observation and inquiry into how the systemic relationship
between the individual, the team, the inter-departmental group and the
organisation operates is critical to the complex nature of organisational
problem solving and issue resolution (Rashford and Coghlan, 1994).
Data feedback. The action researcher takes the gathered data and feeds it
to the client system with a view to making it available for analysis.
Sometimes the action researcher has gathered the data and does the
reporting; at other times, the organisation itself has gathered the data and
the action researcher facilitates or participates in the feedback meetings.
Data analysis. The critical aspect of data analysis in AR is that it is
collaborative both the researcher and members of the client system (for
example, the management team, a customer group, etc.) do it together.
This collaborative approach is based on the assumption that clients
know their organisation best, know what will work and, ultimately, will
be the ones to implement and follow through on whatever actions will be
taken. Hence, their involvement in the analysis is critical. The criteria
and tools for analysis need to be talked through and ultimately need to
be directly linked to the purpose of the research and the aim of the
interventions.
Action planning. Following from the analysis further action is planned.
In the same vein and for the same reasons as the data-gathering step,
action planning is a joint activity. The AR steering group and the senior
management set who does what and an appropriate time schedule. As
Beckhard and Harris (1987) advise, key questions arise around:
.
What needs to change?
.
In what parts of the organisation?
.
What types of change are required?
.
Whose support is needed?
.
How is commitment to be built?
.
How is resistance to be managed?
These questions are critical and need to be answered as part of the
change plan.
Implementation. The client implements the planned action. This
involves making the desired changes and following through in the plans
in collaboration with relevant key members of the organisation.
Evaluation. Evaluation involves reflecting on the outcomes of the action,
both intended and unintended, a review of the process in order that the
next cycle of planning and action may benefit from the experience of the
cycle completed. Evaluation is the key to learning. Without evaluation

actions can go on and on regardless of success or failure; errors are
proliferated and ineffectiveness and frustration increased.
Meta-step: monitoring
Monitoring is a meta-step in that is occurs through all the cycles. Each AR
cycle leads to another cycle, and so continuous planning, implementation and
evaluation take place over time, as illustrated in Figure 2. Hence, the
opportunity for continuous learning exists. It may be useful at this juncture to
note that the cycles of data gathering, data feedback, data analysis, action
planning, taking action and evaluation recur as particular actions are planned
and implemented. Some cycles may refer to specific events in a short time cycle;
others may be concurrent and over a longer time cycle. Indeed the whole AR
project may be one major cycle with lots of minor cycles within it.
Ideally, those involved in the AR cycles are continually monitoring each of
the six main steps, inquiring in what is taking place, how these steps are being
conducted, and what underlying assumptions are operative. The steering
group which is managing the whole project may not have the time to engage in
a lot of introspective monitoring and may resist efforts to push it into doing so.
While the steering group is focusing on the practical outcomes, the researcher
is not only concerned with how the project is working but is also monitoring
the learning process and inquiring into the inquiry.
Action research
for operations
management
233
AR skills
AR is a challenging approach to research because it requires confident and
experienced researchers to cope with the uncertainty of the unfolding story and
to be able to work as researchers exposed to the reality of organisational
change in real time. This latter point involves skills in diagnosis and
intervention in relation to issues and problems in organisations. For the
inexperienced action researcher it is probably important to be part of a team
with experienced researchers and to learn through an `àpprenticeship'' model
(Eden and Huxham, 1996).
Figure 2.
Action reseach cycles
IJOPM
22,2
234
Types of inquiry
AR involves core skills at engaging with others in process of inquiry and action.
In his articulation of the dynamics of helping, Schein (1999) describes typology
of inquiry, which provide a useful framework for the action researcher:
(1) Pure inquiry is where the action researcher prompts the elicitation of the
story of what is taking place and listens carefully and neutrally. He/she
asks, ``What is going on?'', ``Tell me what happened''.
(2) Exploratory diagnostic inquiry is where the action researcher begins to

manage the process of how the content is analysed by the other by
exploring:
.
emotional processes;
reasoning; and
actions.
So the action researcher may ask ``How do you feel about this?'', ``Why do you
think this happened?'', ``What did you do?'', ``What are you going to do?'', and so
on.
(3) Confrontive inquiry is where the action researcher, by sharing his/her
own ideas, challenges others to think from a new perspective. These
ideas may refer to:
.
process; and
content.
Examples of confrontive questions would be ``Have you thought about doing

this . . . ?'', or ``Have you considered that . . . might be a solution?''
Skills development
This typology of inquiry provides the basis for skill development for action
researchers as they work at engaging members of a client system in identifying
issues, diagnosing what they think are causing these issues to emerge, planning,
implementing and evaluating action and learning from the experience.
The underlying assumption is that action researchers are themselves
instruments in the generation of data. When they inquire into what is going on,
when they show people their train of thought and put forward hypotheses to be
tested, they are generating data. Accordingly, some of their core skills are in the
areas of self-awareness and sensitivity to what they observe supported by the
conceptual analytic frameworks on which they base their observations and
interpretations. In this respect their knowledge base in the field of organisation
behaviour on which they base their observations is central. In programmes that
work from an AR approach, it is critical that explicit training and education be
provided to enable action researchers to develop key interpersonal inquiry and
helping skills.
Learning in action
When action researchers engage in the AR cycles of diagnosing, planning,
action, taking action and evaluating action with others, and try to understand
and shape what is going on, they are engaging in their own experiential
learning cycle activities of experiencing, reflecting, interpreting and taking
action (Kolb, 1984). Learning in action is grounded in the inquiry-reflection
process. Inquiry can be focused outward (e.g. what is going on in the
organisation, in the team, etc.?) or inward (e.g. what is going on in me?).
Reflection is the process of stepping back from experience to process what the
experience means, with a view to planning further action. It is the critical link
between the concrete experience, the interpretation and taking new action. As
Raelin (2000) discusses, it is the key to learning as it enables action researchers
to develop an ability to uncover and make explicit to themselves what they
planned, discovered and achieved in practice. Raelin (2000) also argues that
reflection must be brought into the open so that it goes beyond their privatelyheld, taken-for-granted assumptions and helps them to see how their
knowledge is constructed. In action research, reflection is the activity that
integrates action and research.
Journal keeping
Journal keeping is a significant mechanism for developing reflective skills.
Action researchers note their observations and experiences in a journal, and
over time learn to differentiate between different experiences and ways of
dealing with them. Journal keeping helps them reflect on experiences, see
how they think about them and helps them anticipate future experiences
before they undertake them (Raelin, 2000). It enables them to integrate
information and experiences which, when understood, help them
understand their reasoning processes and consequent behaviour and so
anticipate experiences before embarking on them. Keeping a journal
regularly imposes a discipline and captures their experience of key events
close to when they happen and before the passage of time changes their
perception of them.
McNiff et al. (1996) describe some of the useful functions a journal or
research diary can have. It is a systematic and regularly kept record of events,
dates and people. It can provide an interpretative, self-evaluative account of the
researcher's personal experiences, thoughts and feelings, with a view to trying
to understand his or her own actions. It can be a useful way of dumping painful
experiences and be a reflective account where the researcher can tease out
interpretations, and also be an analytic tool where data can be examined and
analysed.
Writing an AR report
There are well-established conventions on writing an AR report (McNiff et al.,
1996; Coghlan and Brannick, 2001). These typically suggest that the report be
structured to deal with:
Action research
for operations
management
235
IJOPM
22,2
236
purpose and rational of the research;
context;
methodology and methods of inquiry;
story and outcomes;
self-reflection and learning of the action researcher;
reflection on the story in the light of the experience and the theory;
extrapolation to a broader context and articulation of usable knowledge.
This is not to say that such a structure would necessarily be expressed in a

chapter on each, but rather that these issues be clearly dealt with formally. For
example, the story might be spread over several chapters, depending on its
length and complexity and the extent of the research process.
How do you generate theory through AR?
AR projects are situation specific and do not aim to create universal knowledge.
At the same time AR must have some implications beyond those required for
action or knowledge within the project. It is important, therefore, to extrapolate
to other situations and to identify how the AR project could inform like
organisations, similar issues and so on.
Eden and Huxham (1996) present several important useful guides to how AR
contributes to theory:
.
AR generates emergent theory, in which the theory develops from a

synthesis of that which emerges from the data and that which emerges
from the use in practice of the body of theory which informed the
intervention and research intention.
Theory building, as a result of AR, will be incremental, moving from the
particular to the general in small steps.
AR demands an explicit concern with theory that is formed from the
conceptualisation of the particular experience in ways that are intended
to be meaningful to others.
It is not enough to draw on the generality of AR through the design of
tools, techniques and models, as the basis for their design must be
explicit and shown to be related to the theory.
Assessing the quality of AR

Action research does not have to justify itself in relation to alternative
epistemologies and research approaches (Susman and Evered, 1978; Aguinis,
1993). It can be justified within its own terms, particularly those which argue
that the reflection and data generation and the emergent theories cannot be
captured readily by alternative approaches (Schein, 1987; Eden and Huxham,
1996). While there are no more threats to validity in AR than in any other type
of research, at the same time there are threats of validity which must be
recognised and confronted.
Threats to validity
In order to maintain validity, action researchers must consciously and
deliberately enact the AR cycles, testing their own assumptions and subjecting
their assumptions to public testing (Argyris et al., 1985). The principal threat to
validity for AR is the lack of impartiality on the part of the researcher. As
action researchers are engaged in the shaping and telling of a story, they need
to consider the extent to which the story is a valid presentation of what has
taken place and how it is understood, rather than a biased version. Fisher and
Torbert (1995) suggest four ``parts of speech'' as useful to the AR role:
(1) Framing explicitly stating the purpose of speaking for the present
occasion, clarifying the dilemma the action researcher is trying to
resolve, sharing assumptions about the situation.
(2) Advocating explicitly stating the goal to be achieved, asserting and
option, perception, feeling or proposal for action.
(3) Illustrating telling a bit of the concrete story that makes the advocacy
concrete and orients the others more clearly.
(4) Inquiring questioning participants to understand their perspectives
and views.
Accordingly, action researchers need to combine advocacy with inquiry, that is
to present their inferences, attributions, opinions, viewpoints as open to testing
and critique. This combination involves illustrating inferences with relatively
directly observable data and making reasoning both explicit and publicly
testable in the service of learning.
AR versus consulting
A second critique of AR is to brand it as ``consulting masquerading as
research''. This is a criticism that action researchers must take seriously. There
are several points to be made in answering this criticism. Gummesson (2000)
presents four ways in which consultancy and AR are different:
(1) Consultants who work in an AR mode are required to be more rigorous
in their inquiry and documentation.
(2) Researchers require theoretical justifications, while consultants require
empirical justifications.
(3) Consultants work under tighter time and budget constraints.
(4) Consultation is frequently linear engage, analyse, act and disengage.
In contrast, AR is cyclical gathering data, feeding it back to those
concerned, analysing the data, planning action, taking action and
evaluating, leading to further data gathering and so on.
Action research
for operations
management
237
IJOPM
22,2
238
Summary and conclusions

OM is about the way organisations produce goods and services (Slack et al.,
1998). At its most basic, OM is concerned with managing capacity, flows and
bottlenecks. More generally, the concerns are with the relationship between
financial results (such as the accounting system reports), operational activity
and the operating structure. Operating problems arise in the forms of poor
designs, production bottlenecks, poor worker performance and methods,
product quality and delivery. Usually, there are several internal views on the
opportunities for making improvements that can realise the potential of the
operation. En route to improvement, there are lots of internal snags.
This paper has presented an in-depth review of AR as a valid methodology
for research in OM. It has highlighted the need, nature and process of
conceptually-based collaboration among managers and researchers around
intellectually interesting and managerially relevant operational realities faced
by managers. The set of iterative cycles yields insights that can deepen
understanding, improve practice and extend theory.
AR then is an approach to research that does not distinguish between
research and action; it addresses the theme of research in action. Accordingly,
compared with other approaches to research it is an imprecise, uncertain and
sometimes unstable activity, as life is. It works at gathering data with the
community of practitioners who want to improve organisations and
communities. Regretfully it has often become a glib term for involving clients
in research and lost its role as a powerful conceptual tool for uncovering truth
on which action can be taken. AR is a form of science which differs from
experimental physics but is genuinely scientific in its emphasis on careful
observation and study of the effects of human behaviour on human systems as
they manage change. Delivering quality and rigorous AR demands a holistic
attention to a number of key issues, particularly the enactment of the cycles of
planning, implementation and evaluation, the quality of participation in the
client system, the development of emergent theory from the action and the
contribution to the client system and continuous learning.
References
Aguinis, H. (1993), `Àction research and scientific method: presumed discrepancies and actual
similarities'', Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 29, pp. 416-31.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R. and Smith, D. (1985), Action Science, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Bartezzaghi, E., Filippini, R., Spina, G. and Vinelli, A. (1999), Managing Operations Networks,
Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Universita di Padova, Padova.
Bartunek, J.M. and Louis, M.R. (1996), Insider/Outsider Team Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bartunek, J., Crosta, T., Dame, R. and LeLacheur, D. (2000), ``Managers and project leaders
conducting their own action research interventions'', in Golembiewski, R.T. (Ed.),
Handbook of Organizational Consultation, 2nd ed., Marcel Dekker, New York, NY,
pp. 59-70.
Baskerville, R.L. and Wood-Harper, T. (1996), `À critical perspective on action research as a method
for information systems research'', Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 11, pp. 235-46.
Beckhard, R. and Harris, R. (1987), Organizational Transitions: Managing Complex Change,

2nd ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Bennett, D.J. and Lee, S.J. (2000), ``Total productive maintenance implementation in the
newspaper industry: an action research approach'', in Van Dierdonck, R. and Vereecke, A.
(Eds), Operations Management: Crossing Borders and Boundaries The Changing Role of
Operations, Universiteit Gent, Gent, pp. 32-9.
Buchanan, D. and Badham, R. (1999), Power, Politics and Organizational Change: Winning the
Turf Game, Sage, London.
Bushe, G.R. and Shani, A.B. (1991), Parallel Learning Structures, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Checkland, P. and Holwell, S. (1998), `Àction research: its nature and validity'', Systems Practice
and Action Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 9-21.
Coch, L. and French, J. (1948), `Òvercoming resistance to change'', Human Relations, Vol. 11,
pp. 512-32.
Coghlan, D. (1994), ``Research as a process of change: action science in organisations'', Irish
Business and Administrative Research, Vol. 15, pp. 119-30.
Coghlan, D. (2001), `Ìnsider action research: implications for practising managers'', Management
Learning, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 49-60.
Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. (2001), Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization, Sage,
London.
Coughlan, P. and Brady, E. (1995), ``Self-assessment and benchmarking product development in
five Irish firms'', Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 41-7.
Coughlan, P., Dromgoole, T. and Peppard, J. (1998), Operations Management: Future Issues and
Competitive Responses, University of Dublin, Dublin.
Coughlan, P., Dromgoole, T., Duff, D. and Harbison, A. (2001), ``Continuous improvement
through collaborative action learning'', International Journal of Technology Management.
Eden, C. and Huxham, C. (1996), `Àction research for management research'', British Journal of
Management, Vol. 7, pp. 75-86.
Fisher, D. and Torbert, W. (1995), Personal and Organizational Transformations: The True
Challenge of Continual Quality Improvement, McGraw-Hill, London.
Flynn, B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R.G., Bates, K.A. and Flynn, E.J. (1990), `Èmpirical research
methods in operations management'', Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 250-84.
Foster, M. (1972), `Àn introduction to the theory and practice of action research in work
organizations'', Human Relations, Vol. 25, pp. 529-56.
French, W. and Bell, C. (1999), Organization Development, 6th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Greenwood, D. and Levin, M. (1998), Introduction to Action Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Gummesson, E. (2000), Qualitative Methods in Management Research, (2nd ed.), Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
hlstrom, P. (1996), ``The difficult path to lean product development'', The
Karlsson, C. and A
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 283-95.
Kleiner, A. and Roth, G. (1997), ``How to make experience your company's best teacher'', Harvard
Business Review, September-October, pp. 172-7.
Kolb, D. (1984), Experiential Learning, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
McDonagh, J. and Coghlan, D. (2001), ``The art of clinical inquiry in information technologyrelated organizational research'', in Reason, P. and Bradbury, H., Handbook of Action
Research, Sage, London, pp. 372-8.
Action research
for operations
management
239
IJOPM
22,2
240
McNiff, J., Lomax, P. and Whitehead, J. (1996), You and Your Action Research Project, Routledge,
London.
Nadler, D. (1998), Champions of Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Nadler, D. and Tushman, M. (1984), `À congruence model for diagnosing organisational
behavior'', in Kolb, D.A., Rubin, I.M. and McIntyre, J.M., Organizational Psychology,
Readings on Human Behavior in Organizations, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, pp. 587-603.
Nonaka, I. and Takeutchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford University
Press, New York, NY.
Pannirselvam, G.P., Ferguson, L.A., Ash, R.C. and Siferd, S.P. (1999), `Òperations management
research, an update for the 1990s'', Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18, pp. 95-112.
Perry, C. and Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1994), ``Doctorates by action research for senior practising
managers'', Management Learning, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 341-64.
Peters, M. and Robinson, V. (1984), ``The origins and status of action research'', Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, Vol. 20, pp. 113-24.
Rashford, N.S. and Coghlan, D. (1994), The Dynamics of Organizational Levels, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.
Raelin, J. (2000), Work-Based Learning, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle, NJ.
Reason, P. (1999), `Ìntegrating action and reflection through co-operative inquiry'', Management
Learning, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 207-26.
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2001), Handbook of Action Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Riordan, P. (1995), ``The philosophy of action science'', Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 10
No. 6, pp. 6-13.
Schein, E.H. (1987), The Clinical Perspective in Fieldwork, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Schein, E.H. (1995), ``Process consultation, action research and clinical inquiry, are they the
same?'', Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 14-19.
Schein, E.H. (1999), Process Consultation Revisited, Building the Helping Relationship, AddisonWesley, Reading, MA.
Scudder, G.D. and Hill, C.A. (1998), `À review and classification of empirical research in
operations management'', Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16, pp. 91-101.
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Slack, N., Chambers, S., Harland, C., Harrison, A. and Johnston, R. (1998), Operations
Management, (2nd ed.), Financial Times, Pitman Publishing, London.
Susman, G. and Evered, R. (1978), `Àn assessment of the scientific merits of action research'',
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23, pp. 582-603.
Trist, E. and Murray, H. (1993), The Social Engagement of Social Science, A Tavistock Anthology.
Volume II, The Socio-Technical Perspective, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia,
PA.
Van Dierdonck, R. and Vereecke, A. (Eds), (2000), Operations Management, Crossing Borders
and Boundaries The Changing Role of Operations, Universiteit Gent, Gent.
Westbrook, R. (1993), `Òrderbook models for priority management, a taxonomy of data
structures'', Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 123-42.
Westbrook, R. (1995), `Àction research, a new paradigm for research in production and
operations management'', International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 15 No. 12, pp. 6-20.
Whyte, W.W. (1991), Participatory Action Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
This article has been cited by:

1. Armando Calabrese, Michele Corb. 2015. Design and blueprinting for total quality management
implementation in service organisations. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 26, 719-732.
[CrossRef]
2. Sai Sudhakar Nudurupati, Arijit Bhattacharya, David Lascelles, Nicholas Caton. 2015. Strategic sourcing
with multi-stakeholders through value co-creation: An evidence from global health care company.
International Journal of Production Economics 166, 248-257. [CrossRef]
3. Wagner Cezar Lucato, Milton Vieira Jnior, Jos Carlos da Silva Santos. 2015. Eco-Six Sigma: integration
of environmental variables into the Six Sigma technique. Production Planning & Control 26, 605-616.
[CrossRef]
4. Reham Eltantawy, Antony Paulraj, Larry Giunipero, Dag Naslund, Abhinay A. Thute. 2015. Towards
supply chain coordination and productivity in a three echelon supply chain. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 35:6, 895-924. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Hiroshige Mori. 2015. Action research regarding the optimisation of radiological protection for nurses
during vascular interventional radiology. Journal of Radiological Protection 35, 457-466. [CrossRef]
6. Cinzia Battistella, Alberto F. De Toni, Roberto Pillon. 2015. The Extended Map methodology:
Technology roadmapping for SMES clusters. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management .
[CrossRef]
7. Elena Ruskovaara, Timo Pihkala. 2015. Entrepreneurship Education in Schools: Empirical Evidence on
the Teacher's Role. The Journal of Educational Research 108, 236-249. [CrossRef]
8. Slvia Mayumi Takey, Marly Monteiro de Carvalho. 2015. Competency mapping in project management:
An action research study in an engineering company. International Journal of Project Management 33,
784-796. [CrossRef]
9. Teresa S. Waring, Martin Alexander. 2015. Innovations in inpatient flow and bed management.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 35:5, 751-781. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Andra Nunes de Carvalho, Fabricio Oliveira, Luiz Felipe Scavarda. 2015. Tactical capacity planning in
a real-world ETO industry case: An action research. International Journal of Production Economics .
[CrossRef]
11. Sami Farooq, Chris O'Brien. 2015. An action research methodology for manufacturing technology
selection: a supply chain perspective. Production Planning & Control 26, 467-488. [CrossRef]
12. Lorenzo Massa, Federica Farneti, Beatrice Scappini. 2015. Developing a sustainability report in a small
to medium enterprise: process and consequences. Meditari Accountancy Research 23:1, 62-91. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
13. Maurizio Bevilacqua, Filippo Emanuele Ciarapica, Claudia Paciarotti. 2015. Implementing lean information
management: the case study of an automotive company. Production Planning & Control 1-16. [CrossRef]
14. Mirva Hyypi, Satu Parjanen. 2015. Gamification as an Intervention Method in Practice-Based Innovation.
International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 1550018. [CrossRef]
15. Moacir Godinho Filho, Artur Boschi, Antonio Freitas Rentes, Matthias Thurer, Thiago Moreno Bertani.
2015. Improving Hospital Performance by Use of Lean Techniques: An Action Research Project in Brazil.
Quality Engineering 27, 196-211. [CrossRef]
16. K A Chatha, I Butt, Adeel Tariq. 2015. Research methodologies and publication trends in manufacturing
strategy. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 35:4, 487-546. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
17. Erin M. Mitchell, Jamison V. Kovach. 2015. Improving supply chain information sharing using Design
for Six Sigma. Investigaciones Europeas de Direccin y Economa de la Empresa . [CrossRef]
18. Rameshwar Dubey, Angappa Gunasekaran, Sushil Singh, Tripti Singh. 2015. Building theory of
sustainable manufacturing using total interpretive structural modelling. International Journal of Systems
Science: Operations & Logistics 1-17. [CrossRef]
19. Rameshwar Dubey, Angappa Gunasekaran, Stephen J. Childe. 2015. The design of a responsive sustainable
supply chain network under uncertainty. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
. [CrossRef]
20. Judy Village, Cory Searcy, Filipo Salustri, W. Patrick Neumann. 2015. Design for human factors (DfHF):
a grounded theory for integrating human factors into production design processes. Ergonomics 1-18.
[CrossRef]
21. Hans J.T. Doevendans, Nigel Peter Grigg, Jane Goodyer. 2015. Exploring Lean deployment in New
Zealand apple pack-houses. Measuring Business Excellence 19:1, 46-60. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Sherrie Anne Hitchen, Graham R Williamson. 2015. A stronger voice. International Journal of Health Care
Quality Assurance 28:2, 211-222. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Jaime A. Palma-Mendoza, Kevin Neailey. 2015. A business process re-design methodology to support
supply chain integration: Application in an Airline MRO supply chain. International Journal of Information
Management . [CrossRef]
24. Miguel Mediavilla, Ander Errasti, Kepa Mendibil. 2015. Framework for assessing the strategic plant role
and deploying an improvement roadmap in global operations networks: an empirical study. Production
Planning & Control 1-25. [CrossRef]
25. Debora M. Gutierrez, Luiz F. Scavarda, Luiza Fiorencio, Roberto A. Martins. 2015. Evolution of the
performance measurement system in the Logistics Department of a broadcasting company: An action
research. International Journal of Production Economics 160, 1-12. [CrossRef]
26. Pennie Frow, Suvi Nenonen, Adrian Payne, Kaj Storbacka. 2015. Managing Co-creation Design: A
Strategic Approach to Innovation. British Journal of Management n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
27. Angela Maria Alves, Marcelo Pessoa, Clnio F Salviano. 2015. Proposal for a framework for quality
measurement to the SPB Brazilian Public Software. Business Process Management Journal 21:1, 100-125.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Kedar Uttam, Caroline Le Lann Roos. 2015. Competitive dialogue procedure for sustainable public
procurement. Journal of Cleaner Production 86, 403-416. [CrossRef]
29. Christian Brockmann, Horst Brezinski. 2015. Experience Curve Effects in Bridge Construction. Procedia
Economics and Finance 21, 563-570. [CrossRef]
30. Suvi Nenonen, Kaj Storbacka. 2015. Driving shareholder value with customer asset management: Moving
beyond customer lifetime value. Industrial Marketing Management . [CrossRef]
31. Anne Marie Weggelaar-Jansen, Jeroen van Wijngaarden, Sarah-Sue Slaghuis. 2015. Do quality
improvement collaboratives educational components match the dominant learning style preferences of the
participants?. BMC Health Services Research 15:1. . [CrossRef]
32. Paolo Taticchi, Patrizia Garengo, Sai S. Nudurupati, Flavio Tonelli, Roberto Pasqualino. 2014. A review
of decision-support tools and performance measurement and sustainable supply chain management.
International Journal of Production Research 1-22. [CrossRef]
33. Armando Calabrese, Federico De Francesco. 2014. A pricing approach for service companies: service
blueprint as a tool of demand-based pricing. Business Process Management Journal 20:6, 906-921. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
34. Gunter Festel, Martin Wrmseher. 2014. Benchmarking of industrial park infrastructures in Germany.
Benchmarking: An International Journal 21:6, 854-883. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. Mette Praest Knudsen, Erik Skov Madsen. 2014. The managerial issues related to transferring shop floor
knowledge in manufacturing relocation. International Journal of Operations & Production Management
34:11, 1389-1416. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
36. Rubn Llop, Iaki Garca-ArrizabalagaImplementing Strategic Changes to Generate Sustainable
Competitive Advantage 191-210. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
37. Margherita Pero, Tommaso Rossi. 2014. RFID technology for increasing visibility in ETO supply chains:
a case study. Production Planning & Control 25, 892-901. [CrossRef]
38. Pankaj Marria, Sharon J. Williams, Mohamed Naim. 2014. Six S: creating an efficient and safer work
environment. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1-19. [CrossRef]
39. Ebrahim Soltani, Pervaiz K. Ahmed, Ying Ying Liao, Paschal U. Anosike. 2014. Qualitative middle-range
research in operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 34:8,
1003-1027. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. A.L. Fleury, J.I. Abraho, U.B. Montedo, F.L. Mascia, M.S.P. Pessa, R.F. Gonalves. 2014. Uma
Experincia de Ensino de Estatstica a Distncia para Um Curso de Engenharia. Revista de Ensino de
Engenharia 33:10.15552/2236-0158/abenge.v33n1, 37-47. [CrossRef]
41. Maria Isabel Wolf Motta Morandi, Luis Henrique Rodrigues, Daniel Pacheco Lacerda, Isaac Pergher.
2014. Foreseeing Iron Ore Prices Using System Thinking and Scenario Planning. Systemic Practice and
Action Research 27, 287-306. [CrossRef]
42. Anne Elerud-Tryde, Sophie Hooge. 2014. Beyond the Generation of Ideas: Virtual Idea Campaigns to
Spur Creativity and Innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
43. Bruce Gurd, Panayiotis Ifandoudas. 2014. Moving towards agility: the contribution of a modified balanced
scorecard system. Measuring Business Excellence 18:2, 1-13. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
44. Jess Garca-Arca, J. Carlos Prado-Prado, A. Trinidad Gonzalez-Portela Garrido. 2014. Packaging
logistics: promoting sustainable efficiency in supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management 44:4, 325-346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
45. Gunter Festel, Martin Wrmseher. 2014. Benchmarking of energy and utility infrastructures in industrial
parks. Journal of Cleaner Production 70, 15-26. [CrossRef]
46. Nicole C. Anderson, Jamison V. Kovach. 2014. Reducing Welding Defects in Turnaround Projects: A
Lean Six Sigma Case Study. Quality Engineering 26, 168-181. [CrossRef]
47. ManMohan S. Sodhi, Christopher S. Tang. 2014. Guiding the next generation of doctoral students in
operations management. International Journal of Production Economics 150, 28-36. [CrossRef]
48. Bo Feng, Fujun Lai. 2014. Multi-attribute group decision making with aspirations: A case study. Omega
44, 136-147. [CrossRef]
49. Hannes Johnson, Mikael Johansson, Karin Andersson. 2014. Barriers to improving energy efficiency in
short sea shipping: an action research case study. Journal of Cleaner Production 66, 317-327. [CrossRef]
50. Adrian Small, David Wainwright. 2014. SSM and technology management: Developing multimethodology
through practice. European Journal of Operational Research 233, 660-673. [CrossRef]
51. Andra N. Carvalho, Luiz Felipe Scavarda, Leonardo J. Lustosa. 2014. Implementing finite capacity
production scheduling: lessons from a practical case. International Journal of Production Research 52,
1215-1230. [CrossRef]
52. Mark Pagell, Anton Shevchenko. 2014. Why Research in Sustainable Supply Chain Management Should
Have no Future. Journal of Supply Chain Management 50:10.1111/jscm.2014.50.issue-1, 44-55. [CrossRef]
53. Sofia Brjesson, Maria Elmquist, Sophie Hooge. 2014. The challenges of innovation capability building:
Learning from longitudinal studies of innovation efforts at Renault and Volvo Cars. Journal of Engineering
and Technology Management 31, 120-140. [CrossRef]
54. Martin Skld, Christer Karlsson. 2013. Stratifying the Development of Product Platforms: Requirements
for Resources, Organization, and Management Styles. Journal of Product Innovation Management
30:10.1111/jpim.2013.30.issue-s1, 62-76. [CrossRef]
55. Nicolette Lakemond, Jonas Detterfelt. 2013. Counterbalancing Exploitative Knowledge Search during
Environmental Dynamism: Reinforcing New Ideas for Existing Products. Creativity and Innovation
Management 22:10.1111/caim.2013.22.issue-4, 420-434. [CrossRef]
56. Yahaya Y. Yusuf, A. Gunasekaran, Ahmed Musa, Nagham M. El-Berishy, Tijjani Abubakar, Hafsat M.
Ambursa. 2013. The UK oil and gas supply chains: An empirical analysis of adoption of sustainable
measures and performance outcomes. International Journal of Production Economics 146, 501-514.
[CrossRef]
57. David Sammon, Seamus OReilly. 2013. A conceptual data model to enhance SKU management in food
SMEs. Journal of Decision Systems 22, 265-282. [CrossRef]
58. Andressa Ianzen, Everson Carlos Mauda, Marco Antnio Paludo, Sheila Reinehr, Andreia Malucelli.
2013. Software process improvement in a financial organization: An action research approach. Computer
Standards & Interfaces 36, 54-65. [CrossRef]
59. Rebecca J. Yang, Geoffrey Q. P. Shen. 2013. Framework for Stakeholder Management in Construction
Projects. Journal of Management in Engineering 04014064. [CrossRef]
60. Roman Beck, Sven Weber, Robert Wayne Gregory. 2013. Theory-generating design science research.
Information Systems Frontiers 15, 637-651. [CrossRef]
61. Juha Kettunen. 2013. Intranet as a Quality Manual in Higher Education. International Journal of EAdoption 3:10.4018/jea.20110701, 33-43. [CrossRef]
62. Brett W. Riley, Jamison V. Kovach, Lila Carden. 2013. Developing a Policies and Procedures Manual for
a Consumer Lending Department: A Design for Six Sigma Case Study. Engineering Management Journal
25, 3-15. [CrossRef]
63. Marcelo Hoss, Carla Schwengber ten Caten. 2013. Lean schools of thought. International Journal of
Production Research 51, 3270-3282. [CrossRef]
64. Camelia Ram, Gilberto Montibeller. 2013. Exploring the impact of evaluating strategic options in
a scenario-based multi-criteria framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80, 657-672.
[CrossRef]
65. Patrik Jonsson, Martin Rudberg, Stefan Holmberg. 2013. Centralised supply chain planning at IKEA.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 18:3, 337-350. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
66. Bernhard Katzy, Ebru Turgut, Thomas Holzmann, Klaus Sailer. 2013. Innovation intermediaries: a
process view on open innovation coordination. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 25, 295-309.
[CrossRef]
67. Linda Hendry, Yuan Huang, Mark Stevenson. 2013. Workload control. International Journal of Operations
& Production Management 33:1, 69-103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
68. Chuck Hsiao, Richard Malak, Irem Y. Tumer, Toni Doolen. 2013. Empirical Findings about Risk and
Risk Mitigating Actions from a Legacy Archive of a Large Design Organization. Procedia Computer Science
16, 844-852. [CrossRef]
69. Luciano Costa Santos, Cludia Fabiana Gohr, Milton Vieira Junior. 2012. Simulation of assembly
operations using interchangeable parts for OM education. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 32:12, 1427-1440. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
70. Bianca A.C. Groen, Mirthe van de Belt, Celeste P.M. Wilderom. 2012. Enabling performance measurement
in a small professional service firm. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 61:8,
71. Maria Manuela Pereira, Nuno Filipe Melo. 2012. The implementation of the balanced scorecard in
a school district. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 61:8, 919-939.
72. Hermann Khnle, Rob Dekkers. 2012. Some thoughts on interdisciplinarity in collaborative networks'
research and manufacturing sciences. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 23:8, 961-975.
73. Nicholas Theodorakopoulos, Deycy Janeth Snchez Preciado, David Bennett. 2012. Transferring
technology from university to rural industry within a developing economy context: The case for nurturing
communities of practice. Technovation 32, 550-559. [CrossRef]
74. Ulla Lehtinen. 2012. Sustainability and local food procurement: a case study of Finnish public catering.
British Food Journal 114:8, 1053-1071. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
75. Thomas Gillier, Akin Osman Kazakci, Gerald Piat. 2012. The generation of common purpose in
innovation partnerships. European Journal of Innovation Management 15:3, 372-392. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
76. Gunjan Soni, Rambabu Kodali. 2012. A critical review of empirical research methodology in supply chain
management. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 23:6, 753-779. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
77. Valerie Brett, Martina Mullally, Bill O'Gorman, Nerys Fuller-Love. 2012. The role of action research in
the development of learning networks for entrepreneurs. Action Learning: Research and Practice 9, 125-143.
[CrossRef]
78. Kaj Storbacka, Suvi Nenonen. 2012. Competitive Arena Mapping: Market Innovation Using
Morphological Analysis in Business Markets. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 19, 183-215.
[CrossRef]
79. Helen McGrath, Thomas O'Toole. 2012. Critical issues in research design in action research in an SME
development context. European Journal of Training and Development 36:5, 508-526. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
80. Bianca A.C. Groen, Marc J.F. Wouters, Celeste P.M. Wilderom. 2012. Why do employees take more
initiatives to improve their performance after co-developing performance measures? A field study.
Management Accounting Research 23, 120-141. [CrossRef]
81. Andrew Cruickshank, Dave Collins. 2012. Change Management: The Case of the Elite Sport Performance
Team. Journal of Change Management 12, 209-229. [CrossRef]
82. Mara-Jos Verdecho, Juan-Jose Alfaro-Saiz, Raul Rodriguez-Rodriguez, Angel Ortiz-Bas. 2012. A multicriteria approach for managing inter-enterprise collaborative relationships. Omega 40, 249-263. [CrossRef]
83. Martin Skld, Christer Karlsson. 2012. Product platform replacements: challenges to managers.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 32:6, 746-766. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
84. Pietro Romano, Marco Formentini. 2012. Designing and implementing open book accounting in buyer
supplier dyads: A framework for supplier selection and motivation. International Journal of Production
Economics 137, 68-83. [CrossRef]
85. Carmen Jaca, Javier Santos, Ander Errasti, Elisabeth Viles. 2012. Lean thinking with improvement teams in
retail distribution: a case study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 23, 449-465. [CrossRef]
86. Tim Baker, Vaidyanathan Jayaraman. 2012. Managing information and supplies inventory operations in a
manufacturing environment. Part 1: An action research study. International Journal of Production Research
50, 1666-1681. [CrossRef]
87. Kathy Murphy, Claire Welford. 2012. Agenda for the future: enhancing autonomy for older people
in residential care. International Journal of Older People Nursing 7:10.1111/opn.2012.7.issue-1, 75-80.
[CrossRef]
88. Suvi Konsti-Laakso, Timo Pihkala, Sascha Kraus. 2012. Facilitating SME Innovation Capability through
Business Networking. Creativity and Innovation Management 21, 93-105. [CrossRef]
89. G.D. Soepenberg, M.J. Land, G.J.C. Gaalman. 2012. Workload control dynamics in practice. International
Journal of Production Research 50, 443-460. [CrossRef]
90. Patrizia Garengo, Stefano Biazzo. 2012. Unveiling strategy in SMEs through balanced scorecard
implementation: A circular methodology. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 23, 79-102.
[CrossRef]
91. Martin Skld, Christer Karlsson. 2012. Technology Sharing in Manufacturing Business Groups. Journal
of Product Innovation Management 29:10.1111/jpim.2011.29.issue-1, 113-124. [CrossRef]
92. Thomas Gillier, Gerald Piat. 2011. Exploring Over: The Presumed Identity of Emerging Technology.
Creativity and Innovation Management 20:10.1111/caim.2011.20.issue-4, 238-252. [CrossRef]
93. R. W. Rosmulder, J. J. Krabbendam, A. H. M. Kerkhoff, C. M. Houser, J. S. K. Luitse. 2011. Computer
Simulation Within Action Research: A Promising Combination for Improving Healthcare Delivery?.
Systemic Practice and Action Research 24, 397-412. [CrossRef]
94. Renata Gomes Frutuoso Braz, Luiz Felipe Scavarda, Roberto Antonio Martins. 2011. Reviewing and
improving performance measurement systems: An action research. International Journal of Production
Economics 133, 751-760. [CrossRef]
95. Manuel F. SurezBarraza, Juan RamisPujol, Fernando SndovalArzaga. 2011. Finding kaizen approach
in small Mexican family businesses: an exploratory study. Journal of Family Business Management 1:2,
96. Linda R. LaGanga. 2011. Lean service operations: Reflections and new directions for capacity expansion
in outpatient clinics. Journal of Operations Management 29, 422-433. [CrossRef]
97. Mauro Caetano, Daniel C. Amaral. 2011. Roadmapping for technology push and partnership: A
contribution for open innovation environments. Technovation 31, 320-335. [CrossRef]
98. Anand Nair, Manoj K. Malhotra, Sanjay L. Ahire. 2011. Toward a theory of managing context in Six
Sigma process-improvement projects: An action research investigation. Journal of Operations Management
29, 529-548. [CrossRef]
99. Marc Wouters, Diana Roijmans. 2011. Using Prototypes to Induce Experimentation and Knowledge
Integration in the Development of Enabling Accounting Information*. Contemporary Accounting Research
28:10.1111/care.2011.28.issue-2, 708-736. [CrossRef]
100. Marco Formentini, Pietro Romano. 2011. Using value analysis to support knowledge transfer in the multiproject setting. International Journal of Production Economics 131, 545-560. [CrossRef]
101. Natalie C. Simpson, Philip G. Hancock. 2011. Project Cheddarfield: Supporting Co-Curricular Themes
Through Creative Use of Video Course-Casting. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education
9:10.1111/dsji.2011.9.issue-2, 235-253. [CrossRef]
102. Jennifer A. Farris, Eileen M. van Aken, Geert Letens, Pimsinee Chearksul, Garry Coleman. 2011.
Improving the performance review process. International Journal of Operations & Production Management
103. F Caniato, M Kalchschmidt, S Ronchi. 2011. Integrating quantitative and qualitative forecasting
approaches: organizational learning in an action research case. Journal of the Operational Research Society
62, 413-424. [CrossRef]
104. Ceren Atilgan, Peter McCullen. 2011. Improving supply chain performance through auditing: a change
management perspective. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16:1, 11-19. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
105. P. Childerhouse, D.R. Towill. 2011. Effective supply chain research via the quick scan audit methodology.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16:1, 5-10. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
106. Giancarlo Medeiros Pereira, Miguel Afonso Sellitto, Miriam Borchardt, Albert Geiger. 2011. Procurement
cost reduction for customized non-critical items in an automotive supply chain: An action research project.
Industrial Marketing Management 40, 28-35. [CrossRef]
107. Marie-Anne Le Dain, Richard Calvi, Sandra Cheriti. 2011. Measuring supplier performance in
collaborative design: proposition of a framework. R&D Management 41:10.1111/radm.2010.41.issue-1,
61-79. [CrossRef]
108. Martin Skold, Christer Karlsson. 2011. Product platform development in industrial networks. International
Journal of Automotive Technology and Management 11, 205. [CrossRef]
109. J.P. Bourrires, T. Lecompte-Alix. 2010. A linear model for production managementoptimal solving
policies. International Journal of Production Research 48, 5415-5432. [CrossRef]
110. Dag Nslund, Rahul Kale, Antony Paulraj. 2010. ACTION RESEARCH IN SUPPLY CHAIN
MANAGEMENT-A FRAMEWORK FOR RELEVANT AND RIGOROUS RESEARCH. Journal of
Business Logistics 31:10.1002/jbl.2010.31.issue-2, 331-355. [CrossRef]
111. Mohamed Naim, Gilbert Aryee, Andrew Potter. 2010. Determining a logistics providers flexibility
capability. International Journal of Production Economics 127, 39-45. [CrossRef]
112. Rodney McAdam, Renee Reid, Neil Mitchell. 2010. Longitudinal development of innovation
implementation in familybased SMEs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 16:5,
113. Fiorella Cindio, Laura Anna Ripamonti. 2010. Nature and roles for community networks in the
information society. AI & SOCIETY 25, 265-278. [CrossRef]
114. Marie-Anne Le Dain, Richard Calvi, Sandra Cheriti. 2010. Developing an approach for design-or-buydesign decision-making. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 16, 77-87. [CrossRef]
115. Colin Ashurst, Julie Hodges. 2010. Exploring Business Transformation: The Challenges of Developing a
Benefits Realization Capability. Journal of Change Management 10, 217-237. [CrossRef]
116. Edivandro Carlos Conforto, Daniel Capaldo Amaral. 2010. Evaluating an agile method for planning and
controlling innovative projects. Project Management Journal 41:10.1002/pmj.v41:2, 73-80. [CrossRef]
117. Chartchalerm Isarankura-Na-Ayudhya, Chanin Nantasenamat, Prabhop Dansethakul, Pradermchai
Saetum, Sirikul Laosrivijit, Virapong Prachayasittikul. 2010. Solving the barriers to diabetes education
through the use of multimedia. Nursing & Health Sciences 12:10.1111/nhs.2010.12.issue-1, 58-66.
[CrossRef]
118. Yang Cheng, Erik Skov Madsen, Jirapha Liangsiri. 2010. Transferring knowledge in the relocation of
manufacturing units. Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal 3:1, 5-19. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
119. Mario Binder, John S. Edwards. 2010. Using grounded theory method for theory building in operations
management research. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 30:3, 232-259.
120. Rafael Henrique Palma Lima, Luiz Cesar Ribeiro Carpinetti. 2010. Proposal of a method for performance
measurement system design and implementation of a software application in SMEs. International Journal
of Business Performance Management 12, 182. [CrossRef]
121. Ann Hjbjerg Clarke. 2009. Bridging Industrial Segmentation Theory and Practice. Journal of Businessto-Business Marketing 16, 343-373. [CrossRef]
122. Antti Lnnqvist, Virpi Sillanp, Daniela Carlucci. 2009. Intellectual capital management in practice:
assessment of implementation and outcomes. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 7, 308-316.
[CrossRef]
123. Paula Kujansivu. 2009. Is there something wrong with intellectual capital management models?. Knowledge
Management Research & Practice 7, 300-307. [CrossRef]
124. Panayiotis Ifandoudas, Ross Chapman. 2009. A practical approach to achieving Agilitya theory of
constraints perspective. Production Planning & Control 20, 691-702. [CrossRef]
125. Andrew Taylor, Margaret Taylor. 2009. Operations management research: contemporary themes, trends
and potential future directions. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 29:12,
126. Karin Lffler, Hugo Tschirky, Kyoichi J. Kijima. 2009. Embedding enterprise science into SSM for
improving innovation systems in technology-based companies. Systems Research and Behavioral Science
26:10.1002/sres.v26:6, 675-687. [CrossRef]
127. Edson Pinheiro de Lima, Srgio Eduardo Gouva da Costa, Avides Reis de Faria. 2009. Taking operations
strategy into practice: Developing a process for defining priorities and performance measures. International
Journal of Production Economics 122, 403-418. [CrossRef]
128. Antti Lnnqvist, Aino Kianto, Virpi Sillanp. 2009. Using intellectual capital management for facilitating
organizational change. Journal of Intellectual Capital 10:4, 559-572. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
129. Zahid Hussain, Kevin Barber, Naveed Hussain. 2009. An Intranet based system as an enabler in effective
project management and implementation of quality standards: A case study. Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management 26, 196-210. [CrossRef]
130. Federica Farneti. 2009. Balanced scorecard implementation in an Italian local government organization.
Public Money & Management 29, 313-320. [CrossRef]
131. Henrique Rozenfeld, Creusa Sayuri Tahara Amaral, Janaina Mascarenhas Hornos da Costa, Andrea
Padovan Jubileu. 2009. Knowledge-oriented process portal with BPM approach to leverage NPD
management. Knowledge and Process Management 16:10.1002/kpm.v16:3, 134-145. [CrossRef]
132. Shahid Ansari, Jan Bell. 2009. Five easy pieces: a case study of cost management as organizational change.
Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change 5:2, 139-167. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
133. Cory Searcy, Stanislav Karapetrovic, Daryl McCartney. 2009. Designing corporate sustainable development
indicators: Reflections on a process. Environmental Quality Management 19:10.1002/tqem.v19:1, 31-42.
[CrossRef]
134. Kamal Fahmy Salama, Dino Luzzatto, Andrea Sianesi, Denis R. Towill. 2009. The value of auditing supply
chains. International Journal of Production Economics 119, 34-45. [CrossRef]
135. R. R. Rodriguez, A. Ortiz, J. J. Alfaro. 2009. Fostering collaborative meta-value chain practices.
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 22, 385-394. [CrossRef]
136. Marco Giuliani. 2009. Intellectual capital under the temporal lens. Journal of Intellectual Capital 10:2,
137. Aki Jskelinen, Antti Lnnqvist. 2009. Designing operative productivity measures in public services.
VINE 39:1, 55-67. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
138. Elaine Ball. 2009. A Participatory Action Research Study on Handwritten Annotation Feedback and Its
Impact on Staff and Students. Systemic Practice and Action Research 22, 111-124. [CrossRef]
139. Ander Errasti, Roger Beach, Chike Oduoza, Unai Apaolaza. 2009. Close coupling value chain functions
to improve subcontractor manufacturing performance. International Journal of Project Management 27,
261-269. [CrossRef]
140. Steven French. 2009. Action research for practising managers. Journal of Management Development 28:3,
141. Steven French. 2009. Reframing strategic thinking: the research aims and outcomes. Journal of
Management Development 28:3, 205-224. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
142. Erik W. Hallgren. 2009. How to Use an Innovation Audit as a Learning Tool: A Case Study of Enhancing
High-Involvement Innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management 18:10.1111/caim.2009.18.issue-1,
48-58. [CrossRef]
143. Pamela Danese, Andrea Vinelli. 2009. Supplier network relocation in a capital-intensive context: a
longitudinal case study. International Journal of Production Research 47, 1105-1125. [CrossRef]
144. Marc Wouters. 2009. A developmental approach to performance measuresResults from a longitudinal
case study. European Management Journal 27, 64-78. [CrossRef]
145. Dana V Tesone, Leonard A Jackson, Jill Fjelstul. 2009. Charting production systems for golf and club
operations. Journal of Retail and Leisure Property 8, 67-76. [CrossRef]
146. Raul Rodriguez Rodriguez, Juan Jos Alfaro Saiz, Angel Ortiz Bas. 2009. Quantitative relationships
between key performance indicators for supporting decision-making processes. Computers in Industry 60,
104-113. [CrossRef]
147. Helle Damborg Frederiksen, Lars Mathiassen. 2008. A Contextual Approach to Improving Software
Metrics Practices. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 55, 602-616. [CrossRef]
148. Rodney McAdam, Denis Leonard, Joan Henderson, Shirley-Ann Hazlett. 2008. A grounded theory
research approach to building and testing TQM theory in operations management. Omega 36, 825-837.
[CrossRef]
149. Kersti Nogeste. 2008. Dual cycle action research: a professional doctorate case study. International Journal
of Managing Projects in Business 1:4, 566-585. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
150. Raul Rodriguez Rodriguez, Raul Poler Escoto, Josefa Mula Bru, Angel Ortiz Bas. 2008. Collaborative
forecasting management: fostering creativity within the meta value chain context. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 13:5, 366-374. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
151. Ren Chester Goduscheit, Carsten Bergenholtz, Jacob Hj Jrgensen, Erik S. Rasmussen. 2008. Action
Research in Inter-Organisational Networks: Impartial Studies or the Trojan Horse?. Systemic Practice and
Action Research 21, 267-281. [CrossRef]
152. Paula Kujansivu, Antti Lnnqvist. 2008. Business process management as a tool for intellectual capital
management. Knowledge and Process Management 15:10.1002/kpm.v15:3, 159-169. [CrossRef]
153. Satya S. Chakravorty, Douglas N. Hales. 2008. The evolution of manufacturing cells: An action research
study. European Journal of Operational Research 188, 153-168. [CrossRef]
154. Tobias Schoenherr, V.M. Rao Tummala, Thomas P. Harrison. 2008. Assessing supply chain risks with the
analytic hierarchy process: Providing decision support for the offshoring decision by a US manufacturing
company. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 14, 100-111. [CrossRef]
155. Paula Kujansivu. 2008. Operationalising intellectual capital management: choosing a suitable approach.
Measuring Business Excellence 12:2, 25-37. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
156. Mohamed Fawzy Afify. 2008. Action research: Solving real-world problems. Tourism and Hospitality
Research 8, 153-159. [CrossRef]
157. Kerry Martin, Savvas Papagiannidis, Feng Li, Michael Bourlakis, Steve Cook, Alan Hansell. 2008. Early
challenges of implementing an e-commerce system in a medical supply company: A case experience from
a knowledge transfer partnership (KTP). International Journal of Information Management 28, 68-75.
[CrossRef]
158. Paulo Augusto Cauchick Miguel. 2008. Portfolio management and new product development
implementation. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 25:1, 10-23. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
159. Niels Gorm Rytter, Harry Boer, Christian Koch. 2007. Conceptualizing operations strategy processes.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 27:10, 1093-1114. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
160. Sai Nudurupati, Tanweer Arshad, Trevor Turner. 2007. Performance measurement in the construction
industry: An action case investigating manufacturing methodologies. Computers in Industry 58, 667-676.
[CrossRef]
161. Hannu Rantanen, Harri I. Kulmala, Antti Lnnqvist, Paula Kujansivu. 2007. Performance measurement
systems in the Finnish public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management 20:5, 415-433.
162. Carol A. Adams, Patty McNicholas. 2007. Making a difference. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal 20:3, 382-402. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
163. Juan Jos Alfaro Saiz, Angel Ortiz Bas, Ral Rodrguez Rodrguez. 2007. Performance measurement system
for enterprise networks. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 56:4, 305-334.
164. Mikko Varila, Marko Seppnen, Petri Suomala. 2007. Detailed cost modelling: a case study in warehouse
logistics. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 37:3, 184-200. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
165. Andrew Potter, Chandra Lalwani. 2007. Developing a methodology to analyse despatch bay performance.
International Journal of Production Economics 106, 82-91. [CrossRef]
166. Anthony Ross, Vaidyanathan Jayaraman, Powell Robinson. 2007. Optimizing 3PL service delivery using
a cost-to-serve and action research framework. International Journal of Production Research 45, 83-101.
[CrossRef]
167. Rasmus Kaltoft, Harry Boer, Ross Chapman, Frank Gertsen, Jacob S. Nielsen. 2006. Collaborative
Improvement ? Interplay but not a Game. Creativity and Innovation Management 0:10.1111/
caim.0.0.issue-0, 061005021914002-???. [CrossRef]
168. Matteo Kalchschmidt, Roberto Verganti, Giulio Zotteri. 2006. Forecasting demand from heterogeneous
customers. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 26:6, 619-638. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
169. Jacob Wijngaard, Jan de Vries, Aukje Nauta. 2006. Performers and performance. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 26:4, 394-411. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
170. David Coghlan, Paul Coughlan. 2006. Designing and implementing collaborative improvement in the
extended manufacturing enterprise. The Learning Organization 13:2, 152-165. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
171. Marco Busi, Umit S. Bititci. 2006. Collaborative performance management: present gaps and future
research. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 55:1, 7-25. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
172. Marc Wouters, Mark Sportel. 2005. The role of existing measures in developing and implementing
performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 25:11,
173. Martin Ljungstrm. 2005. A model for starting up and implementing continuous improvements and work
development in practice. The TQM Magazine 17:5, 385-405. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
174. N. E. Shaw, T. F. Burgess, C. De Mattos. 2005. Risk assessment of option performance for new product
and process development projects in the chemical industry: a case study. Journal of Risk Research 8, 693-711.
[CrossRef]
175. Antonella Martini, Luisa Pellegrini. 2005. Barriers and levers towards knowledge management
configurations. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 16:6, 670-681. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
176. N. E. Shaw *, T. F. Burgess, C. de Mattos, L. Z. Stec. 2005. Supply chain agility: the influence of industry
culture on asset capabilities within capital intensive industries. International Journal of Production Research
43, 3497-3516. [CrossRef]
177. R. Cagliano, F. Caniato *, M. Corso, G. Spina. 2005. Collaborative improvement in the extended
manufacturing enterprise: lessons from an action research process. Production Planning & Control 16,
345-355. [CrossRef]
178. H. Boer *, F. Gertsen, R. Kaltoft, J. Steendahl Nielsen. 2005. Factors affecting the development of
collaborative improvement with strategic suppliers. Production Planning & Control 16, 356-367. [CrossRef]
179. Sai S. Nudurupati *, Umit S. Bititci. 2005. Implementation and impact of IT-supported performance
measurement systems. Production Planning & Control 16, 152-162. [CrossRef]
180. David Coghlan, Paul CoughlanCOLLABORATIVE RESEARCH ACROSS BORDERS AND

BOUNDARIES: ACTION RESEARCH INSIGHTS FROM THE CO-IMPROVE 275-295. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
181. Stephan M. Wagner, Lutz Kaufmann. 2004. Overcoming the main barriers in initiating and using
purchasing-BSCs. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 10, 269-281. [CrossRef]
182. Pamela Danese, Pietro Romano. 2004. Improving interfunctional coordination to face high product variety
and frequent modifications. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 24:9, 863-885.
183. John Mangan, Chandra Lalwani, Bernard Gardner. 2004. Combining quantitative and qualitative
methodologies in logistics research. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
184. Ricardo Bauelas, Jiju Antony. 2004. Six sigma or design for six sigma?. The TQM Magazine 16:4,
185. Teemu Malmi, Pekka Jrvinen, Paul Lillrank. 2004. A collaborative approach for managing project cost
of poor quality. European Accounting Review 13, 293-317. [CrossRef]
186. Agnar Gudmundsson, Harry Boer, Mariano Corso. 2004. The implementation process of standardisation.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 15:4, 335-342. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
187. Andrew Potter, Robert Mason, Mohamed Naim, Chandra Lalwani. 2004. The evolution towards an
integrated steel supply chain: A case study from the UK. International Journal of Production Economics
89, 207-216. [CrossRef]
188. P.A. Cauchick Miguel, Silmar Pontel. 2004. Assessing quality costs of external failures (warranty claims).
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 21:3, 309-318. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
189. Frances Jrgensen, Harry Boer, Frank Gertsen. 2003. Jumpstarting continuous improvement through self
assessment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 23:10, 1260-1278. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
190. Ian Colotla, Yongjiang Shi, Michael J. Gregory. 2003. Operation and performance of international
manufacturing networks. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 23:10, 1184-1206.
191. Paul Coughlan, David Coghlan, Fiona Lombard, Louis Brennan, Timothy McNichols, Roger Nolan.
2003. Managing collaborative relationships in a period of discontinuity. International Journal of Operations
& Production Management 23:10, 1246-1259. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
192. Margaret Webster, David Sugden. 2003. Implementation of virtual manufacturing by a technology licensing
company. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 23:5, 448-469. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
193. Robert MacIntosh. 2003. BPR: alive and well in the public sector. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 23:3, 327-344. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
194. Srgio P. Santos, Valerie Belton, Susan Howick. 2002. Adding value to performance measurement by using
system dynamics and multicriteria analysis. International Journal of Operations & Production Management
195. Juha KettunenIntranet as a Quality Manual in Higher Education 135-146. [CrossRef]
196. Anna-Maija NisulaDeveloping Organizational Renewal Capability in the Municipal (City) Organization
151-172. [CrossRef]
197. Anna-Maija NisulaDeveloping Organizational Renewal Capability in the Municipal (City) Organization
159-179. [CrossRef]
198. Ainurul Rosli, Peter RobinsonWho Controls Whom? 173-186. [CrossRef]

Action Research For Operations Management - International Journal of Operations & Production Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Action Research For Operations Management - International Journal of Operations & Production Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Action Research For Operations Management - International Journal of Operations & Production Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of the article?

What is the purpose of the article?

What research methods are discussed in the article?

What research methods are discussed in the article?

International Journal of Operations & Production Management

Downloaded by IFES At 12:05 11 July 2015 (PT)

Downloaded on: 11 July 2015, At: 12:05 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com