Amazon is testing delivery packages using drones. Is this the future of logistics?
In today’s guest post, Thomas Y. Choi and Daniel Guide, Editors-in-Chief of the Journal of Operations Management, provide an introduction to their journal, which is a leading journal of our field.
The Journal of Operations Management (JOM) is an empirical journal whose mission is to advance the theories of operations management (OM) and supply chain management (SCM). The goal is to publish original, high quality, OM and SCM empirical research that will have a significant impact on theory and practice. Regular articles accepted for publication in JOM must have clear implications for operations managers based on one or more of a variety of rigorous research methodologies. It is the premier ranked journal, repeatedly ranked above other journals in the discipline. It is one of the OM-SCM focused empirical journals used by both the Financial Times in its rankings of Business Schools as well as by the University of Texas at Dallas in its assessment of scholarship. In terms of citation share, in 2011 JOM was given the following ISI category ranking: 1/73 in “Operations Research & Management Science” and 7/166 in “Management”. The current impact factor (IF) is 4.40 and the five year IF is 7.13.
Thomas Y. Choi is a Professor of Supply Chain Management at the W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University. Daniel Guide is a Professor of Supply Chain Management at the Smeal College of Business, Pennsylvania State University. They have published their research in numerous academic and managerial journals.
Three more leading journals of our field have announced the winners of their best paper awards. First, the Decision Sciences Journal has selected the article Managing Differentiation-Integration Duality in Supply Chain Integration by Terjesen, Patel and Sanders for its Best Paper Award for 2012. Second, the article The Competitive Determinants of a Firm’s Environmental Management Activities: Evidence from US Manufacturing Industries by Hofer, Cantor and Dai has won the Journal of Operations Management Jack Meredith Best Paper Award. Finally, the judges for the 2012 Harold E. Fearon Best Paper Award were evenly split between two articles. Therefore, the Journal of Supply Chain Management has announced two winning articles: Supply Chain-Wide Consequences of Transaction Risks and Their Contractual Solutions: Towards an Extended Transaction Cost Economics Framework by Wever, Wognum, Trienekens and Omta, and Who Owns the Customer? Disentangling Customer Loyalty in Indirect Distribution Channels by Eggert, Henseler and Hollmann. Congratulations to all winners! (part 1/2)
Terjesen, S., Patel, P.C., & Sanders, N.R. (2012). Managing Differentiation-Integration Duality in Supply Chain Integration. Decision Sciences, 43 (2), 303-339 DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2011.00345.x
Hofer, C., Cantor, D.E., & Dai, J. (2012). The Competitive Determinants of a Firm’s Environmental Management Activities: Evidence from US Manufacturing Industries. Journal of Operations Management, 30 (1–2), 69-84 DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2011.06.002
Wever, M., Wognum, P.M., Trienekens, J.H., & Omta, S.W.F. (2012). Supply Chain-Wide Consequences of Transaction Risks and Their Contractual Solutions: Towards an Extended Transaction Cost Economics Framework. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48 (1), 73-91 DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-493X.2011.03253.x
Eggert, A., Henseler, J., & Hollmann, S. (2012). Who Owns the Customer? Disentangling Customer Loyalty in Indirect Distribution Channels. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48 (2), 75-92 DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-493X.2011.03260.x
This year’s CSCMP Annual Global Conference took place in Denver, Colorado. It has become a good tradition that some of the leading journals of our field announce their best paper awards during the CSCMP’s Supply Chain Management Educators’ Conference, the academic part of the CSCMP Conference (see my previous post from Atlanta last year). The best paper published in the International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management is The Impact of Individual Debiasing Efforts on Financial Decision Effectiveness in the Supplier Selection Process by Lutz Kaufmann, Craig R. Carter and Christian Buhrmann. The Bernard J. LaLonde Best Paper Award (best paper published in the Journal of Business Logistics) goes to The Roles of Procedural and Distributive Justice in Logistics Outsourcing Relationships by Adriana Rossiter Hofer, A. Michael Knemeyer and Paul R. Murphy. The quality of these papers has certainly raised the bar for our own manuscripts. Thanks to Christian F. Durach for sending me these entries from Denver. (part 2/2)
Kaufmann, L., Carter, C.R., & Buhrmann, C. (2012). The Impact of Individual Debiasing Efforts on Financial Decision Effectiveness in the Supplier Selection Process. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42 (5), 411-433 DOI: 10.1108/09600031211246492
Rossiter Hofer, A., Knemeyer, A.M., & Murphy, P.R. (2012). The Roles of Procedural and Distributive Justice in Logistics Outsourcing Relationships. Journal of Business Logistics, 33 (3), 196-209 DOI: 10.1111/j.2158-1592.2012.01052.x
Recently, I discovered an article by Ahuja (2000), Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study, which was published in Administrative Science Quarterly. It contains a framework that “relates three aspects of a firm’s ego network—direct ties, indirect ties, and structural holes (disconnections between a firm’s partners)—to the firm’s subsequent innovation output.” The author suggests that “[t]he more direct ties that a firm maintains, the greater the firm’s subsequent innovation output”. Similarly, he suggests that “[t]he greater a firm’s number of indirect ties, the greater the subsequent innovation output of the firm”. Here, the impact of indirect ties “will be moderated by the level of the firm’s direct ties”. These hypotheses are supported by the results of a longitudinal study. Two competing hypotheses are presented concerning the effect of increasing structural holes on innovation. The empirical results indicate that this effect is negative. Ahuja’s article is among the most-cited ASQ articles.
Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45 (3), 425-455 DOI: 10.2307/2667105
“What is interesting research?” I recently read an essay by Cachon (2012), What Is Interesting in Operations Management?, published in Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, which starts with just this question. The essay discusses Cachon’s view of “the essential characteristics of interesting research in general and in operations management in particular”. According to him, “[i]nteresting means unexpected—interesting research piques your curiosity, it induces a pause for contemplation, and most importantly, it contradicts how you think about the world”. He also presents a simple rule for an interesting paper: “What was thought to be X is really Y.” Cachon gives several examples that demonstrate how this rule works in the field of operations management and similar examples could easily be found in supply chain management research. Cachon highlights that being interesting is necessary for research, but he also contends that this is not sufficient. To have an impact, research also needs to be important.
Cachon, G.P. (2012). What Is Interesting in Operations Management? Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 14 (2), 166-169 DOI: 10.1287/msom.1110.0375
As highlighted in a previous post, a reviewer should identify a manuscript’s deficiencies (“gatekeeper”), but a reviewer should also provide suggestions for how these deficiencies can be addressed (“gardener”). In addition, the review process should also be fast. The depicted keypad extension, invented for reviewers and editors, may accelerate the process. (I am just not sure whether such a tool could lead to premature decisions.)