Exploring interfaces: making the case for interdisciplinary research

Article Type: Guest editorial From: International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Volume 33, Issue 7

1 Implications of a changing business context

General introductory statements of research papers commenting on the “increasingly global business environment”, “ever more demanding customers”,and “rises in complexity” that businesses have to operate in have become the norm in management research. The perception of an increasing pace of change is prevalent in both academia and practice, and this is mirrored in the development of the operations management (OM) field over the last decades(Amoako-Gyampah and Meredith, 1989; Pilkington and Meredith, 2009; Sprague,2007). OM has evolved from a set of factory-focused questions and techniques(such as inventory management, production scheduling, the development of MRP/ERP systems and later continuous improvement practices such as lean thinking,quality management, and Six Sigma) to more strategic and cross-functional concepts involving the adoption of methodologies and theories from relevant disciplines. These related disciplines include engineering (e.g. systems dynamics and control theory approaches) and management (e.g. strategy-based theories such as the resource-based view and dynamic capabilities), and the integration of functional disciplines like IT, marketing, finance and services more generally. Similarly the scope of the domain has shifted from the consideration of in-factory specific processes to extended production and supply networks, spanning international borders, requiring linkages to be drawn with disciplines such as international business and economic geography that integrate concepts informing the global dispersion of operations.

Such change in pace has fundamental implications for management research. We would argue that the role of academia is to provide insights and guidance to firms, to transcend buzzwords, and distil patterns and develop generic insights– not just to provide contingent perspectives on current affairs. We need to challenge our theory by looking at real problems, and hence by testing our existing constructs in these new settings. Discarding or amending existing theory in the light of a change in the business context is a fundamental means of improving our knowledge. And it is here that we perceive a great opportunity for interdisciplinary studies: being able to analyse an operations problem through two (or more) functional lenses is likely to yield new and different insights than what might be possible from studying such phenomena from one perspective alone.

As OM represents a core business process (simplistically viewing the role of a firm to design, make and sell a product or service), it requires in many cases close consideration of linkages with the innovation chain and the task of improving overall business performance. This has required the building of bridges with other functional disciplines such as R&D, marketing and finance. Thus, the case for interdisciplinary work in OM is easy to make. Yet we also acknowledge that it is not an easy route. In this short piece we will comment on the nature of interdisciplinary work, how it is conducted, highlight some of the emerging OM research themes where it can add value, before introducing the papers in this special issue.

2 The nature of interdisciplinary research in OM

Interdisciplinarity – what it is, and what it is not

At its very heart, interdisciplinary research refers to studies that involve two or more academic disciplines to redefine a problem outside the existing theoretical frame of reference. As such, the addition of one (or more) different theoretical domains will yield a differential view on a complex problem, which in turn is the value-add that interdisciplinarity provides, i.e. to what extent does one see the existing problem differently now that one employs multiple theoretical lenses? The power of an interdisciplinary approach resides in its provision of an analytical alternative, and challenge, to conventional wisdom. Hence simply citing a handful of papers from other functional specialist journals does not constitute interdisciplinary work. As Knights and Willmott(1997, p. 13) point out, “[…] beneath a veneer of trans-disciplinarity, there is often a gritty allegiance to an established academic discipline.” Instead, the justification for interdisciplinarity lies in the incremental or differential learning that can be developed by comparing two or more theoretical lenses of the same problem.

The idea of interdisciplinary studies is not at all new (Ackoff, 1960; Klein,1990; Repko, 2008), yet despite frequent calls and claims, remains an underdeveloped area in management research (Knights and Willmott, 1997). This is somewhat surprising, as essentially all business problems are at their fundamental level interdisciplinary, or “boundary-spanning” (Aldrich and Herker, 1977; Dollinger, 1984; Fennell and Alexander, 1987; Leifer and Delbecq, 1978). In businesses, if the problem at hand cannot be resolved at the functional level, it can be “escalated” upwards towards the board of directors, and ultimately the CEO, who by definition have a cross-functional view of the firm. It is at this level that any conflict at cross-functional level can be resolved, and an integrated view towards the most beneficial outcome for the firm as a whole is taken.

Virtually all business challenges are thus multi-dimensional to some degree, and– in some cases, and by no means all – best addressed by combining multiple lenses when considering this problem. We do not want to argue that interdisciplinary research designs are superior, or more appropriate to address out current business challenges. One might even argue that due to their frequently-lamented “real-world complexity”, typical business problems poorly map onto traditional academic disciplines. So as an observation,many fields discuss the same issue, albeit from different points of view. A good example is the study of buyer-supplier relationships, which for example features strongly both in marketing (Heide and John, 1990; Rindfleisch and Heide, 1997)and operations (Carey et al., 2011; Cousins et al., 2006;Helper and Sako, 1998; Lamming, 1993). This small example, even though not representative of management studies overall, illustrates how little cross-citation across functional disciplines is taking place. The wheel is reinvented in different places, under different headings. We as a field often criticise the lack of cross-functionality in many studies, but given how rarely we apply a multidisciplinary approach ourselves, this limited interdisciplinary integration should not come as a surprise.

In this paper we seek to explore the changing nature of the interdisciplinary discourse in OM and to what extent these developments represent “bridge building” between complete and firm disciplines, “restructuring”of parts of disciplines, and the development of “new overarching concepts or theory” that are trans-disciplinary in nature.

Framing the problem

The most likely scenarios where interdisciplinary work applies are at the“interfaces” between functional disciplines, such as between marketing, finance, strategy, and operations. Within the context of a firm,effectively any managerial question is multi-disciplinary. Here functional disciplines often have to interact to resolve “interface conflicts”that arise as functional performance metrics clash.

Within the functional discipline structure of academia we lack the ability to“escalate” questions to an interdisciplinary authority to vet our research. So we would see two basic ways in which we can define “interfaces”,and “interface problems”. First, there is the functional view, which separates management into its “academic fields” – marketing,strategy, finance and accounting, HR and operations. Across each there are two interface aspects: interfaces across disciplines (e.g. operations-marketing), as well as inter-firm questions within one discipline (SCM in OM, for example). Operations naturally interacts with other functional areas: on the marketing side, the efficient provision of customised products at short lead-times is an obvious area where alignment is required to bridge conflicting performance objectives (Closs et al., 2008; Mollenkopf et al., 2011;Sawhney and Piper, 2002; Turkulainen and Ketokivi, 2012). Equally, since much of what we do in operations is about reducing cost, there is a clear link to finance. Here, several conflicts have been highlighted, such as the fact that operational improvement lead to poor financial returns in the first year (Cooper and Maskell, 2008), or the poor guidance that accounting provides for operational improvement (Johnson and Kaplan, 1987). In this context a good example of bridging is the work on the “balanced scorecard” is a truly interdisciplinary, by integrating operations, strategy and accounting(Kaplan and Norton, 1992; Kaplan and Norton, 1993).

Second, there is the context view, which defines the changes in the environment that impact on several functional areas. Here the change in context is the focal area of research, subsequently drawing on the implications for the various functional disciplines. Such contextual changes could be globalisation,environmental concerns (sustainability), NPD versus old products (or “innovation”more generally), public versus private sectors, or manufacturing-service operations spectrum. The question here is how the overarching issue or theme impacts on the various functions simultaneously.

In general, there are three fundamental ways in which interdisciplinary work can add value (Repko, 2008): first, by “building bridges” between existing functional disciplines allowing for an exchange of viewpoints on a common focal research question, second, by “redefining” or “restructuring”parts of a discipline in the light of new or additional insights gained from another theoretical viewpoint, and third, by developing new “umbrellas”or “overarching concepts” that transcend individual functional boundaries and integrate these under one common construct. These points are by no means an exhaustive list, yet in our view capture the main mechanisms of how interdisciplinary perspectives can make a theoretical contribution. In the following we will explore these in the light of the OM field.

Emerging research themes

Much of the previous work exploring more recent evolution of the OM domain has been based on bibliometric analysis. To explore further, we conducted a content analysis of the last ten years of conference publications at EurOMA’s annual meetings, which provides us with an average of 300 papers per year over the course of ten years, sufficient to track developments over time. The use of conference data (as opposed to journal publications) was seen as providing more recent data on what research is currently being undertaken, the changing focus of researchers as opposed to a particular focus on style, or impact. The review was restricted to titles and keywords in conference publications between 2003 and 2012. Data collection was based on identifying:

• conventional OM terms that are used in traditional OM literature, e.g. inventory, scheduling, lean, Six Sigma, improvement, etc.;

• transdisciplinary OM terms commonly used in adjacent fields, such as in strategic management (e.g. configuration, RBV, capability, innovation) or international business (dispersion, investment, outsourcing);

• references to cross-functional perspectives such as R&D, marketing, finance,IT; and

• linkages to changing business contexts (such as “globalisation”, for example).

Key observations from this overview on subject matter evolution are that there have been significant changes to the OM “physical boundary” and“industrial context”. In terms of OM boundaries, we see that compared with traditional references to “manufacturing”, “supply chain”(tenfold), and “services” (double) now far outstrip more traditional subject references to manufacturing, inventory, and so on. “supply chain”is by far the most prominent of the keywords emerging, and with a rising trend. From an industrial context perspective, there is also a steady and sustained growth in articles related to internationalisation and globalisation. Another key observation is the emergence of literature introducing strategic management concepts such as configuration, capability and RBV concepts progressively through the decade. In sharp contrast, there are few, and next to no growth in articles related to R&D, marketing and finance. Innovation, however has witnessed steady development suggesting a broader interpretation of the concept beyond traditional R&D interfaces but now also incorporating concepts such as evolving or even disruptive business models. Lastly, there is a significant growth in new cross-cutting themes of “industrial sustainability” and the “environment”. Overall one has to conclude that the “traditional”OM terms are being supplanted by the influence of new boundaries, contexts and concepts, such as “public service”, “healthcare”, and“sustainability”.

The nature of this OM domain evolution can be mapped against the three types of interdisciplinary developments, namely:

• 1.

  “Bridge building” between complete and firm disciplines as exemplified by the emergence of literature introducing strategic management concepts such as configuration, capability/RBV concepts progressively through the past decade.

• 2.

  “Restructuring” of parts of disciplines as demonstrated by significant changes to the changing “physical boundary” between factory-level and intra-firm studies, to inter-firm networks (supply chains),and a significant growth in a new cross-cutting themes of industrial sustainability and the environment.

• 3.

  The development of “new overarching concepts or theory” that are trans-disciplinary in nature through developments in articles related to internationalisation and globalisation, the innovation concepts that go beyond traditional R&D interfaces, as well incorporating changing and disruptive business models.

In summary, we can observe clear patterns of evolution of the research areas covered within OM, and identify a healthy exchange of ideas and concepts across multiple disciplines that continue to enrich the OM domain.

3 Challenges for boundary-spanning research

In this short piece we do not wish to offer normative advice on how to conduct interdisciplinary studies, but we hope to provide some context for conducting such studies. While referring to extensive existing guidelines on how to conduct interdisciplinary research (Ackoff, 1960; Klein, 1990; Repko, 2008), we would like to emphasise three aspects of conducting interdisciplinary work.

Grounding interdisciplinary work

First and foremost, it is important to have a strong statement of “home base”. Albeit an unfortunate consequence of the academic publication regime, it is nonetheless important to frame the problem correctly, as there is a need to establish credibility with the audience. Interdisciplinarity cannot be the excuse for poorly-grounded research. Even though the topic may be interdisciplinary, it may well be required to use the discipline-based language/terminology for the audience. There are few, if any, management journals that are read by all subfields of management. This does not mean one cannot cite papers from another domain, but, that one needs to communicate relevance in a consistent manner. Writing in English and French at the same time neither works for an English nor a French readership.

Second, and resulting from above, there is a need to make a distinction between theoretical grounding, and functional issue or problem at hand. It is not generally possible to explore and narrate an interdisciplinary topic from both(or more) disciplines. As such, we disagree with Knights and Willmott (1997),who argue that one needs to “abandon” the “home”discipline. While their logic is compelling, it still seems next to impossible to “please two masters” at the same time. In turn we argue that it is important to provide the theoretical basis within the function, and then discuss the focal issue from other relevant functional perspectives by outlining the different respective views offered. The reason is to be able to discuss the findings within one clearly defined framework. Otherwise the theoretical argument is likely to become confusing, and one rightly will be criticised of being unfocused and not making any significant contribution to any specific field.

Lastly, the discussion of the findings will essentially have to answer a single,simple question: how does this interdisciplinary view change the findings, and is this change significant? In other words: what is the “delta” that the study identifies that we would not know about otherwise? It is this incremental or differential viewpoint that defines the value of conducting interdisciplinary research. It is the make-or-break criterion against which all those studies claiming to be interdisciplinary have to be measured.

Getting interdisciplinary work published

It takes little effort why there is so little truly interdisciplinary work in management studies – despite business problems so obviously lending themselves to be analysing in an interdisciplinary manner: the (perceived)inability of getting such work published. The root cause is academia’s self-created sense that respectability still seems to remain with the single disciplinary approach. Hence, gaining respect or recognition from those of other disciplines from which they draw their inspiration is rather difficult (Knights and Willmott, 1997). As Knights and Willmott (1997, p. 9) point out:

As academics struggle to find ways of bridging their separate and distinct disciplines, practitioner divisions are being questioned and eroded as they are increasingly regarded as dysfunctional in achieving the flexibility and speedy responses demanded of the modern corporation.

As such, the present level of exchange between functional disciplines is not surprisingly rather low (Linderman and Chandrasekaran, 2010).

While the mandate for interdisciplinary research is strong, it is important to outline the risks and challenges this type of work entails. The culture of academia endorses a defensive, incremental approach to research that shows allegiance to the home discipline in which the target journal resides. There is no question that this poses a risk to a prospective author, and it would seem“safer” to develop a line of research that is grounded in a single discipline’s literature, and incremental in nature within a defined domain. In fact we have to acknowledge that – while the case for interdisciplinary research is strong – there remain strong disincentives from an academic point of view.

4 Introduction to the special issue

In this special issue we present a selection of five papers from the 2011 Annual EurOMA Conference in Cambridge, selected for both their quality and contribution to interdisciplinary research. The paper from Santos and Spring draws on the interface between services and operations, exemplifying the recent evolution of the OM field into new frontier of servitisation. Kauppi et al. discuss the role of e-commerce on capabilities and performance drawing on recent IT developments and their impact on strategic and operations management practices. MacCarthy and Jayarathne draw on traditional OM concepts to consider textile supply network structures, but extend their analysis from multi-tier manufacturers in Sri Lanka right through to the international retailer customers they serve, utilising both qualitative and quantitative analysis methods. The paper by Nand et al. provides empirical support to whether firms trade-off or accumulate capabilities drawing on established OM and SCM concepts. Finally, Drupsteen et al. research explores the application of OM concepts in healthcare, in this case how patient flow is impacted by operational practices, indicative perhaps of how our field as extended well beyond the traditional domain of manufacturing. These selected papers demonstrate how the OM field has evolved from its initial focus on the tactical, and application of OM techniques to single plant operations, too much broader units of analysis introducing new thinking on dispersed operations and their strategic development. In addition, we present a summary of the plenary session on OM methods. This is a novel form of contribution to IJOPM, but given the level of attendance and discussion we felt it was important to capture the learning from this session for the entire OM community, and to develop discourse in is important area.

Matthias Holweg, Jagjit Singh SraiGuest Editors