Reconciling Conflicting Paradigms in Operations and Supply Chain Management
• 大类 : 工程技术 - 2区
• 小类 : 工程：工业 - 1区
• 小类 : 工程：制造 - 2区
• 小类 : 运筹学与管理科学 - 1区
In recent years, scholars and practitioners in Operations and Supply Chain Management (OSCM) are increasingly concerned about the conflicting paradigms in operations management and contradictory operational objectives in organizational design. For example, it has been widely criticized that quality management programmes such as ISO 9000 and Six Sigma make organizations less innovative, and there is a conflict in pursuing efficiency and innovativeness. The paradox between organizational exploration and organizational exploitation is of increasing concern to scholars in OSCM and other disciplines. Similarly, there are other possible conflicting objectives in the design of organizational systems. For example, an operational system being more reliable and resilient might require a higher level of redundancy, so it is less lean and efficient. The emphasis on risk management might in turn make firms less decisive and more inert. On the contrary, some researchers also proposed the synergistic and overlapping approaches of these systems, processes, and techniques. Do these conflicts really exist from an operations management point of view? What can OSCM scholars do to mitigate these conflicts? Are there any better organizational designs to deal with the conflicts? This special issue (SI) aims to encourage discussion, conceptual development, analysis, and empirical verification of these issues.
Industrial practitioners often face different and conflicting objectives in their organizational functions, leading to tension in the design of organizational systems (Andropoulos and Lewis, 2009; Benner and Tushman, 2003). In the last decades, the paradoxical tension between exploration and exploitation in the organizational context received increasing attention from the management research community, predominantly from organisational behaviour researchers. In the OSCM domain, such research is limited to the contexts of process management, new product development, and innovation (Ng et al., 2015). Even with growing interest, there is little research examining paradoxes including tension, duality, emerging trade-off, and dilemma in the domain of OSCM. Similarly, there is a lack of research on how operations and supply chain managers deal with operational ambidexterity (Patel et al., 2012) to manage exploitation versus exploration or paradoxical tension.
In addition, with a growing focus on the sustainability, safety, and resilience of firms, there are increasingly potential conflicting objectives in the design of organizational systems (MacCarthy et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2014). For instance, firms' initiatives for environmental and social responsibility might be multi-dimensional, creating conflicting operational requirements from different stakeholders (MacCarthy et al., 2013). Social and environmental research has received much attention in a wide range of literature (e.g., Pagell and Shevchenko, 2014; Linton et al., 2007; Markman and Krause, 2016; Matos and Hall, 2007; Matthews et al., 2016), and many of these studies implicitly assume that the pursuit of economic and operational efficiency is always in line with social and environmental objectives. Yet, it is sometimes not the case in actual practice (see, e.g., Jacob et al., 2010; Lam et al., 2016), particularly when both economic and social objectives are pursued across the entire organization (Yeung et al., 2011).
This SI provides an important and timely platform for researchers in various domains to conduct interdisciplinary research to bridge the above research gaps and generate novel insights. We are looking for papers that can create new theories or extend, test, and validate existing theories to explain new problems or phenomena. We also welcome papers that connect theory with practice in a problem-driven environment and provide managerial guidelines on how to make decisions relating to and managing conflicting objectives. In short, this SI aims to address some of the key questions arising from the above development, which include but are not limited to
What are the emerging conflicting paradigms in the domains of OSCM and Production Economics?
Do these conflicts really exist from an OSCM point of view?
What can OSCM scholars do to mitigate these conflicts?
What are the new forms of organizational design and business model to deal with such conflicts?
How are organisations dealing with such conflicting objectives?
What are the different collaboration or incentive mechanisms to deal with such conflicting objectives?
These are all interesting questions for both industry practitioners and academic researchers. The potential topics in the domain of OSCM may include
Paradoxes including duality, dilemma, and tension
Managing lean, agile or leagile objectives
Conflicting objectives in in embracing sustainable and resilient OSCM
Efficiency versus resilience paradoxical tension
Managing objectives in collaboration, competition, and co-opetition
Exploration and exploitation tension
Short-term versus long-term OSCM objectives
Organizational ambidexterity issues
Unanticipated consequences and trade-offs in OSCM
Game-theoretical models for managing conflicts
Conflicting objectives as a result of the use of digital technologies such as big data, blockchain, digital manufacturing, in the contexts of industry 4.0 and the sharing economy
Managing objectives for SMEs, MSMEs, and MNCs
Synergistic approaches to operations including lean innovation, lean versus resilient, environmental performance versus operations performance, and equity versus efficiency
Emerging conflicting and synergistic issues associated with the adoption of sustainable production, circular economy, resource efficiency, industrial symbiosis and product-service systems