ARTICLE

International Journal of Engineering Business Management

An Analysis of the Effect of Operations

Management Practices on Performance
Regular Paper

Elisa Battistoni1,*, Andrea Bonacelli2,

Andrea Fronzetti Colladon1 and Massimiliano M. Schiraldi1
1 “Tor Vergata” University of Rome, Department of Enterprise Engineering, Roma,
Italy 2 Enel S.p.a., Market Division, Customer Service Business Unit, Roma, Italy
* Corresponding author E-mail: battistoni@dii.uniroma2.it

Received 5 Jul 2013; Accepted 19 Aug

2013 DOI: 10.5772/56919

© 2013 Battistoni et al.; licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract In this paper we investigate the possible
relationships among some optimization techniques used
in Operations Management and the performance of SMEs
that operate in the manufacturing sector. A model based
on the Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) approach is
used to analyse a dataset of small and medium-sized
Italian enterprises. The model is expressed by a system of
simultaneous equations and is solved through regression
analysis. Taking advantage of the contributions presented
previously, we focus our research on the Italian economy,
highlighting the importance of Operations Management
practices, which are relevant drivers of these firms’
performances.
Keywords SME performance, Operations Management,
Structural Equation Modelling
1. Introduction
Nowadays, companies need to operate in highly dynamic
environments where key resources are scarce and where
uncertainty in business opportunities is common. The
market imposes high efficiency standards and firms that
fail to meet them are quickly marginalized. In such a
scenario, a careful optimization of internal resources is a
must for every firm which wants to maintain a
competitive edge. This has to be accompanied by the
continuous improvement of internal processes and
routines. To achieve this aim, knowledge management
and skills enhancement processes can play a major role,
especially for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
(SMEs). This is because SMEs are often missing a
corporate function with which to manage these processes
directly, and more frequently favour a learning by doing
process. The nature of SMEs can push them into being
very operative and into taking ideas from practical issues
in order to access information and to develop specific
skills. This can cause internal knowledge to be very
specialized and strongly connected to the real world;
such an approach is clearly extremely important because
it allows for the quick analysis and solution of operative
problems and also an awareness of the knowledge gap
that needs to be filled [1] [2]. However, missing expertise
cannot always be acquired by bringing in new resources
[3]; therefore, employee training can be extremely

www.intechopen.com Int. j. eng.Colladon

Elisa Battistoni, Andrea Bonacelli, Andrea Fronzetti bus. manag., 2013, Vol. 5,M.
and Massimiliano 44:2013 1
Schiraldi: An Analysis of the Effect of Operations Management Practices on
 important, even if it is often disregarded by many
entrepreneurs leading small businesses. The high level of
competition in the business environment pushes SMEs
towards new learning models [4], also considering the
high value of relationship patterns. This is because SMEs
frequently interact – for example with supply chain
agents or with members of professional organizations
and business unions – thus having the possibility to
exchange knowledge and to successfully learn from one
another [5]. Moreover, SMEs can now benefit from
analytical tools that were previously a privilege only for
big enterprises – such as benchmarking methodologies or
the diffusion of best practices. The value of a scientific
approach in measuring performances and managing
knowledge is now widely recognized.
Due to their nature, SMEs are primarily concerned with
their core business. Accordingly, Operations Management
(OM) activities should for the most part engage with firms
that are part of the manufacturing sector. Operations
Management identifies all the activities necessary to plan,
develop and improve the business processes involved in
the manufacturing of a product or in the provision of a
service [6]. We therefore refer not just to manufacturing
processes, but also to all the operations related to logistics
and the development of new products [7]. So, even if the
importance of OM is sometimes neglected, especially in
small-sized enterprises, a new and more careful
managerial culture is now starting to come into being [8].
In this paper we investigate the possible relationships
among some optimization techniques used in Operations
Management and the performance of SMEs that operate
in the manufacturing sector. For this reason, we analysed
a dataset of 3,500 small and medium-sized Italian
enterprises. With the use of a survey [9], we carried out
an in-depth study of a subset of the database – consisting
of every record which was complete – in depth so as to
develop a model based on the Structural Equation
Modelling (SEM) approach. This kind of approach is
largely used in OM [10], since SEM is considered one of
the best methodologies for creating and validating
theoretical models in this field. Moreover, we refer to
Cronbach’s alpha and to confirmatory factor analysis in
order to check the data reliability.
2. Methodology
Survey research is a valuable tool for use in scientific
research which aims to develop new theoretical models
[11]. Within this approach we can distinguish two main
categories of surveys [12]:
 explorative, also known as descriptive: these surveys
are meant to study the current state of a phenomenon,
in a chosen population. It is the first step in a scientific
investigation. This category also includes all the data
Int. j. eng. bus. manag., 2013, Vol. 5,
2 44:2013
collected to describe the results of a certain
phenomenon. For instance, one could use an
explorative survey to measure the level of the
adoption of an MRP system and to develop the
performance improvements it generates;
 explicative, also known as relational: these surveys
are meant to test a certain hypothesis and the
relationships among the variables which are the object
of the investigation. Hypotheses may just prove the
existence of a specific relationship, or also infer the
existence of a positive or a negative influence.
Survey research is therefore an important empirical tool
which can be used when studying OM. Here is a short
synthesis of the main steps of this approach [13] [11]:
 setting of the theoretical background;
 selection of the research methodology;
 definition of the data collection approach;
 data collection;
 selection of tools for the analysis;
 analysis of the collected data.
With regard to the sampling techniques and to data
collection, three different kinds of survey are possible [9]:
 a new investigation into surveys from prior research;
in this case a new data collection is unnecessary, as an
existing set is inspected again, in order to reveal
hidden relationships among variables or to explore
new research questions;
 probability sampling; a new sample is built using a
random selection method, to make sure that different
units in the population have equal chances of being
chosen;
 surveys administered to the entire population.
It is also possible to distinguish between four levels of
inspection [13]:
 companies can be studied as systems, in their entirety;
 divisions can be inspected separately, for instance
focusing on Production or Sales;
 at an individual level, some employees can be elected
as representatives of their division;
 one or more specific production sites can be investigated.
In recent decades, survey research has been used more
and more frequently as a valuable empirical tool in OM.
It has become an important addition to commonly used
approaches based on simulation modelling. Consistently,
the high value of Survey Research is widely accepted and
recognized and often leads to high quality results.
As shown in Figure 1, there were more than 280 scientific
publications based on Survey Research – presented in
journals such as Journal of Operations Management,
Decision Sciences, Management Science or International
Journal of Production Research – from 1980 to 2000.
www.intechopen.com
 approach [15] with regard it is also a powerful TQM, are taken from
50
45
to quality management ally for the optimal other well-known OM
40 (this approach also includes exploitation of techniques: survey
35 specific tools such as economic assets and items often refer to JIT
30 Statistical Process Control,
of human capital. procedures or to the
25 Six Sigma, etc.), or the
20 Yet, the statistical fundamentals of Supply
“Total Productive
15 tools offered to Chain Management
Maintenance” (TPM)
10 control the production (SCM) [41]. Our aim is
approach [16], with regard
5 processes can bring not to list all these
0 to maintenance practices,
about a positive effect elements, but to
or the “Just-in-Time” (JIT)
on the quality level highlight the close
approach
Explorative Surveys Relational Surveys [17],
Mixed Surveys with regard
Total perceived by the final connection between the
to production operations
Figure 1. Number of customer (business or different approaches in
surveys on OM per year
(also including heijunka
consumer) and can OM, including JIT and
and kanban [18]). Other
dramatically reduce quality management.
3. The effectiveness of more specific
production waste –
OM practices: methodologies, meant to
this altogether leading Moreover, JIT was also
literature review address particular
to better economical extensively analysed to
problems, can be important
results [35]. In order empirically test its effect
In this section we briefly as well; among these we
recall those conceived to to succeed with TQM on performance [42].
analyse the most
optimize order processing it is extremely Benefits in economic
commonly used OM
[19], warehouse important to provide performance deriving
practices meant to
management employees with a from improved
enhance a firm’s
[20] [21,22,23], and material basic training in efficiency in operations,
performance. As
management [24] [25] [26] quality management waste reduction and a
previously described in
[27] [28], etc. [36]. Our short new shared vision for
our introduction, we
include Survey Research introduction to the continuous improvement
and also the other main As an example, we relationships between were observed. In JIT,
empirical approaches describe the case of Total performance and recommendations for
which have been shown Quality Management TQM is presented in improving production
to have some relevance (TQM) [29]. The adoption Kaynak [37]: in his processes are organized
in the literature. of this approach has been model, Kaynak shows into six main areas:
shown to be positively a graphical  product quality;
By “OM practices” we associated with the representation of the  production times;
refer to every procedure improvement of general relationships between  flexibility in managing
or methodological performance [30], with a performance and the human resources;
solution which is carried higher operation efficiency most used practices in  simplification of
out on the “shop floor” [31] and with better TQM – those that accounting operations;
and which is meant to financial results [32]. Such have the biggest  company profits;
improve the efficiency a positive association impact on this  reduction of stocks and of
of production and method [38]. A work-in-progress.
increases in the
logistic processes for manufacturing sector, when positive relationship
industrial goods. is represented by The more efficiently JIT
managers use a reward
Therefore, we include arrows linking the is applied and the more
system actually based on
general approaches like elements together. its culture is spread
OM process outcomes [33].
the “World Class This model was within the firm, the more
Moreover, TQM’s results
Manufacturing” (WCM) validated by a survey tangible the results in
are related in a positive
approach administered to about these six areas will be
way to a firm’s market
[14] – which embraces 210 American [42]. Nevertheless, it is
share in the manufacturing
detailed tools conceived companies, of which also extremely important
sector [34], as
to optimize workplace 55% were classified for JIT to be integrated
organization, professional as SMEs. The results with all other business
maintenance and so on. are consistent with functions. Therefore, a
More specific previous studies on systemic point of view
methodologies are also TQM [39] [40]. It is helps when reorganizing
considered, such as the worth highlighting the infrastructural system
“Total Quality how some elements, of an enterprise.
Management” (TQM) here included in Important research in this
www.intechopen.com Elisa Battistoni, Andrea Bonacelli, Andrea Fronzetti Colladon and Massimiliano M. Schiraldi:
 field was carried out acknowledged that plants, located all over the Once again, evidence of
on a sample of individual practices world. These are the a strong connection
American and did not influence the hypotheses of the model among the principal OM
Japanese firms’ performance that were partially practices is found. It is
manufacturing firms significantly, except accepted: also possible to see how
[43]. Other authors for Kanban [18]. JIT  TPM has a strong Supply Chain
have thoroughly as a whole was also positive impact on Management (SCM)
investigated the considered, this time about half of the KPIs optimization techniques
relationships among being seen to have a used to measure were analysed in-depth,
the JIT elements positive manufacturing with statistics confirming
and, surprisingly, performance; their importance for
relationship with the times;  TPM can provide a enhancing firms’
operative performances  reductions in production valuable contribution to performance [46] –
that were analysed in the lots. performance because of regardless of the possible
study. A more general its indirect implications interactions with other
conclusion underlines Compared to the previously to JIT. practices, such as the
how JIT must be mentioned research, we supply processes in JIT.
considered as a general notice a common trend of
management approach integrating JIT and TQM To sum up, we may
and its culture has to be with other OM disciplines. conclude, from the
widely diffused in every In any case, authors literature, that the main
area of the firm – not just studying JIT are more OM practices can
being relegated to the orientated towards a deeper generate improvements
production departments – fusion with management in the performance of
to achieve a better general practices in general: this is manufacturing
performance and to deal because they analyse the companies; positive
with OM as an integrated effects on firms’ global effects are even
approach. On top of this, performance combining increased by the
another important model data from JIT Production synergies emerging from
can be cited [44], with Systems, Quality the combined use of
regard to JIT. This model Management and different approaches –
was validated by a survey Information Systems. This such as TQM, JIT, TPM
administered to about 50 is a first important step and SCM optimization
Japanese manufacturing towards analysing [35] [47]. Consistently,
companies and presented performance correlations as when we recommend
two main hypotheses: a whole, instead of new OM strategies we
 A focusing on single should not focus on just
practices. This is due to the one single technique, but
performance and in
particular that of its fact that results often should approach the firm
production sites. emerge from the as a complex system,
interactions among where the interactions
JIT implementation was elements, rather than just among elements are
evaluated on the basis of being the sum of isolated more important than each
nine indicators: procedures or techniques. single element
 compliance with the considered as a separate
daily production as We can now consider other part of the optimization
planned; very important results, problem.
 layout of the described in the research
production plant; by McKone et al. [45] who In the literature many
 JIT deliveries from analyse the possible studies follow a systemic
suppliers; relationship between Total approach. In Robb et al.
 JIT deliveries to Productive Maintenance [48] performance in
clients;
(TPM) and performance. product markets was
 kanban;
Here TPM is also analysed linked to the integration
 MRP integration with
in connection to JIT and of OM and SCM. The
JIT;
TQM. Again, survey authors agree that OM
 stability of the master
schedule; research was used to practices deliver a
 reductions in setup investigate 117 production positive impact on

Int. j. eng. bus. manag., 2013, Vol. 5, www.intechopen.com

4 44:2013
performance both companies, of single compared to the large the factors. In addition,
directly and business departments, enterprises. specific terms are added to
indirectly. Survey or of a product’s represent measurement errors
research carried out success in the market. 4. Structural Equation for proxy indicators and for
on this topic With regard to Modelling (SEM) latent variables. The analytic
identified 68 crucial operations, four KPIs approach development of the model
items with which to are commonly used: allows for a weight to be
evaluate seven areas value, speed, When modelling OM assigned to every arc, so as to
that are decisive for flexibility and practices, it is often give a value to the influence
the success of OM innovation [50]. These necessary to deal with a of each variable on the others
[49]: factors are major wide range of variables that connected to it.
 relationships with elements of good cannot be measured
customers; results in: directly. If this is the case, The model can be expressed
 relationships with  improving quality and we estimate values for mathematically with a system
suppliers; reliability and reducing these variables by referring of simultaneous equations to
 e-commerce; costs; to proxy indicators. be solved with regression
 enterprise software;  reducing production Structural Equation analysis. Every equation in
 Advanced and delivery times; Modelling (SEM) is an the system
Manufacturing  flexibly adapting the extremely useful
Technologies; productive capacity; methodology in such a
 Advanced  reducing times for context, since it allows a
Manufacturing a new product’s phenomenon to be
Systems; development and described by a two-step
 human resources. commercialization. procedure. In the first step,
causal links among
In this way, success Robb et al.’s model variables influencing the
in OM can be [48] was partially modelled phenomenon are
inferred by validated by a survey graphically illustrated.
performance administered to 72 These variables are called
improvements in Chinese enterprises “factors” or “latent
each of the above- operating in the variables” – since they
mentioned areas. manufacturing sector. cannot be measured
Nonetheless, The authors used directly. Factors can be
specific indicators Structural Equation represented as nodes of a
can be identified to Modelling (SEM) and graph and causal links as
directly map the path analysis to reveal oriented arcs connecting
performance level of
the nodes. In this graph the
that OM practices have a limitations due to the same variable could be
mediating function in nature of the sample and to dependent for some
improving market the peculiarities of the specific causal link and
performance: therefore, Chinese market. independent for others. In
even if they did not find addition, variables are
a significant Making the most of the classified as exogenous or
confirmation of a direct contributions presented so endogenous to the causal
impact, they were able to far, we focus our research model: exogenous variables
demonstrate that a better on the Italian economy, cannot be influenced by
implementation of OM mainly based on small internal elements of the
practices and a high and medium enterprises. modelled system;
importance being given In Italy, SMEs account for endogenous variables, on
to the operations more than 95% of the the contrary, are affected
department are positively total and provide by internal causal links.
and indirectly linked to occupation for about 60- Both are important for
performance. Path 70% of workers (OCSE analysing the system’s
analysis also allows for a 2000). Furthermore, those status. As a second step, a
deeper understanding of operating in the measurement model is
the relative influence manufacturing sector have attained from the graph
among each element in a core business which is depicted in step one. In this
the model. In any case, much more centred on model, one or more proxy
this model has strong production activities than indicators are assigned to
www.intechopen.com Elisa Battistoni, Andrea Bonacelli, Andrea Fronzetti Colladon and Massimiliano M. Schiraldi:
 originates from one It is worth noting that interested in quality application of the
or more causal links the following management or in the principles of lean
of independent conditions must be cost reductions which production [15]; the
variables with other respected: may come from the growing
variables –  E()=0; adoption of ISO quality SMEs; this is because only
exogenous or  E()=0; standards is but the first 100 companies provided
endogenous – and  , ,  and  must not be proof of this mistake. complete data for the
includes correlated. indicators we needed to
measurement errors. SMEs are heterogeneous include in our study. Survey
Consistently, an By solving the system Research allowed us to
and operate in a complex
endogenous variable we can determine the structure the conceptual
and dynamic system,
can be considered as weights for each arc in
therefore we recommend model described. Results
being dependent in the graph (vectors y the analyst to follow a two- from a first analysis of the
one equation and and x) and, therefore, step approach in the surveys led us to distinguish
independent in the influence of each analysis: between two branches of OM:
another one. variable on the others.  first, check the non- the first with a focus on
Structural equation correlation between production (OM Production),
y models can be
= size and perceived the second with a focus on
▲ projected and solved importance of OM supply chain (OM SC).
y5 using software such as
+ practices; Performance results in OM
c IBM AMOS, which were also considered. The
 second, test the
{ also provides statistics
x relationship between importance that management
= on the model’s accords to OM Production
▲s the importance
effectiveness with real was mapped using the
£ accredited to OM
+ data, like χ2 [51]. following five items:
ð practices and the firm’s
performance.  the production planning
5. Case study approach and principles;
Here we briefly describe
the notation used: This approach will prevent  the strategies used to
We carried out a case the analyst from making introduce new production
  is the vector
study to test the errors in the selection of a technologies;
representing
possible associations suitable scenario. It is  organization in facilities
endogenous
among OM practices impossible to proceed to management;
latent variables;
and the performance the second step if the first  percentage of on-time
  is the vector
of SMEs. Unlike what condition is not respected. deliveries to customers;
representing
can be found in the The primary focus of our  magnitude of the total
exogenous latent
literature, we focused investigation is to test these production lead time
variables;
on SMEs, thus the two relationships. To compared with net
 y is the vector of
models were achieve this, we used manufacturing time.
proxy indicators
conceived and built for Structural Equation Each item was measured
for endogenous
this purpose. Modelling to define two using fixed choice questions,
factors;
different models, together associated with a score
 x is the vector of ranging from 0 to 5. This is
Size is one of the main with their mathematical
proxy indicators an example of the possible
factors characterizing interpretations.
for exogenous answers which could have
factors; SMEs and, even if
Robb et al. [48] do not In these models the been given for the third item:
 y is the vector 0. I don’t know;
find a correlation importance given to OM
of weights for 1. constant burden and
between this factor practices is not measured
endogenous disorganization, with a
and performance, we directly, but is deduced
factors on y;
believe their research from general improvements high level of Work-in-
 x is the vector of
should be extended to obtained in OM; this is in Process items (WIP)
weights for
exogenous factors on consider the Italian accordance with prior inappropriately located;
x; scenario which is very research [48] [52]. 2. frequent burden and
  is the vector of different from the disorganization;
measurement errors Chinese one studied 3. general tidiness, few
We starting with a dataset
for y; inappropriately located
by the authors. It is of about 3,500 WIP;
  is the vector of
also a common manufacturing firms, but
measurement errors
for x. misconception to think we were only able to work
that SMEs are not on a smaller sample of 100

Int. j. eng. bus. manag., 2013, Vol. 5, www.intechopen.com

6 44:2013
4. good organization and construction of OM
level of tidiness; Production and use it
5. clean and in SEM.
ordered
production units, With regard to OM in
always ready for Supply Chain four
inspection, items were used:
minimal level of  the company analyses
inappropriately and actively responds
located WIP. to
customers’ needs
Consequently, the and systematically
OM Production makes use of ad-
factor was hoc practices; Figure 2. Conceptual Model I
represented through  the company has stable
proxy indicators. relationships with its
clients
and is considered as a
Surveys are also
reliable partner;
important in that
 The Customer
they give insight
Management
into the OM
System is able to
practices used in a
collect valuable
firm. For instance,
information and to
from the answers
effectively
used to map the item
interface with
“production
production
planning approach
processes;
and principles”, we
 suppliers’ and
can easily customers’ needs are
understand whether taken into
or not a company account in the
endorses a lean development phase of
production a new product. Even in
approach. this case it is possible
to deduct many OM
Confirmatory factor practices from the
analysis, carried out answers given for each
using the principal item. This construction
component analysis was tested in the same
methodology, was way that we tested OM
used to test the Production with
validity of the suitable results.
construction. Using
this methodology we
were able to check
the construction’s
consistency, to
identify latent
constructions and to
remove inconsistent
items. Finally,
Cronbach’s Alpha
[53] was calculated,
obtaining a value of
0.728 for five items.
This value could be
accepted [54].
Consequently, we
can accept the
www.intechopen.com Elisa Battistoni, Andrea Bonacelli, Andrea Fronzetti Colladon and Massimiliano M. Schiraldi:
 Model I indicators. year (Delta);
We constructed the first  Gross revenue per
model in order to look Figure 3. Measurement Model employee (GRPE).
I
for a causal link between
the firms’ size and the 6. Results
importance accorded to Model II
OM practices, both for In Figure 4, we present a
production and supply first representation of
chain management. We Model II. In this model we
depict Model I in Figure are looking for a
2. In this model we relationship between OM
hypothesize that the Production and OM SC,
firms’ size impacts both and performance. We also

Results from Model I

To carry out our analysis
we used the maximum
likelihood method. This
allowed for the
calculation of coefficients
for causal links. Figure 6
OM production and OM hypothesize that there will illustrates the results.
SC, whereas H0 is such be a causal link from OM
that an influence is not SC to OM Production and Figure 6. Output for Model I
statistically significant. vice versa. This is due to
Arcs are valued with
Figure5. Measurement Model
II standardized weights
which are derived from
Measurement Model II SEM. Statistics for the
is shown in Figure 5, goodness of fit are as
together with the follows: 2=57.528
errors associated with (counting 34 degrees of
each proxy indicator freedom) with a p-value
and with latent of 0.007; RMSEA=0.075
variables. Once again and CFI=0.694 [51]. In
we used answers to addition, the Hoelter critical
survey items such as number is also respected
proxy indicators for [55] – 105 being the
OM factors. maximum size of the
the fact that different OM Performance, on the sample with a
In Figure 3 we illustrate practices can be integrated other hand, was significance level of
the measurement model and can influence one measured by taking 0.05. The good fit of our
associated with the another. Our aim in this into account the model is then confirmed
conceptual model. The model is to reject H0 – following proxies for every reported
firm’s size is expressed formulated as the absence (each one referring to statistic.
by the number of of a significant influence of the year in which the
employees; other latent OM SC and OM survey was made):
variables are measured Production on the firms’  Earnings before tax
using the survey items performance. (EBT);
we previously presented.  Variance in gross
Errors (ER) are also Figure 4. Conceptual Model II revenue compared
linked to proxy with the previous

Int. j. eng. bus. manag., 2013, Vol. 5, www.intechopen.com

8 44:2013
 p p
OM Production <--- EMPLOYEES .287 Performance <--- OM Production .045
OM SC <--- EMPLOYEES .953 Performance <--- OM Production .045
Q1 <--- OM Production .008 Performance <--- OM SC .415
Q2 <--- OM Production Q1 <--- OM Production .007
Q3 <--- OM Production .127 Q2 <--- OM Production
Q4 <--- OM Production .131 Q3 <--- OM Production .119
Q5 <--- OM Production .007 Q4 <--- OM Production .095
Q6 <--- OM SC .002 Q5 <--- OM Production .008
Q7 <--- OM SC .001 Q6 <--- OM SC .002
Q8 <--- OM SC Q7 <--- OM SC .001
Q9 <--- OM SC .003 Q8 <--- OM SC
Q9 <--- OM SC .003
Table 1. p-values for coefficients in Model I
Delta <--- Performance
In Table 1 we report the significance values for each GRPE <--- Performance .005
coefficient. EBT <--- Performance .006

Missing values are due to the model’s constraints. Results
clearly show good values of significance (p<0.01)
associated with proxies for latent variables – except for
FM403 and FM404 where we still have quite low, but
acceptable, values. On the contrary, p values for the first
two indicators are relatively high, so we cannot reject H0
and, therefore, have no evidence of whether size affects
either OM Production or OM SC. To confirm this result
we also carried out a similar analysis where we
substituted the proxy indicator for size – instead of the
number of employees we considered gross revenues.
These two indicators are those used to classify firms as
SMEs. Results from this further analysis are fully in
accordance with the previous results.
Results from Model II
Following the same procedure we used for Model I we
obtained coefficients for Model II – which are shown in
Figure 7. The main purpose of this model was to reject H 0
to provide evidence of the relationship between
performance and OM practices both in production and in
the supply chain.
Table 2. p-values for coefficients in Model II
From this point of view, the most important causal links
are those among OM Production, OM SC and
Performance. Statistics for this second model are as
follows: 2=81.231 (considering 52 degrees of freedom)
with a p-value of 0.006; RMSEA=0.067; CFI=0.743. The
Hoelter critical number is once again respected– 107
being the maximum size of the sample with a significance
level of 0.05. Consequently, we can state that our second
model can be accepted with a good fit proved by the
statistics [51]. In Table 2 we report the significance values
for each coefficient, where EBT stands for Earnings
Before Tax and GRPE stands for Gross Revenue per
Employee.
The p-values confirm the significance of the model’s
coefficients, except in the few cases that we are about to
discuss. The relationship between OM SC and
Performance is not significant and we believe this could
be because of the specific indicators used to measure
performance – which are perhaps more appropriate for
analysing performance elements directly connected to
production and sales. Further research could test other
proxy indicators for performance, in order to better
decide which aspects of supply chain management to
consider. Accordingly, the positive relationship between
OM Production and Performance (with a value of 0.48) is
significant at a level of 0.05.

7. Discussion and conclusions

Our research highlights the importance of Operations

Management for Italian SMEs operating in the
manufacturing sector: OM practices are relevant
indicators of these firms’ performance. Model II points
Figure 7. Output for Model II
out the value of this positive association – to be carefully
taken into account by management, in order to
implement best practices that can affect revenue and
internal efficiency. This offers a clear input for the
diffusion of OM culture also in business clusters and
every time new policies have to be introduced. Our
results are consistent with previous studies even if highly
focused on the specific context of Italian SMEs. We
suggest further research to further investigate the
relationship between OM SC and performance, which is
not significant in our case study, probably because of the
proxy indicators used to express performance.
Furthermore, the absence of a significant relationship
between OM practices and the companies’ size – tested
using Model I – is useful in showing the importance
accorded to these practices regardless of the companies’
dimension. We used Survey Research and Structural
Equation Modelling to structure empirical models that
could be easily replicated and applied to other settings.
Possible extensions may be achieved by considering a
larger sample and also by using different proxy indicators
for latent variables, or from a deeper analysis of OM
practices more specific to the methodologies and
techniques adopted by Italian SMEs. In this way,
researchers could differentiate and highlight the strongest
causal links to performance.
8. References
[1] Kotter JP. (1995) Leading Change: Why
Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business
Review. : p. n.2.
[2] Grimaldi M, Cricelli L, Rogo F. (2012) A
methodology to assess value creation in communities
of innovation. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 13(3):
305- 330.
[3] Greco M, Cricelli L, Grimaldi M. (2013) A strategic
management framework of tangible and intangible
assets. European Management Journal. 31(1): 55-56.
[4] Cricelli L, Grimaldi M. (2012) Knowledge-based
Inter-Organizational Collaboration. Journal of
Knowledge Management. 14(3): 348-358.
[5] Keegan R (2007) ABC. Applied benchmarking for
competitiveness Milano: Franco Angeli.
[6] Chase RB, Jacobs FR, Aquilano NJ (2008) Operations
Management nella produzione e nei servizi Milano:
McGraw-Hill.
[7] Slack N, Lewis M (2002) Operations Strategy
Harlow: FT-Prentice Hall.
[8] Greco M, Grimaldi M, Scarabotti L, Schiraldi MM.
(2013) The sources of competitive advantage in
University Spin-Offs: a case study. Journal of
Technology Management & Innovation. 8 (4), in
press.
[9] Rungtusanatham MJ, Choi TY, Hollingworth DG,
Wu Z, Forza C. (2003) Survey research in operations
management: historical analyses. Journal of
Operations Management. : n.21, 475-488.
[26] D’Avino M, Bregni A, Schiraldi MM. (2013) A
[10] Shah R, Goldstein SM. (2006) Use of Structural
Equation Modeling in Operations Management
Research: Looking Back and Forward. Journal of
Operations Mangement. 24: 148-169.
[11] Malhotra MK, Grover V. (1998) An assessment of
survey research in POM: from constructs to theory.
Journal of Operations Management. : n.16. 407–425.
[12] Kerlinger FN (1986) Foundations of behavioral
research New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston.
[13] Flynn BB, Sakakibara S, Schroeder RG, Bates KA,
Flynn EJ. (1990) Empirical Research Methods in
Operations Management. Journal of Operations
Management. 9(2): 250-284.
[14] Schonberger RJ (1986) World Class Manufacturing:
Free Press.
[15] Ghobadian A, Gallear DA. (1996) Total Quality
Management in SMEs. Intenational Jounal of
Management Science. : 24, n.1, 83-106.
[16] Nakajima S (1988) Introduction to TPM: Productivity
Press.
[17] Taiichi O (1988) Toyota Production System: Beyond
Large-Scale Production. In.: Productivity Press.
[18] Giordano F, Schiraldi MM (2013) On Just-In-Time
Production Leveling. In Schiraldi MM, editor.
Operations Management. Fiume (Croazia): Intech pp.
141-163.
[19] Baciarello L, D’Avino M, Onori R, Schiraldi MM.
(2013) Lot Sizing Heuristics Performance.
International Journal of Engineering Business
Management. 5(6): 1-10.
[20] Fumi A, Scarabotti L, Schiraldi MM. (2013) The Effect
of Slot-Code Optimization on Travel Times in Common
Unit-Load Warehouses. International Journal of Services
and Operations Management. 15(4): 507-527.
[21] Fumi A, Scarabotti L, Schiraldi MM. (2013)
Multiproduct slot allocation heuristic to minimize
storage space. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Managament. (forthcoming).
[22] Fumi A, Scarabotti L, Schiraldi MM. (2013) The
effect of slot-code optimization in warehouse order
picking. International Journal of Engineering
Business Management. 5(20): 1-10.
[23] Fumi A, Scarabotti L, Schiraldi MM. (2013)
Minimizing warehouse space with dedicated storage
policy. International Journal of Engineering Business
Management. 5(21): 1-10.
[24] D’Avino M, De Simone V, Schiraldi MM. (2013)
Revised MRP for reducing inventory level and
smoothing order releases: a case in manufacturing
industry. Production Planning & Control. available
online since 12 Mar 2013.
[25] Bregni A, D'Avino M, De Simone V, Schiraldi MM.
(2013) Formulas of Revised MRP. Interational
Journal of Engineering Business Management. 5(10):
1-8.
revised and improved version of the MRP algorithm: Rev
 MRP. Applied Mechanics and Materials. 328: 276-
280.
[27] Mancini V, Pasquali M, Schiraldi MM. (2012)
Opportunities for using RFID in the aircraft
production process. International Journal of RF
Technologies: Research and Applications. 3(4): 243-
255.
[28] Scotti P, M. F, Iannone R, Mancini V, M.M. S.
(2013) Economical evaluation of RFID technology in
production environment. International Journal of
Engineering Business Management. 5(39): 1-13.
[29] Deming WE (1993) The New Economics For
Industry, Government & Education Cambridge:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for
Advanced Engineering Study.
[30] Hendricks KB, Singhal VR. (1996) Quality awards
and the market value of the firm: an empirical
investigation. Management Science. : n.42, 415–436.
[31] Hendricks KB, Singhal VR. (1997) Does
implementing an effective TQM program actually
improve operating performance? Empirical evidence
from firms that have won quality awards.
Management Science. : n.43, 1258–1274.
[32] Easton GS, Jarrell SL. (1998) The effects of total
quality management on corporate performance: an
empirical investigation. Journal of Business. : n.71 (2),
253–307.
[33] Chenhall RH. (1997) Reliance on manufacturing
performance, total quality management and
organizational performance. Management
Accounting Research. : n.8, 187–206.
[34] Mohrman SA, Tenkasi RV, Lawler III EE, Ledford Jr.
GG. (1995) Total quality management: practice and
outcomes in the largest US firms. Employee
Relations. : n.17 (3), 26–41.
[35] Flynn BB, Sakakibara S¸RG. (1995) Relationship
between JIT and TQM: Practices and Performance.
The Academy of Management Journal. 38(5): 1325-
1360.
[36] Adam Jr. EE, Corbett LM, Flores BE, Harrison NJ,
Lee TS, Rho BH, et al. (1997) An international study
of quality improvement approach and firm
performance. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management. : n.17, 842–873.
[37] Kaynak H. (2003) The relationship between total
quality management practices and their effects on
firm performance. Journal of Operations
Management.: n.21, 405–435.
[38] Saraph JV, Benson GP, Schroeder RG. (1989) An
instrument for measuring the critical factors of
quality management. Decision Sciences. : n.20, 810–
829.
[53] Cronbach LJ. (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal
structure of tests. Psychometrika. : n.16 (3), 297-334.
[39] Das A, Handfield RB, Calantone RJ, Ghosh S. (2000)
A contingent view of quality management: the
impact of international competition on quality.
Decision Sciences. : n.31, 649–690.
[40] Flynn BB, Schroeder RG, Sakakibara S. (1995) The
impact of quality management practices on
performance and competitive advantage. Decision
Sciences. 26: 659–691.
[41] Dello Stritto G, Falsini D, Schiraldi MM. (2013)
Supply chain network design for the diffusion of a
new product. International Journal of Engineering
Science and Technology. 5(2): 72-92.
[42] Fullerton RR, McWatters CS. (2001) The production
performance benefits from JIT implementation.
Journal of Operations Management. : n. 19, 81–96.
[43] Sakakibara S, Flynn BB, Schroeder RJ, Morris WT.
(1997) The Impact of Just in Time Manufacturing and
Its Infrastructure on Manufacturing Performance.
Management Science. : n. 43 (9), 1246-1257.
[44] Matsui Y. (2007) An empirical analysis of just-in-time
production in Japanese manufacturing companies.
Int. J. Production Economics. : n.108, 153–164.
[45] McKone KE, Schroeder RG, Cua KO. (2001) The
impact of total productive maintenance practices on
manufacturing performance. Journal of Operations
Management. : n.19, 39–58.
[46] Lia S, Ragu-Nathanb B, Ragu-Nathanb TS, Raob SS.
(2006) The impact of supplychain management
practices on competitive advantage and organizational
performance. Omega, The International Journal of
Management Science. : n.34, 107-124.
[47] Cua KO, McKone KE, Schroeder RG. (2001)
Relationships between implementation of TQM, JIT,
and TPM and manufacturing performance. Journal of
Operations Management. : n.19, 675–694.
[48] Robb DJ, Xie B, Arthanari T. (2008) Supply chain
and operations practice and performance in Chinese
furniture manufacturing. Int. Journal of Production
Economics. : n.112, 683-689.
[49] Vickery SK, Droge C, Markland RE. (1997)
Dimensions of manufacturing strength in the
furniture industry. Journal of Operations
Management. : n.15, 317–330.
[50] Robb DJ, Xie B. (2003) A survey of manufacturing
strategy and technology in the Chinese furniture
industry. European Management Journal. : n.21, 484–
496.
[51] Hu L, Bentler PM. (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
Structural Equation Modeling. : n.6, 1-55.
[52] Zhao X, Sum CC, Qi Y, Zhang H, Lee TS. (2006) A
taxonomy of manufacturing strategies in China.
Journal of Operations Management. : n.24, 621–636.
[54] Hair JF, Black B, Babin B, Anderson RE, Tatham RL
(2006) Multivariate Data Analysis Upper Saddle River,
 NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
[55] Hoelter JW. (1983) The Analysis of Covariance
Structures. Sociological Methods & Research. : Vol.
11, No. 3, 325-344.
[56] Huin SF. (2004) Managing deployment of ERP
systems in SMEs using multi-agents. International
Journal of Project Management. : n.22, 511-517.
[57] Goldberger A. (1972) Structural equation methods in
the social sciences. Econometrica. : n.40, 979-1001.
Summary

Knowledge management and skills enhancement processes can play a major role, especially for Small
and Medium-sized Enterprises. It allows for the quick analysis and solution of operative problems and
also an awareness of the knowledge gap that needs to be filled. Operations Management identifies all the
activities necessary to plan, develop and improve the business processes involved in the manufacturing of
a product or in the provision of a service. As an example JIT has been used in the journal. OM practices
is not measured directly, but is deduced from general improvements obtained in OM. the OM Production
factor was represented through proxy indicators, throughout the journal. This journal has used a dataset of
about 3,500 manufacturing firms, including small SMEs.

The measurement model is associated with the conceptual model. The firm’s size is expressed by the
number of employees; other latent variables are measured using the survey items presented. They have
hypothesized that there will be a causal link from OM SC to OM Production and vice versa. This is due
to the fact that different OM practices can be integrated and can influence one another. With regard to
operations, four KPIs are commonly used: value, speed, flexibility and innovation. The statistical tools
offered to control the production processes can bring about a positive effect on the quality level perceived
by the final customer (business or consumer) and can dramatically reduce production waste – this
altogether leading to better economical results.

Survey research has been used as a valuable empirical tool in OM. It has become an important addition
to commonly used approaches based on simulation modelling. Confirmatory factor analysis was carried
out using the principal component analysis methodology.

Old theories, new contexts: extending operations management theories to projects Welcome to this Special Issue
(SI) and the World of Project Operations! Operations and supply chain management (OSCM) is concerned with
organizing work. This work spans a spectrum from novel to repetitive and from variety to volume. Projects are a
particular kind of work – temporary and unique – that lie toward the novel and varied end of the spectrum.
Organizing project work requires perspectives, approaches, methods, tools, and techniques that differ from those
used in repetitive, ongoing operations. There will, however, also be areas of commonality between project-based
and repetitive operations. It is these similarities and differences that will be explored here. We start with the
background to this SI and then explore how scholars in the field have responded to the call for papers. Lastly, we
present the eight papers comprising this SI and identify both the contributions and areas of the project-operations
work landscape that remain relatively unexplored. Background Projects pervade organizations, being the prime
operations process for many organizations in IT, R&D, engineering, construction, government, and innovation, and
a key activity in many others (e.g. organizational change, strategy implementation, mergers acquisitions and
divestments, and new product development). Economically, it is estimated that project activity comprises c.35
percent of GDP for some countries (Schoper et al., 2018), an indication that this is a significant field of activity.
Whilst ubiquitous, projects often suffer from “the performance paradox” where their importance is at odds with
their performance (Flyvbjerg et al., 2003). Consistent with this importance, it is a rich context for research
(Söderlund and Maylor, 2012; Browning, 2017). There are several dedicated journals (and many that serve specific
project-based industry areas such as construction and information systems), but project management (PM) until
recently has not captured the attention of the wider community of business and management academics, including
those in OSCM. As we will show, this is changing, consistent with a recognition of ongoing “projectification” of
work, first identified back in the 1990s (Midler, 1995). From PM to project studies: a brief history The genesis of
modern approaches to managing projects is generally credited as being in the 1950s with the development of a set
of tools and techniques for planning and scheduling tasks in a project. These “classic” tools, including work
breakdown structures, critical path analysis, Gantt charts, and S-curves, became the standard fare of projects.
Accompanying these was the emergence of full process sets, moving from an exclusive focus on tasks, to a wider
consideration including governance and assurance, procurement, quality, cost, risk, and configuration management
(e.g. PMI, 2017). Many of these approaches are now International Journal of Operations & Production
Management Vol. 38 No. 6, 2018 pp. 1274-1288 © Emerald Publishing Limited 0144-3577 DOI 10.1108/IJOPM-
06-2018-781 The authors are most grateful to the previous Editor in Chief, Professor Steve Brown, and the former
Editorial Advisory Board for the opportunity to present this SI. Likewise, the new editorial team, Pamela Danese,
and colleagues at the journal provided great help. The authors are indebted to the authors for their patience with the
process, and especially to the reviewers. Their commitment to the development of the field has been a great source
of encouragement. 1274 IJOPM 38,6 embedded in software packages, frequently determining the approaches to be
followed by those working on the project. In this are some of the distinctive features of the historic landscape of
projects and their theorization, reflecting a “hard systems,” rational, and deconstructivist perspective.
Understanding such path dependence is an important feature of our discussions here, as we seek to broaden the
consideration (see e.g. Beyond the Gantt Chart – Maylor, 2001; Critical Project Studies – Hodgson and Cicmil,
2006; Rethinking PM – Winter et al., 2006; Project Society – Lundin et al., 2015). Many of the recent additions to
the PM corpus have extended the consideration further beyond tools and processes, toward treating projects as
wider systems of human activity (Söderlund, 2011). The term “project studies” is now widely used to incorporate
organization-wide activities, including project, program, and portfolio management, and the role of the
organization and its supply chain in these activities. Scholars have suggested alternative operationalisations of the
concept of PM, representing an evolution from addressing solely tactical level concerns to include the integration
of knowledge, resources, and benefits across organizations, the selection and prioritization of projects, and the
linkages between strategy, organizational considerations, societal issues, and projects. With this wider brief,
program and portfolio management have become central to the considerations of project studies. We have
witnessed an increasing number of scholars exploring linkages between the project context and established
managerial disciplines, for instance, between strategy and projects (Morgan et al., 2008), and between projects and
innovation (Davies et al., 2017). In the field of organization science, “Projects and Organizations” was the topic of
the 2015 Winter Conference and a SI of Organization Science. Controlling complex projects was the topic of a
2015 SI of Sloan Management Review. No longer the “unfashionable end” of the volume-variety spectrum, the
project context is now receiving a level of attention commensurate with its importance to managers, organizations,
and economies. Our SI is an attempt to continue this from an OSCM perspective. Objective The objective of this SI
is to provide a forum for works at the nexus of OSCM and project contexts. Project contexts provide particular
challenges for both theory and practice due to the variable levels of structural (scale, number of interdependent
elements), socio-political (people, power, politics, agendas, relationships), and emergent (uncertainty and change)
complexities (Geraldi et al., 2011; Ramasesh and Browning, 2014). Moreover, these complexities are not stable but
dynamic and therefore not entirely amenable to the logic of the manufacturing or service factory, for instance
(Browning and Ramasesh, 2007). Such a forum is clearly timely for our field. Projects have long been part of the
OSCM canon and pedagogy. Yet there are many pervasive challenges that contribute to the performance paradox.
For instance, how can projects be better planned such that performance is improved? How can we increase the
efficiency of projects in turning investments into benefits? These have been significant topics in past research on
projects, but with new constraints associated with increasing project complexities, they require constant revisiting:
the context has not stood still and neither should the research bodies of knowledge. For instance, as OSCM
academics, we recognize the challenge of waste and its elimination. Whilst progress is evident in waste elimination
in many organizations and their supply chains in automotive, electronics, and retail, in projects this has received
relatively little attention (Browning, 2003). Anecdotal evidence suggests that the costs of this waste are significant.
There is clearly potential for research to explore the application of old theories in existing project contexts, as well
as in emerging areas such as megaprojects (Flyvbjerg, 2017; Söderlund et al., 2017). So far, much research has
looked at the nature of these projects and how they differ from traditional conceptualisations of projects, but little
has been said about the challenges they pose for OSCM. 1275 Guest editorial A second reason why it is so critical
to explore the linkages between OSCM and the context of projects is associated with the many difficulties of
moving between projects and operations in practice. Numerous studies have shown the critical, yet oftentimes
flawed, link between these two. The opening of London Heathrow Terminal 5 in 2008 is an object lesson. “The
project” is considered to have been extremely successful, innovative with regards to the contracting and alliancing
procedures, and completed on time and budget. But “operations” encountered a highly public and embarrassing
failure when the terminal was opened – the asset was not ready for operation. In that respect, one might argue that
this is fundamental to the raison d’être for projects, that benefits are realised not at project completion, but as a
result of effective start-up and sustainment of operations. In times when more and more activities become projects
and more projects need to be integrated into operations, this might prove even more challenging – project overload
may certainly become a devastating effect (Zika-Viktorsson et al., 2006) with implications for people and
operational processes. The question is then: How may we improve the linkages between projects and operations?
This is certainly not a unilateral challenge but a bilateral one. This SI contributes to establishing better linkages
across the boundaries of what we have previously conceived as independent domains of projects and operations.
Integration in practice as well as in research would clearly be beneficial. We have sought to construct a sense of
“an issue” with the eight papers we present here. The role of an SI is in “building knowledge” – and assisting in
preventing the endless and pointless loops on conceptual reinvention that take place where such a focus is not
enabled. An SI has a particular role of showing both what is complete in terms of investigations and arguments and
what are the interesting areas for further development. With this SI, we have the opportunity to view a swathe of
research being undertaken by colleagues in this context. This collective effort – shaped by the call for papers, the
authors, and the reviewers – provides insights on several interesting topics of practical importance. In this regard,
we hope that this is a spur to further conversations, contributes to the richness of our field, and also supports
teaching. OSCM and projects Our point of departure for the SI was that projects have been a neglected context for
OSCM research. However, whilst that is borne out in some accounts (e.g. the literature review of Walker et al.,
2015), the broader literature does not entirely support this finding. An overview of the landscape of OSCM
literature on projects provides a more nuanced picture. First, there is a substantial and well-developed literature on
new product development, a project-based process. It continues to receive plenty of attention in a broad range of
OSCM journals as well as specialist titles (e.g. Journal of Product Innovation Management, R&D Management).
There is an evidence that work in this domain has influenced PM more generally, with for instance the stage-gate
process (Cooper, 2001) now being ubiquitous. Second, a significant literature continues the “hard systems” view of
operations and projects, as was evident in the development of the early tools and processes for managing projects.
The underlying belief is that of Klein and Mecklin’s “Mr. Optimizer” (Klein and Meckling, 1958) – that there
exists a state of optimal performance in any process, and it can be determined by calculation (e.g. Ballestin and
Leus, 2009; Bendoly et al., 2010). These are often evident in mainstream OM journals such as Management
Science and Production and Operations Management, as well as IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.
Third, an emerging “soft systems” view of projects accepts their inherent complexities without trying to “solve”
them as a linear problem or even as a set of linear problems (e.g. Ramasesh and Browning, 2014; Maylor and
Turner, 2017). This is consistent with the view of complex systems as requiring resolution rather than solution
(Roth and Senge, 1996). The complexity exists not just because of the scale of the endeavor, but also because it
1276 IJOPM 38,6 is socially rather than objectively constructed, and it is dynamic rather than existing in a static,
closed environment. Further, this conceptualization facilitates considerations at strategic as well as tactical levels.
In addition to these three areas, there is the specific PM literature. OSCM today makes up relatively little of the
recent PM literature, despite common roots. Over the past 20 years, it is arguable that PM has reduced its focus on
optimization and critical success factors, to a position consistent with organizational studies, which we describe as
“project studies” ( following Geraldi and Söderlund, 2018). This has been evident in its main journals
(International Journal of PM, PM Journal, and International Journal of Managing Projects in Business).
Concurrently, there has been a struggle for academic legitimacy by those whose research interest is in projects. The
low rankings of the PM journals has contributed to this. Furthermore, project studies has risked becoming a multi-
disciplinary field “stuck in the middle” – being perceived as insufficiently theoretical to “cut it” in the academy,
whilst viewed by practitioners as being too theoretically focused to contribute to the understanding or solution of
problems they face. Such a danger clearly remains and is one that the current considerations of impact research will
need to address. However, in legitimacy terms, the significant level of interest generated by this SI is just one piece
of evidence that perhaps legitimacy has been at least partially established. This discussion of the landscape of the
literature shifted our view of the SI. It did not discount the opportunity – as we believe the selected papers will
show – but it made us re-evaluate our context of interest (projects) and its role in our discipline (OSCM). In
addition to the broad contribution of the collective endeavor presented here, it is to the more specific considerations
of the third of the above areas that this SI contributes. The opportunity then is to open up the context to a broader
range of discussions by OSCM and other scholars through consideration of the totality of project systems, in hard,
soft, and dynamic terms. The call for papers for this SI sought innovative research with the potential to advance the
field of OSCM, significantly, theoretically, and practically. The process of refining the submissions took place
through both formal reviews and our combined reflections as guest editors. We also asked each of the author teams
to reflect on the pedagogical implications of their work. Our aim was to encourage the process of generating impact
from each paper. The ordering of the papers The papers themselves fall under two broad themes. The first concerns
the perennial OSCM predilection for processes. As the first two papers make clear, the traditional classification of
projects as singular operations processes characterized by high variety and low volume requires further
development. This is most useful as it opens the context to the full range of OSCM consideration. The second
theme concerns the extension of core concepts from Supply Chain Management into this “new” context of projects.
Within this second theme, the issues of segmentation, inter-organizational relations, coordination, and complexity
all receive focus, yet with many common elements. Most notable is the move beyond purely structural
considerations to recognize the role of social capital (as Amoako-Gyampah et al., 2018). The final paper considers
the impact for OSCM, and projects in particular, of crowdsourcing. As an innovation in obtaining the resources of
production, it clearly has merit but also presents a new set of challenges for managers. The papers Paper 1: Project
and processes: a convenient but simplistic dichotomy (Harvey and Aubry, 2018) This first article in the SI uses a
legalistic courtroom approach for the two authors to present their cases for whether a new initiative in an
organization is a project or a standard 1277 Guest editorial OM process. The paper clarifies the gray areas between
these two constructs by exploring the commonalities and differences between projects and OM processes, and thus,
between PM and OM process management. For each of these fields they compare their different tools, techniques,
and respective literatures, followed by various examples to bring out similarities and differences. The authors then
challenge this apparent dichotomy and propose better ways to classify and manage new initiatives. The authors
note that new initiatives that involve complex processes tend to be managed as projects, using the PM body of
knowledge. But because each initiative takes a somewhat different form, it is treated as a one-of-a-kind
undertaking, thereby losing many of the opportunities for learning and continuous improvement associated with
process management. The article makes the case that two research and practice communities that are evolving
independently have much to gain by adopting a unified model and integrating their respective bodies of
knowledge. Paper 2: It takes two to tango: product-organization interdependence in managing major projects (Artto
and Turkulainen, 2018) In addition to its process, a project’s result and the temporary organization used to produce
it represent two more, important domains or subsystems in projects. This study explores relationships between
these two subsystems in terms of their constituent elements. Connecting to the classic volume-variety matrix, the
study explores the uniqueness and reuse of these elements across projects. The study looks empirically at four
global, renewable fuels refinery projects implemented by Neste Oil from 2003 to 2011. Each project is unique,
although all four are based on the same technology. The authors find instances of both diagonal and off-diagonal
positions in the volume-variety matrix, such as the reuse of common organizational units across unique projects to
obtain differentiated results. Common product or result components also appear across unique projects. The study
demonstrates that even in distinct projects, managers need not design everything from scratch, and projects contain
some elements of repetitive operations. Paper 3: Coordination in temporary organizations – formal and informal
mechanisms at the 2016 Olympics (Fernandes et al., 2018) In this paper the authors explore the evolution of
operational coordination within temporary, project organizations by examining the case of the 2016 Summer
Olympic Games Organizing Committee. Their longitudinal immersion in the case study organization allowed them
to observe real-time operational coordination. Supported by that evidence (and other sources), they capture the use
of formal and informal coordination mechanisms, selected depending upon the specific challenges of each phase of
work. Along with other papers in this SI, they find that project organizations contain a hybrid of temporary and
enduring elements, as well as centralized and decentralized elements, both of which evolve dynamically over the
course of the project. Appropriate coordination strategies and mechanisms are contingent upon the project phase as
well as other characteristics. The authors also explore the concept of “venueization,” the tailoring of a standard
operational approach to a specific time and place, which helps planners and managers capture and apply enduring
knowledge across project instances – thereby orienting and connecting temporary projects within a larger context
of ongoing operations. Paper 4: Lean leadership in major projects – from “predict and provide” to “predict and
prevent” (Holweg and Maylor, 2018) The fourth paper applies lean thinking to a major project context. The term
“Lean leadership” is used, providing an integrative heading for alternative approaches, systems, 1278 IJOPM 38,6
and tools to the performance challenges of projects. Two systems for dealing with these performance challenges
are outlined. The first is where cost and duration overrun data from previous projects are used to determine the
level of optimism bias inherent in estimates, which guides the level of uplift that needs to be applied to future
estimates to increase their chance of “success.” This is “predict and provide”: it predicts that a new project will
overrun by a certain amount and thus requires the overrun to be funded from the outset. It is like a factory that
expands its rework areas to handle large numbers of defects, rather than paying attention to the causes of the
problems. Applying an OSCM lens to major projects requires examining the systems involved in major projects to
root out the causes of overruns. This alternative is termed “predict and prevent.” From an illustrative case study,
the paper demonstrates the utility of considering a multi-level view of processes from the leadership level down to
the task level. This facilitates the integration of a variety of approaches to process improvement, including lean,
agile, theory of constraints, and the wide body of knowledge that exists on managing projects. The paper then
identifies seven wastes from the case, as the focus of the “prevent” strategy. Lastly, the paper highlights the role of
the leader as an important differentiator in performance, and proposes principles for lean leadership. Paper 5:
Creating relational capital through socialization in project alliances (Aaltonen and Turkulainen, 2018) This is the
first of four papers considering issues related to project supply chains. The authors extend the current knowledge of
the role of relational capital in supply chains to project-based operations with a focus on alliances. These alliances
are of interest because alliance firms are required to collaborate but may elsewhere be competitors with little
history of prior collaboration. In addition, whilst there may be formal means for communication and governance, it
is often through informal rather than formal channels that resolutions to inevitable problems are found. Obtaining
timely resolutions relies on relational capital, which is associated with trust, respect, and effective interaction
across organizational boundaries. Whilst in principle, alliance organizations have a shared interest in the successful
completion of the project, this in itself cannot be relied upon to incentivise the behaviors or practices necessary by
all the members of the joint organization. The creation of relational capital occurs through socialization
interventions, both formal and informal: workshops, co-location, specific training, social time away from the
workplace, etc. How these mechanisms evolve over the project life-cycle, and build, enhance, and maintain
relational capital, is explored through analysis of two case studies. The insights include a restatement of the
importance of informal mechanisms, the co-existence of collaboration and conflict, and insights as to how this
process can be explicitly managed in future projects. Further, and consistent with the theme of the previous paper
in this issue, the importance of the leadership provided by the client is noted. Paper 6: Using project demand
profiling to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of infrastructure projects (Masi et al., 2018) This paper
explores the applicability of supply chain segmentation to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of
infrastructure projects by identifying different types of project demand profiles. A three-stage research design was
adopted. Stage 1 explored the applicability of supply chain segmentation, through demand profiling, to the
portfolio of infrastructure projects in a utility company. Stage 2 then involved an iterative process of “theory
matching” to the portfolio, program, and PM literatures. Then in stage 3, propositions were formulated to outline
how supply chain segmentation through project demand profiling could improve both the effectiveness and the
efficiency of 1279 Guest editorial infrastructure projects. The resulting four propositions involved recognizing the
importance of identifying the different demand profiles of projects and groups of projects in the portfolio to
identify potentially repeatable projects. This could then lead to economies of repetition involving not only reduced
costs but also improved time and quality. This work fills a gap in the portfolio management literature, suggesting
that the initial screening, selection, and prioritization of project proposals should be expanded to recognize not only
the project type, but also each project’s demand profile. Paper 7: A framework for understanding managerial
responses to supply chain complexity (Turner et al., 2018) This paper examines the nature of supply chain
complexity by synthesizing ideas from the study of the complexity of projects with those from supply chain
management. This is an important nexus: supply chains play an important role in project efficiency, and projects
are the vehicle for organizations’ attempts to transform their supply chains. The notion of supply chain complexity
is clearly a concept that may facilitate such integration. Highlighting how managers cope with supply chain
complexity, the authors rely on the notion of ambidexterity – the ability to both explore and exploit knowledge – to
analyze managerial responses to such complexity. The authors demonstrate that this approach is particularly
relevant for studying how managers cope with strategic and operational challenges. The authors present findings
from case-study research with six UK-based organizations identifying the managerial responses to three
complexities: structural, socio-political, and emergent. The findings indicate that managers faced with these
complexities use a wide range of responses, in some cases to accommodate and/or reduce the complexities faced.
This suggests, the authors argue, that they were strategically important issues and not necessarily deleterious – that
complexity could be beneficial. Finally, the authors use the perspective of ambidexterity to make a more explicit
assessment of whether existing solutions were considered or if novel methods were required in response to the
complexities. Paper 8: Crowdsourcing: a contemporary form of PM with linkages to open innovation and novel
operations (Wilson et al., 2018) Recently, two important themes, both for OSCM and in practice, have been
crowdsourcing and open innovation. Crowdsourcing is a central element of open innovation processes with far-
reaching implications for how projects are managed and delivered. Crowdsourcing is widely practiced and, in
particular, crowdsourcing-centric firms have capitalized on growing global labor crowds. These have prompted
novel ways of recruiting and deploying crowd-based resources for creative, developmental, testing, and production
activities. This has also led to a surge in scholarly interest in how such operations contrast with more traditional
approaches. As emphasized by the authors, crowdsourcing holds considerable promise in terms of how it fits into
more sophisticated macro understandings of where project society is headed. It may also be considered a new
development in the ongoing trajectory of projectification. Two research questions are addressed: RQ1. How well
does crowdsourcing extend traditional and align with developing conceptions of PM? RQ2. How does
crowdsourcing, as a novel form of operations management, improve outcomes? The authors draw on five case
studies to highlight how firms use large, productive crowds to obtain high speeds while mitigating the conventional
tradeoffs with costs, levels of collaborative focus, and levels of service/product-tailoring. As the paper
demonstrates, such 1280 IJOPM 38,6 output is produced through an unusual and unprecedented “value chain
stakeholder”: the crowd. It comprises many thousands of members working in highly client-responsive tasks,
which calls for novel perspectives on the role and practice of management in such operations. Insights from the
papers The section above highlighted a few of the most important findings in each of the papers. In this section we
look across the papers to see their collective contribution to our understanding of the linkages between projects and
OSCM. Some key themes emerge that are of relevance to both project studies and OSCM. System design and
project processes A key theme that runs through all of the papers, though not necessarily explicitly framed in the
same terminology, is that there exists a range of choices available in the design of systems to deliver projects. In
core OSCM, the options for process choice and resource configuration are treated as a one-time event when
processes are established. In the context of projects, due to task uncertainties and the project life cycle, this may be
an ongoing and emergent activity rather than a one-time event. Furthermore, the papers illustrate a significant
range of options for systems design, and there appear to be many options available for process analysts and
designers. In some of the papers, the very nature of processes is considered in detail, which informs our knowledge
of the process challenges in the context of projects. Moreover, it is demonstrated that there is not a single process,
but multiple processes unfolding at multiple levels of analysis. This requires design choices to be made within the
overall system of systems in major projects. These design choices extend beyond the traditional OM consideration
of technologies and processes. Project designers should explicitly consider at least five major subsystems in
projects: results, process, organization, resources/tools, and goals, plus the project’s context (Browning, 2017). The
consideration of supply chains, the participants in the supply chain, and their relationships are certainly also key
design choices for any supply chain, and also critical for the context of projects. Several of the papers presented in
this SI point out this “forgotten” dimension in PM which paves the way for a revitalization of the linkages between
creating supply chains that contribute to project success and project efficiencies. New forms of sourcing, such as
crowdsourcing, are certainly calling into question what tomorrow’s supply chains will look like. In that respect, we
envision on the one hand increasingly stronger alliances and partnerships among firms in the supply chain, yet
simultaneously a larger number of participants involved in the supply chain. Extending the scope of process
choices We observe that the insights presented in this issue emphasize the importance of extending the traditional
concept of process choices along two key dimensions, the scope and the duration. In principle, the choices made
should support project performance requirements, and should evolve in response to learning and change in the
project. In terms of the scope of process choice, process analysis – common in OSCM – can also facilitate a better
understanding of the range of processes available to the designer and their implications for performance. In
duration, too, there are considerable implications that extend beyond narrow notions of the project life cycle. For
instance, the design, construction, and hand-over of an airport terminal is complex because of the difficulties in
designing and implementing new processes for the operation of the final asset. Understanding how project
processes and operational processes are interrelated, how they conflict, and how they may unfold synergistically
(or otherwise) is a critical concern for both contemporary OSCM and PM scholars. The number of examples of
projects that fail to realize their intended benefits, because of failed transition to an operational state, is far too
great not to take this matter seriously. This would also require a better grasp of all subsystems 1281 Guest editorial
involved in a project (consistent with the arguments presented by Ramasesh and Browning, 2014) and how these
subsystems interrelate with operational processes of the delivered system. Attaining such outcomes, however,
requires thorough planning and flexibility throughout the life of the project. Linking projects with process Projects
frequently share many of the concerns of manufacturing and service operations, including coordinating the
activities of supply chains, managing schedules, sustaining quality improvement, and cost and inventory
management. In this respect, there is a strong overlap with several core domains in each of these disciplines and
much to learn from each other. The key idea with linking projects with processes is that all work (both project
work and repetitive operations) occurs in processes. The idea of a project process is certainly not new. Activity
networks have been a central construct in PM since the 1950s. Since the 1990s, software and aerospace industries
have focused on establishing “standard processes” ( for instance, for risk management) across many projects in a
multi-project organization (Dahlgren and Söderlund, 2010). Such initiatives are important for at least two reasons.
First, standard processes provide better frameworks for ensuring continuous improvements. Second, they offer
better ways to disseminate best practices and thereby save each new project from “reinventing the wheel.” But the
pressure of getting any one project done may sometimes compete with the longer-term benefits of standardizing
across projects and capturing best practices for use in future projects. For these reasons there is sometimes a need
for dedicated organizations, such as a PM Office, to ensure that projects stick to the rules of the game. In that
respect, it is important to address not only the design of project processes but also how they are maintained and
followed. The use of standard processes across projects also opens the question of how much standardization is
appropriate: too little causes projects to fail to benefit from prior learning and best practices, while too much puts a
straitjacket on projects and limits their flexibility (Browning, 2017). Linking supply chains with projects, and
repetitive operations with temporary organizations The supply chains for projects may be more quickly formed and
transient than for repetitive operations but, as is documented in this SI, projects frequently have continuing lives in
other forms, or later projects are not always that different from earlier ones (as argued by e.g. Prencipe and Tell,
2001). Linking operations with projects might thus better address the aspects of projects that are repetitive, and of
operations that are unique. Perhaps project scholars have tended to emphasize uniqueness too much, which has
hindered the transfer of best practice and lessons learned across projects because of the process associated with
“extraordinization” (Lindgren et al., 2014). Likewise, perhaps OSCM has tended to focus on the repetitive issues
and failed to recognize opportunities for learning and improvement within and across non-repetitive processes.
Clearly, we have much to learn about the reuse of project knowledge (including standard processes) across
projects. Again, starting with a standard process and tailoring it is much quicker than starting each project from
scratch. This includes using standard/general and predetermined “networks of commitments” among suppliers and
stakeholders that can be rapidly renegotiated and reconfigured with each new instance (as also argued by Browning
and Ramasesh, 2007). This is a key to enable agility in projects as well as in operations (Spear and Bowen, 1999).
Processes and complexities This SI offers evidence for the need to better understand different kinds of
complexities. Complexity is a central issue in management and organization studies in general. Indeed, it 1282
IJOPM 38,6 is a topic that has attracted scholars in both project studies and OSCM. However, research on projects
seems to be more concerned with generating explanations about the design and evolution of PM. As several of the
papers in this SI point out, this might be an area in which OSCM can benefit from studying not only projects as a
context but also theories generated within project studies (e.g. Ramasesh and Browning, 2014). Most notably, this
could lead to better addressing the way that different complexities interact to generate challenges for operations
managers as well as the requirements for operations managers to respond to ever-changing project complexities.
The papers in this SI provide ideas on how such bridging efforts might look. Perhaps complexity as an empirical
domain and theory might provide openings where these two fields may learn from each other (also argued by
Davies et al., 2017). There are also avenues that OSCM scholars may take to learn from project studies by
explicitly focusing on complexity issues more generally, given that, in project contexts, managers may create and
reshape complexity as part of their assignment, and in that respect work both to promote and reduce it. The current
attention to complexity of and in supply chains is a step in a good direction, and indicates the potential of a broader
consideration of complexities. The challenges of coordination in temporary organizations Coordination is essential
for both OSCM and project studies. There are numerous challenges associated with coordination in complex
projects and “temporary organizations,” especially when considering the range of complexities of contemporary
projects and the need for managers to respond to emergent complexities. In that respect, one might argue that
insights from both these fields are necessary to ensure that operations are coordinated satisfactorily, but also that
coordination continues to evolve and change. There might be certain elements of coordination that remain
unchanged throughout the life of a project, but many other elements, including the need for special kinds of
meetings needed to move the project forward, the level of detail in plans, and so on, will change. Changes may
themselves be on a regular “drumbeat” and so be regularized, as happens in Agile software projects during
“sprints.” More generally, the frequency of progress meetings might remain unchanged whatever else is happening
in the project. Again, OSCM and PM provide complementary insights to shape insightful coordination, particularly
where there is the problem of dynamics. The optimum organizational structure is evolving as key activities change,
and the integrative and coordination mechanisms will need to change as well. Responding to technology advances
and project scale A consequence of rapid technological evolution is that projects are growing bigger and faster than
our ability to learn how to manage them. Projects may need to be carried out at scale to take advantage of the
complementarities associated with technologies, yet they also need to stay small to remain flexible and quickly
responsive to new technologies and market volatility, such as changing client demands. There is a tension between
these two states, though again this is a matter for systems design and process choice. Beyond consideration of
project scale, the papers recognize the need to develop a better understanding of how both repetitive and project
operations will be affected by new technologies. Perhaps herein lies an opportunity for the two fields to work
closer together and generate a better common understanding and language to more fully reap the benefits of new
technologies. Moving forward For the development of OSCM, this SI represented an opportunity for theory
development, testing, and extension. We asked the question at the outset, “how well do OSCM theories (Pilkington
and Meredith, 2009; McCutcheon and Meredith, 1993) translate into the 1283 Guest editorial projects domain?”
On the basis of the eight papers presented here, we are clear that with suitable amendments, the translation is
useful; we are able to glean insights into the context that we would not have been able to otherwise. Moreover,
whilst these insights are a good step in a helpful direction, there is still plenty of scope left for scholars to work
with. The research tradition of “answering one question with ten” means that there are more avenues for research
after this SI than before. Whilst this SI demonstrates the application of OSCM approaches to projects, the
contribution of practices from major projects to OSCM is less well developed. For instance, behavioral
considerations in projects (e.g. optimism bias identified by Tversky and Kahneman, 1992) have been well studied,
but the implications for repetitive operations are less clear. This seems particularly interesting in contexts where
project investments are compared with operational improvements and continuous improvements. If over-optimism
is primarily an issue observed in project contexts, what then are the implications for investments in continuous
improvements? Will projects win at the expense of operations? Will projectification continue and operational
improvements lose? These are questions with rather fundamental implications on the projectification of society and
operations that certainly could be promoted by project scholars, but a topic that underscores the contribution of
operationally oriented scholars to provide nuance to this problem complex. This certainly also points out the
criticality of highlighting the value of projects, what value is created by projects, and how this value is evaluated
and realized (Browning, 2017). This also underscores the importance of looking beyond projects, of looking at the
linkages between projects and the importance of “connecting the dots.” There are numerous initiatives
implemented to improve the strategic value and strategy execution through projects. OSCM has a central role to
play here. We need to better understand project portfolio issues, we need to better understand the PM office and its
functions in creating and shaping better projects, and we need to better understand the coordination across projects
such as the role of program management, coordination mechanisms, platform management, commonality issues,
etc. that have all been addressed in the automotive industry (Cusumano and Nobeoka, 1998) but so far are still
ignored in a project context, where projects are treated as isolated islands. In that respect, “no project is an island”
(Engwall, 2003), and we need to understand how projects relate to their environments. The emergence of the
project-based organization is clearly an area where insights from PM and OSCM scholarship need to be explored
and exploited. Project-based organizations struggle with a number of challenges (Whitley, 2006; Browning, 2017)
which are associated with the problems of coordinating across a landscape of projects, of learning across projects,
and of mastering innovation. For all these challenges, insights from OSCM can certainly play a key role. For
instance, how can we identify early signs that things are not working properly? How can we better transfer learning
and insights across a spectrum of complex and autonomous projects? What methods and tools might be helpful in
guiding such processes? In the improvement of performance, whilst Deming (1982) exhorted managers to “fix the
system,” this has been limited to the consideration of “formal process” in project systems and has largely been
exhausted. Systemically, there are many greater opportunities for “design,” for instance, to include strategy,
structure, people and rewards (Galbraith, 1973). This generally also highlights the importance of bringing
“process” to the table of projects – of improving operations in projects. This is a topic that used to have a clear role,
but which receives surprisingly little attention in current project studies (Geraldi and Söderlund, 2018). Instead,
current project studies have become increasingly influenced by meta-theories, critical scholarship and
organizational theory (Davies et al., 2017; Geraldi and Söderlund, 2016), and with relatively little input from
OSCM. The result may well be that the premises that started in our combined fields – those of optimizing design,
structure and 1284 IJOPM 38,6 order – remain under-developed in projects? This might prove the importance of
revisiting the use of design structure matrix thinking (Eppinger and Browning, 2012), systems dynamics (Van
Oorschot et al., 2013), and planning approaches (Williams, 2017) in contemporary project environments. Similarly,
the challenges of performance measurement go beyond the typical qualitycost-delivery of repetitive operations, and
are amplified by time-dependence, perception, focus, uncertainty, risk, opportunity, and value in the project context
(Browning, 2014). Would such a broader conceptualisation assist in repetitive operations? With the recent
widespread adoption of “agile” principles and practices in IT projects, what are the interfacing operational
conditions necessary for this, and are these more flexible approaches useful more generally in information-
intensive operations? In that respect, one might argue that a stronger focus on linking projects with OSCM might
also add to the general issue of improving the strategic performance of projects, at the same time as improving their
tactical performance (Pinto and Slevin, 1987). This is a classic tension between efficiency and effectiveness with
wide ranging implications on new forms of organizing projects, new kinds of projects being implemented, as well
as new approaches to managing projects. This SI, as a forum, is a timely starting point for productive and impactful
work on OSCM in projects, opens up many useful avenues for inquiry, and itself contributes to our discipline. We
hope that these papers will influence the future of OSCM and project studies, and provide avenues in
demonstrating how the linkages between them can be explored and exploited in future scholarship and practice.
Harvey Maylor Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Jack R. Meredith School of Business,
Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA Jonas Söderlund BI Norwegian Business School,
Oslo, Norway, and Tyson Browning Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, USA References Aaltonen, K.
and Turkulainen, V. (2018), “Dynamics of organizational integration – the case of alliance project”, International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 6. Amoako-Gyampah, K., Meredith, J. and White-
Loyd, K. (2018), “Using a social capital lens to identify the mechanisms of top management commitment: a case
study of a technology project”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 1-17. Artto, K. and Turkulainen,
V. (2018), “It takes two to tango: product-organization interdependence in projects”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 6. Ballestin, F. and Leus, R. (2009), “Resource-constrained
project scheduling for timely project completion with stochastic activity durations”, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 459-474. Bendoly, E., Perry-Smith, J.E. and Bacharach, D.G. (2010), “The
perception of difficulty in project-work planning and its impat on resource sharing”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 385-397. Browning, T.R. (2003), “On customer value and improvement in
product development processes”, Systems Engineering, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 49-61. 1285 Guest editorial Browning,
T.R. (2014), “A quantitative framework for managing project value, risk, and opportunity”, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 583-598. Browning, T.R. (2017), ““Project design and management”,
in Starr, M.K. and Gupta, S.K. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Production and Operations Management,
chapter 11, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 214-233. Browning, T.R. and Ramasesh, R.V. (2007), “A survey of
activity network-based process models for managing product development projects”, Production & Operations
Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 217-240. Cooper, R.G. (2001), Winning at New Products, 3rd ed., Perseus,
Reading, MA. Cusumano, M.A. and Nobeoka, K. (1998), Thinking Beyond Lean: How Multi-Project Management
is Transforming Product Development at Toyota and Other Companies, Simon and Schuster. Dahlgren, J. and
Söderlund, J. (2010), “Modes and mechanisms of control in multi-project organisations: the R&D case”,
International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 1-22. Davies, A., Dodgson, M., Gann, D. and
MacAulay, S. (2017), “Five rules for managing large, complex projects”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 59
No. 1, pp. 73-78. Deming, W.E. (1982), Quality, Productivity, and Competitive Position, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Center for Advanced Engineering, MA. Engwall, M. (2003), “No project is an island: linking projects
to history and context”, Research Policy, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 789-808. Eppinger, S.D. and Browning, T.R. (2012),
Design Structure Matrix Methods and Applications, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Fernandes, A., Spring, M. and
Tarafdar, M. (2018), “Operational coordination in temporary organisations: examining the 2016 Olympics”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 6. Flyvbjerg, B. (Ed.) (2017), The
Oxford Handbook of Megaproject Management, Oxford University Press. Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N. and
Rothengatter, W. (2003), Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge. Galbraith, J.R. (1973), Designing Complex Organizations, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Geraldi, J.
and Söderlund, J. (2018), “Project studies: what it is, where it is going”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 55-70. Geraldi, J. and Söderlund, J. (2016), “Project studies and engaged
scholarship: directions towards contextualized and reflexive research on projects”, International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 767-797. Geraldi, J., Maylor, H. and Williams, T. (2011), “Now
let’s make it really complex (Complicated): a systematic review of the complexities of projects”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 31 No. 9, pp. 966-990. Harvey, J. and Aubry, M. (2018),
“Project and processes: a convenient but simplistic dichotomy”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 38 No. 6. Hodgson, D. and Cicmil, S. (Eds) (2006), Making Projects Critical, Palgrave
Macmillan. Holweg, M. and Maylor, H. (2018), “Lean leadership in major projects: from predict and provide to
predict and prevent”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 6. Klein, B.
and Meckling, W. (1958), “Application of operations research to development decisions”, Operations Research,
Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 352-363. Lindgren, M., Packendorff, J. and Sergi, V. (2014), “Thrilled by the discourse, suffering
through the experience: Emotions in project-based work”, Human Relations, Vol. 67 No. 11, pp. 1383-1412.
Lundin, R.A., Arvidsson, N., Brady, T., Ekstedt, E., Midler, C. and Sydow, J. (2015), Managing and Working in
Project Society, Cambridge University Press. 1286 IJOPM 38,6 McCutcheon, D. and Meredith, J. (1993),
“Conducting case research in operations management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp.
239-256. Masi, D., Godsell, J., Karatzas, A. and Brady, T. (2018), “Using project demand profiling to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of infrastructure projects”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 38 No. 6. Maylor, H. (2001), “Beyond the Gantt chart: project management moving on”,
European Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 92-100. Maylor, H. and Turner, N. (2017), “Understand, reduce,
respond: project complexity management theory and practice”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 1076-1093. Midler, C. (1995), “Projectification of the firm: the Renault case”,
Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 363-375. Morgan, M., Malek, W.A. and Levitt, R.E.
(2008), Executing Your Strategy, Harvard Business School Press. Pilkington, A. and Meredith, J. (2009), “The
evolution of the intellectual structure of operations management – 1980-2006: a citation/co-citation analysis”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 185-202. Pinto, J.K. and Slevin, D.P. (1987), “Critical
factors in successful project implementation”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp.
22-27. PMI (2017), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 6th ed., Project Management
Institute, Newtown Square, PA. Prencipe, A. and Tell, F. (2001), “Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes
of knowledge codification in project-based firms”, Research Policy, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 1373-1394. Ramasesh, R.V.
and Browning, T.R. (2014), “A conceptual framework for tackling knowable unknown unknowns in project
management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 190-204. Roth, G.L. and Senge, P.M. (1996),
“From theory to practice: research territory, process and structure at an organisational learning centre”, Journal of
Organisational Change Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 92-106. Schoper, Y.G., Wald, A., Ingason, H.T. and
Fridgeirsson, T.V. (2018), “Projectification in Western economies: a comparative study of Germany, Norway and
Iceland”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 71-82. Söderlund, J. (2011), “Pluralism
in project management: navigating the crossroads of specialization and fragmentation”, International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 153-176. Söderlund, J. and Maylor, H. (2012), “Project management
scholarship: relevance, impact and five integrative challenges for business and management schools”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 686-696. Söderlund, J., Sankaran, S. and Biesenthal, C. (2017),
“The past and present of megaprojects”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 5-16. Spear, S. and
Bowen, H.K. (1999), “Decoding the DNA of the Toyota production system”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77
No. 5, pp. 97-106. Turner, N., Aitken, J. and Bozarth, C. (2018), “Towards an understanding of supply chain
complexity responses: perspectives from projects”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 38 No. 6. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1992), “Advances in prospect theory: cumulative
representation of uncertainty”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 297-323. Van Oorschot, K.E.,
Akkermans, H., Sengupta, K. and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2013), “Anatomy of a decision trap in complex new
product development projects”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 285-307. Walker, H.,
Chicksand, D., Radnor, Z. and Watson, G. (2015), “Theoretical perspectives in operations management: an
analysis of the literature”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp.
1182-1206. 1287 Guest editorial Whitley, R. (2006), “Project-based firms: new organizational form or variations
on a theme?”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 77-99. Williams, T. (2017), “The nature of risk
in complex projects”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 55-66. Wilson, K., Bhakoo, V. and Samson,
D. (2018), “Crowdsourcing for project management and mass customization”, International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 6. Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P. and Cicmil, S. (2006), “Directions
for future research in project management: the main findings of a UK government-funded research network”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 638-649. Zika-Viktorsson, A., Sundström, P. and
Engwall, M. (2006), “Project overload: an exploratory study of work and management in multi-project settings”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 385-394. 1288 IJOPM 38,6
Summary
The section above highlighted a few of the most important findings in each of the papers. In this section we look
across the papers to see their collective contribution to our understanding of the linkages between projects and
OSCM. Some key themes emerge that are of relevance to both project studies and OSCM. We observe that the
insights presented in this issue emphasize the importance of extending the traditional concept of process choices
along two key dimensions, the scope and the duration. In principle, the choices made should support project
performance requirements, and should evolve in response to learning and change in the project. In terms of the
scope of process choice, process analysis – common in OSCM – can also facilitate a better understanding of the
range of processes available to the designer and their implications for performance. In duration, too, there are
considerable implications that extend beyond narrow notions of the project life cycle. For instance, the design,
construction, and hand-over of an airport terminal is complex because of the difficulties in designing and
implementing new processes for the operation of the final asset. Understanding how project processes and
operational processes are interrelated, how they conflict, and how they may unfold synergistically (or otherwise) is
a critical concern for both contemporary OSCM and PM scholars