This a icle is dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he
C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e nacional License
ins i u ua
enp esa
Ins i u o de Economía Aplicada a la Emp esa
Managemen Le e s / Cuade nos de Ges ión
jou nal homepage: h p://www.ehu.eus/cuade nosdeges ion/ e is a/es/
ISSN: 1131-6837 / e-ISSN: 1988-2157
Managemen Le e s
Cuade nos de Ges ión
Enp esa Ins i u ua, UPV/EHU
Conocimien o en Ges ión/Managemen Knowledge
Volume 22 / Numbe 2 (2022) • ISSN: 1131-6837 / e-ISSN: 1988-2157
h p://www.ehu.eus/cuade nosdeges ion/ e is a/es/
T ends and challenges in ope a ions s a egy esea ch: Findings om a sys ema ic
li e a u e e iew
Tendencias y e os de in es igación en es a egia de ope aciones: hallazgos de una e isión sis emá ica
de la li e a u a
Jo ge A. Vi a es*, Lucía A ella
a
, William Sa ache
b
a Depa amen o de Adminis ación de Emp esas, Uni e sidad de O iedo. A da. del C is o s/n, 33006. O iedo, España–la ella@unio i.es–h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0003-
2598-7318
b Uni e sidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Manizales, Facul ad de Ingenie ía y A qui ec u a, Depa amen o de Ingenie ía Indus ial. C a. 27 # 64-60, Campus Palog ande,
170004. Manizales, Colombia–wasa [email protected]–h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0003-3543-4151
* Co esponding au ho : Depa amen o de Ingenie ía Indus ial, Uni e sidad Nacional Abie a y a Dis ancia. Diagonal 25F - C a 23, 661001. Dosqueb adas, Colom-
bia–jo ge. i a [email protected]–h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-4818-5249
ARTICLE INFO
Recei ed 28 June 2021,
Accep ed 05 Janua y 2022
A ailable online 4 Ma ch 2022
DOI: 10.5295/cdg.211543ja
JEL: L21, M11
ABSTRACT
Ope a ions s a egy is a ma u e ield and equi es no el insigh s o u he esea ch and p ac i ione s in companies.
To ill his gap, 280 a icles we e analyzed, by way o a sys ema ic li e a u e e iew, conside ing wo app oaches: op-
ic pe spec i es (con en , p ocess, and compe i i e p io i ies), and esea ch pa adigms (analysis pe spec i e, gene al
me hodology, esea ch design, esea ch ypology, and al e na i e pa adigms). Eigh challenges we e iden i ied and
discussed o make no el con ibu ions o cu ing-edge knowledge. Among o he hings, i was ound ha people’s pe -
cep ions o objec eali y p e ail as he dominan pa adigm, ega ding he sou ce and ype o in o ma ion used. In his
sense, he li e a u e sugges s addi ional in es iga ion h ough he di ec obse a ion o objec eali y and expe imen al
s udies, in which he ac ion esea ch app oach could play an impo an ole as an al e na i e pa adigm. Addi ionally,
conside ing Indus y 4.0 ad ances, new esea ch oppo uni ies ha e eme ged which pe mi a i icial econs uc ion o
objec eali y o suppo decision-making. The main con ibu ion o his s udy is o discuss eigh challenges by which
o imp o e esea ch ele ance and make bo h academic and p ac ical con ibu ions. Mo eo e , se e al use ul da a o
esea che s a e p o ided, including s a is ics ega ding esponse a es in su ey esea ch (dominan pa adigm). Finally,
hese indings can be used o pe o m u he esea ch wi h addi ional unc ional s a egies in he companies.
Keywo ds: Ope a ions S a egy, Manu ac u ing S a egy, Resea ch Pa adigms, Sys ema ic Li e a u e Re iew, Ac-
ion Resea ch.
Managemen Le e s / Cuade nos de Ges ión 22/2 (2022) 81-96
82 Jo ge A. Vi a es, Lucía A ella, William Sa ache
RESUMEN
La es a egia de ope aciones es un campo de es udio madu o, pe o equie e pe spec i as no edosas pa a la in es i-
gación u u a y pa a los p o esionales en las emp esas. Pa a llena es e acío, se analiza on 280 a ículos median e
una e isión sis emá ica de la li e a u a, bajo dos en oques: ópicos (con enido, p oceso, p io idades compe i i as)
y pa adigmas de in es igación (pe spec i as, me odología, diseños, ipologías y pa adigmas al e na i os de la in-
es igación). Se iden i ica on y discu ie on ocho e os pa a hace con ibuciones no edosas en las on e as del
conocimien o. En e o as cues iones, espec o a la uen e y ipo de in o mación u ilizada, se encon ó que el pa a-
digma dominan e de in es igación se elaciona con las pe cepciones de la gen e sob e la ealidad obje o de es udio.
En es e sen ido, la li e a u a sugie e inc emen a la in es igación a a és de la obse ación di ec a de la ealidad
y los es udios expe imen ales, en lo cual la in es igación acción puede juga un ol impo an e como pa adigma
al e na i o. Adicionalmen e, conside ando los a ances de la Indus ia 4.0, han eme gido nue as opo unidades
de in es igación que pe mi en la econs ucción a i icial de la ealidad pa a apoya la oma de decisiones. La
p incipal con ibución de es e es udio es la discusión de ocho e os pa a mejo a la ele ancia de la in es igación
y hace con ibuciones an o académicas como p ác icas. Además, se p opo cionan a ios da os ú iles pa a los
in es igado es como la asa de espues a en la in es igación con encues as (pa adigma dominan e), en e o os.
Finalmen e, los hallazgos pueden se u ilizados pa a in es iga o as es a egias uncionales pa a las emp esas.
Palab as cla e: Es a egia de Ope aciones, Es a egia de Manu ac u a, Pa adigmas de In es igación, Re isión Sis-
emá ica de la Li e a u a, In es igación Acción.
Managemen Le e s / Cuade nos de Ges ión 22/2 (2022) 81-96
T ends and challenges in ope a ions s a egy esea ch: Findings om a sys ema ic li e a u e e iew 83
1. INTRODUCTION
Co po a e and compe i i e s a egies a e a s a ing poin o
unc ional s a egy de elopmen in a eas such as inances, ma -
ke ing, ope a ions, and pu chasing, among o he s. Ope a ions
S a egy (OS) is a unc ional s a egy “…conce ned wi h how
he compe i i e en i onmen is changing and wha he ope -
a ion has o do in o de o mee cu en and u u e challenges
(Slack and Lewis 2011, p.7)”. OS is a long- e m plan, in which
ac ions o be pe o med a e es ablished, so as o achie e he
compe i i e ad an ages de i ed om a manu ac u ing/ope -
a ions sys em (A ana-Sola es e al. 2019). OS has d awn he
a en ion o in es iga o s and p ac i ione s in coun ies he
wo ld o e , which is e lec ed in he high numbe o publica-
ions p esen in specialized jou nals and books. Owing o his
g ow h, OS s udy cons i u es a body o knowledge which me -
i s pe manen moni o ing.
As shown in Table1, ou OS li e a u e e iews ha e been
published in he pas . These add essed hemes ela ed o OS,
con en /p ocess, and ce ain me hodological issues. The analysis
o he p esen s udy e ealed ha wo ele an opics equi e in-
dep h OS e iew because hey we e no encompassed in p e i-
ous s udies: a) ade-o and sand cone hemes, and b) esea ch
pa adigms. Fu he mo e, i is necessa y o analyze esea ch pub-
lished in he pas se e al yea s because Cha ha and Bu (2015)
and Cha ha e al.’s (2015) s udies included a icles published in
and p io o 2010 exclusi ely, and only conside ed “manu ac u -
ing s a egy” key in hei main s a egy sea ch (he ein, howe e ,
he e olu ion om manu ac u ing s a egy o ope a ions s a e-
gy is discussed, and bo h e ms we e used in he s a egy sea ch).
Table 1
P e ious OS li e a u e e iew s udies
Analysis c i e ia
Au ho s
Dangayach and
Deshmukh (2001)Boye e al. (2005)Cha ha and Bu (2015)Cha ha e al.
(2015)This s udy
Sou ce o he sea ch
31 jou nals and
in e na ional
con e ences
Focused on one
jou nal (POM)
Business Sou ce P emie .
Re e ences in ou a icles
Business Sou ce
P emie
Scopus and T ee
o Science (ToS)
“Manu ac u ing s a egy” e m * * * * *
“Ope a ions s a egy” e m * * *
Numbe o a icles analyzed 260 31 506 512 280
Annual a e o a icles analyzed 8.1 2.4 11.2 11.4 16.5
Numbe o jou nals encompassed
21 jou nals and
10 in e na ional
con e ences
1 34 34 105
Coun s:
By opic
Con en * * * *
P ocess * * * *
Con en and p ocess * * *
T ade-o and sand cone models *
By esea ch pa adigm *
Gene al me hodological app oach(1) * * * * *
Speci ic esea ch design(2) * *
Speci ic me hod o echnique * *
By esea ch ypology(4) *
Resea ch al e na i es pa adigms(3) *
No es: (1) Quali a i e, quan i a i e, o mixed. (2) No expe imen al, expe imen al. (3) Based on Me edi h e al. (1989) and C aighead and Me edi h’s
(2008): na u al/a i icial and a ional/exis en ial dimensions. (4) Two ypologies: classical, and Phillips and Pugh’s (2010) imp o ed ypology.
*Indica es elemen p esence.
Sou ce: Au ho elabo a ion based on he ci ed e e ences.
Managemen Le e s / Cuade nos de Ges ión 22/2 (2022) 81-96
84 Jo ge A. Vi a es, Lucía A ella, William Sa ache
The p esen a icle expounds upon he esul s o a sys em-
a ic li e a u e e iew, which a emp s o close he abo e-men-
ioned gaps. The unde pinning o he sea ch s a egy was
based on que ies made in he Scopus da abase, and he use
o a ool called T ee o Science (ToS). A o al o 280 a icles
we e analyzed. As a main con ibu ion, eigh challenges we e
iden i ied and discussed o u he esea ch, in o de o make
no el con ibu ions o cu ing-edge knowledge. Fo example,
on analysis o esea ch pa adigms, as p oposed by Me edi h
e al. (1989), i was ound ha he cu en dominan OS pa -
adigm is “People’s pe cep ions o objec eali y,” as well as he
“Logical posi i is /empi icis ” pa adigm. Findings sugges in-
c easing he p esence o al e na i e esea ch pa adigms (bu
no he eplacemen o he cu en dominan pa adigm), based
on “di ec obse a ion o objec eali y,” and “a i icial econ-
s uc ions o eali y”.
The emainde o he a icle is s uc u ed as ollows: in Sec-
ion2, a concep ualiza ion o he OS ield, as well as he co e-
sponding pa adigms, a e p esen ed o lay a heo e ical ounda-
ion o he e iew. The in es iga ion’s me hodology is explica ed
in Sec ion3. In Sec ion4, he main esul s iden i ied a e exhib-
i ed. Finally, discussion and conclusions a e p esen ed in sec-
ions5 and 6, espec i ely.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1. F om Manu ac u ing S a egy (MS) o Ope a ions S a egy (OS)
A numbe o au ho s ecognize ha MS eme ged as a ield
o s udy ollowing he seminal con ibu ions o Wickham
Skinne (1966, 1969). Subsequen ly, u he ele an in es i-
ga ions, published by Skinne (1974), Hayes and Schmenne
(1978), Wheelw igh (1978), Schmenne (1982), Hayes and
Wheelw igh (1984), and Wheelw igh (1984), among o he s,
aided in he consolida ion o he MS’ heo e ical ounda ions.
Despi e i s s a us as a ma u e ield, Kulka ni e al. (2019) as-
sessed he pa adox in he di e ence be ween academic and
indus y de ini ions, using ex mining, and ound some mis-
alignmen .
The e m “manu ac u ing s a egy” was o iginally used, due
o i s link wi h companies ha p oduced goods. Fo Wheel-
w igh “…a manu ac u ing s a egy consis s o a sequence o
decisions ha will enable a business uni o achie e i s desi ed
compe i i e ad an age (Wheelw igh 1984, p.85)”. Howe e , as
he se ice sec o became s onge , his concep e ol ed, un il
i became “Ope a ions S a egy”. This concep en ails an ac ion
ield in he p oduc ion o goods ( angible) and se ices (in an-
gible), in all ypes o o ganiza ions (se ice and manu ac u ing
companies, la ge and small, o - and no - o -p o i o ganiza-
ions). Acco ding o Slack and Lewis (2011, p.7) “Ope a ions
s a egy is conce ned less wi h indi idual p ocesses and mo e
wi h he o al ans o ma ion p ocess ha is he whole business”
and his implies simila i ies a a s a egic le el in di e en ypes
o companies.
Two componen s should be add essed in OS s udy: con en
and p ocess (Leong e al. 1990). OS con en de ines i s pe o -
mance objec i es, as well as he o m in which ope a ions sys em
s a egic decision a eas a e o be adjus ed (D ohome e ski e al.
2014). The wo undamen al elemen s o OS con en s udy a e:
compe i i e p io i ies and s a egic decision a eas. Compe i i e
p io i ies e e o an ope a ions sys em’s pe o mance objec i es.
In he li e a u e, he mos common compe i i e p io i ies a e:
cos , quali y, lexibili y, inno a i eness (p oduc ), deli e y, se -
ice, and en i onmen al p o ec ion (da Sil ei a and Sousa 2010;
Vi a es e al. 2019). In o de o manage compe i i e p io i ies,
he e a e wo dominan models o be analyzed: he ade-o
(Skinne 1969, 1974), and he sand cone (Fe dows and De Meye
1990).
The ade-o model p oposes he need o emphasize one o
ew compe i i e p io i ies o e o he s, as i is di icul o achie e
s ong pe o mance in hem all (Da Sil ei a and Slack 2001).
The sand cone model p oposes a capabili y accumula ion s a -
egy, which, om a con inuous imp o emen app oach, pe mi s
he achie emen o s ong pe o mance in all compe i i e p i-
o i ies, main aining he quali y→deli e y→ lexibili y→cos
sequence. S a egic decision a eas ep esen subsys ems which
mus be modi ied in o de o de elop dis inc i e capaci ies.
These lead o compliance wi h pe o mance objec i es (com-
pe i i e p io i ies). S a egic decision a eas in he ope a ions
sys em include human esou ces, p oduc ion planning and
con ol, sou cing, p ocess echnology, acili ies, and p oduc s
(Mil enbu g 2008).
In he OS p ocess, he way in which OS is o mula ed and
implemen ed is analyzed. A minimum o wo componen s mus
be conside ed: 1) he pa e n o di ec decision-making, and
2) he model, me hodology, o p ocedu e o OS o mula ion
and implemen a ion. The e a e h ee main app oaches in he
li e a u e o decision-making di ec ions: op-down, bo om-up,
and middle-ou (Kim e al. 2014). In he OS o mula ion p ocess,
social, poli ical, cul u al, and lea ning alues all come in o play.
Also, s akeholde s’ alues, needs, and in e es s mus be consid-
e ed, which makes his a highly complex p ocess. I s complex-
i y indica es he need o he adop ion o a model (Mil enbu g
2008), me hodology (Hill 2000), o p ocedu e (Dangayach and
Deshmukh 2001) adequa e o OS design and de elopmen . Fu -
he mo e, some a iables may be simul aneously associa ed wi h
OS con en and p ocess, as was ound by Vi a es e al. (2019,
p.340) espec o Manu ac u ing’s S a egic Role (MSR): “...is a
missing link a iable in he di e se OS amewo ks s udied… a
enewed idea o OS is p oposed in his s udy, which adds MSR
as a undamen al elemen o he adi ional con en and p o-
cess-based iew”.
2.2. Resea ch pa adigms
To begin, he concep o OS pa adigms will be discussed,
so as o de ine hei use wi hin he p esen documen . The
concep o pa adigms is qui e b oad and has long me i ed dis-
cussion. Though he e m was used in ancien G eek, Thom-
as Khun encou aged i in his celeb a ed essay en i led “The
s uc u e o scien i ic e olu ions” and p o ided se e al de i-
ni ions. Based on Co be a’s (2003) con ibu ion, a pa adigm
may be unde s ood as a heo e ical pe spec i e which has been
accep ed by he scien i ic communi y, is ounded on p e ious
knowledge om a gi en discipline, di ec s esea ch h ough
Managemen Le e s / Cuade nos de Ges ión 22/2 (2022) 81-96
T ends and challenges in ope a ions s a egy esea ch: Findings om a sys ema ic li e a u e e iew 85
he speci ica ion o wha o s udy, o mula es hypo heses
abou a phenomenon, and selec s he mos sui able esea ch
echniques. Thus, pa adigms a e well-es ablished belie s abou
heo ies, me hods, o app oaches, which a e phenomena o
epis emological ways o s udy a gi en phenomenon and ac-
qui e knowledge.
The e a e se e al iews om which o analyze pa adigms
in he OS ield. Fo example, Voss (1995) e iewed he his o y
o manu ac u ing s a egy, and discussed heo e ical pa adigms
which included key success ac o s, o de winne s, capabili-
ies, p ocess choices, con ingen app oaches, in as uc u e ap-
p oaches, and wo ld class manu ac u ing, among o he s. F om
he epis emological poin o iew, Wes b ook (1995) ad oca ed
ha ac ion esea ch was a new pa adigm o esea ch in p oduc-
ion and ope a ions managemen , and ha i cons i u ed mo e
han a single echnique o me hod. In his s udy, special a en-
ion was paid o he amewo k o pa adigm comp ehension, as
p oposed by Me edi h e al. (1989), in an a icle en i led “Al e -
na i e Resea ch Pa adigms in Ope a ions”.
Me edi h e al. (1989) de eloped a amewo k o pa adigms
o esea ch me hods wi h wo dimensions: he a ional/exis en-
ial and he na u al/a i icial. The i s “ ela es o he epis emo-
logical s uc u e o he esea ch p ocess i sel (Me edi h e al.
1989, p.305)” and e e s o h ee ways ha a esea che may
obse e eali y: di ec obse a ion o objec eali y, people’s pe -
cep ions o objec eali y, and a i icial econs uc ion o objec
eali y. The second dimension “…conce ns he sou ce and kind
o in o ma ion used in he esea ch (p.307)” and e e s o ou
epis emological ways o analyze obse a ions: om he axio-
ma ic, logical posi i is /empi icis , in e p e a i e, and c i ical
heo y.
Despi e i s age, Me edi h e al.’s (1989) amewo k emains
ele an o he no el s udy o pa adigms. The a o emen ioned
au ho s used hei amewo k o e iew he ope a ions manage-
men s a e o he a , by employing a sample o a icles published
in a span o jus wo yea s (1977 and 1987), when Ope a ions
S a egy (OS) was jus gaining ac ion as a new ield o s udy.
They obse ed ha Ope a ions Managemen (OM) in es iga ion
had concen a ed on he “axioma ic” ca ego y o he a ional/ex-
is en ial dimension, and he “a i icial cons uc ion o eali y”
in he na u al/a i icial dimensions. The ea e , C aighead and
Me edi h (2008) used he same amewo k o analyze a sample o
OM a icles om 1995 and 2003 (sepa a ely). They ound li le
mo emen in people’s pe cep ions o he objec eali y ca ego y
in he na u al/a i icial dimensions, and o he “logical posi i -
is /empi icis ” ca ego y in he a ional/exis en ial dimensions.
Howe e , hese s udies add essed he OM ield, and no s udies
we e ound o ha e used his amewo k o in-dep h pa adigm
e iews in he OS ield.
3. METHODOLOGY
P inciples o he pe o mance o a sys ema ic li e a u e e-
iew we e applied (Ba els 2013; G anillo and González 2021;
O iz e al. 2021). Figu e 1 shows he gene al me hodology.
Fi s , he a ge o he e iew was delimi ed o answe wo main
ques ions: 1)Wha a e he gene al ea u es o he a icles pub-
lished on OS con en and p ocess ( hemes, me hodologies, pa -
adigms)? 2)Wha a e he main a eas in which u he esea ch
may be conduc ed?
Delimi a ge o he
e iew
C ea e and e ine a
sea ch s a egy
Read and classi y he
a icles ound
Is he sea ch
s a egy sui able?
Yes
No Analyze and p esen he
esul s
Apply he sea ch
s a egy
Figu e 1
Gene al me hodology used in he sys ema ic li e a u e e iew
Sou ce: Au ho elabo a ion.
Second, a sea ch s a egy was c ea ed and e ined in an i -
e a i e p ocess, in acco dance wi h wo c i e ia (Ba els 2013):
1) ele ance o he a icles ound, and 2)balance be ween quan-
i y (sensi i i y) and speci ici y. Fo his pu pose, 22 ele an
e e ences we e used. The e inemen p ocess was hal ed only
while he sea ch s a egy iden i ied hese e e ences. Thi d, he
inal sea ch s a egy was applied. The s a egy had wo main
componen s: on he one hand, a sea ch equa ion was c ea ed
(Eq. 1) and applied in he Scopus da abase. This exp ession
may be conside ed an equa ion which esul s in a C se wi h
n e e ences. These depend on sou ce (da abase and sea ch
ields), he keywo ds, he ime, as well as he documen ype
(C={ 1, 2, ..., n}= (sou ce, keywo ds, ime, documen ype)).
The equa ion was applied using he TITLE-ABS-KEY ield ( i-
le, abs ac and keywo ds), beginning wi h he yea 2001, and
was limi ed by documen ype (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE)), a -
icle (a ), o e iew ( e). Boolean ope a o s (OR, AND) we e
used o join he keywo ds.
(sou ce, keywo ds, ime, documen ype)=TITLE-
ABS-KEY (“manu ac u ing s a egy” OR “ope a ions
s a egy”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“compe i i e
p io i ies” OR “decision a eas” OR “decision
ca ego ies” OR le e s OR axonomy OR ( ade-
o ) OR “sand cone” OR ( o mula ion p ocess*)
OR (implemen a ion p ocess*) OR ( o maliza ion
p ocess*) OR ( o ma ion p ocess*) OR (choice*
p ocess*) OR (choice* implemen a ion) OR (s a egic
choice*) OR “s age model” ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY
(su ey OR “case s udy*” OR (li e a u e e iew) OR
amewo k OR in e iew* OR “concep ual model”
OR “concep ual discussion” OR “ac ion esea ch” OR
empi ical) AND PUBYEAR ≥ 2001 AND (LIMIT-
TO (DOCTYPE, “a ”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,
“ e”)).
(1)
Managemen Le e s / Cuade nos de Ges ión 22/2 (2022) 81-96
86 Jo ge A. Vi a es, Lucía A ella, William Sa ache
On he o he hand, he T ee o Science (ToS)1 me hodol-
ogy, p oposed by Robledo e al. (2014), was used in o de o
minimize bias. ToS is based on g aph heo y and de ec s ele-
an e e ences, while minimizing he bias which esul s om
sea ches pe o med in speci ic da abases, and has been applied
in ecen esea ch (Du án e al. 2021; Robledo e al. 2021).
Subsequen ly, he sea ch s a egy was applied, and h ee c i e-
ia o inclusion/exclusion we e es ablished: a) he inclusion o
a icles ela ed o OS managemen and s a egic decisions, and
exclusion o hose ela ed o echnical issues in manu ac u ing
o ope a ions (e.g., physical ans o ma ion), b) he inclusion
o a icles, i he ull ex e sion was accessible o au ho s,
c) he exclusion o duplica es. In o de o classi y he selec -
ed e e ences, a p o ocol e iew was c ea ed, as sugges ed by
Ki chenham (2004).
The a icles we e ead and classi ied by ypology ( heo e i-
cal o e iden ia y). Theo e ical a icles we e classi ied in o one
o h ee ca ego ies: sys ema ic e iews, concep ual a icles o
amewo ks, and essays o e lec ions. E iden ia y a icles we e
classi ied by opic (OS con en and p ocess, ade-o and sand
cone models), and by esea ch pa adigm (see Table2). In o de
o ensu e eliabili y and a ce ain le el o conco dance among
au ho s, an a icle classi ica ion audi was pe o med. Thus,
doub s we e discussed, a consensus was eached, and he e iew
p o ocol was imp o ed. Resul s om he analyses a e p esen ed
below.
Table 2
Resea ch pa adigms o in es iga ion pe o mance
(e iden ia y a icles)
Ca ego y Subca ego ies
Analysis pe spec i e Quan i a i e, quali a i e, o mixed
Resea ch design No expe imen al (da a: c oss-sec ional,
longi udinal, panel, quali a i e), o expe imen al
Gene al
me hodology
Su ey/in e iew (sample), case s udies,
o he s (ac ion esea ch, a i icial e idence), o
mul iple
Resea ch ypology 1 His o ical, desc ip i e, co ela ional,
explana o y, explo a o y, o quali a i e
Resea ch ypology 2
Explo a o y, p oblem-sol ing, es ing-ou , o
heo y-building. The i s h ee we e p oposed
by Phillips and Pugh (2010), and heo y
building was ex ac ed om he li e a u e
(Eisenha d and G aebne 2007; Wacke 1998)
o complemen he i s p oposal.
Resea ch me hod
pa adigms,
based on hose
o Me edi h
e al. (1989) and
C aighead and
Me edi h (2008)
1)Na u al/a i icial dimension: di ec
obse a ion o objec eali y, people’s
pe cep ions o objec eali y, o a i icial
econs uc ion o objec eali y.
2)Ra ional/exis en ial dimension: axioma ic,
logical posi i is /empi icis , in e p e a i e, o
mixed.
Sou ce: Au ho elabo a ion.
1 h ps:// os.co eo science.com/
4. RESULTS
A o al o 319unduplica ed e e ences we e de ec ed. O
hese, 39 we e disca ded, as hey did no comply wi h he in-
clusion c i e ia. This le 280 a icles o he inal analysis,
14.3% o which we e heo e ical (40), and he o he 85.7% o
which co esponded o 240a icles which inco po a ed e i-
dence (whe he empi ical o a i icial). Said 280a icles had
been published in 105di e en jou nals (be ween 2001 and
2017). Jus eigh o hese jou nals had published 51% o said
con ibu ions. In a supplemen a y ile, de ailed in o ma ion
abou he 280 a icles analyzed is p o ided. The esul s e-
ealed ha an a e age o 16.5 OS a icles a e published pe
yea (DS=1.234).
4.1. Resul s o heo e ical con ibu ions
Table 3 shows desc ip i e s a is ics abou he heo e ical
con ibu ions. A icles which concep ualized a opic and/o
p oposed amewo ks we e dominan . Two essays (o e lec-
ions) appea ed: one in ecogni ion o Bob Hayes’ con ibu-
ions (Fishe 2007), and ano he w i en by Skinne (2007),
called “Manu ac u ing s a egy: The s o y o i s e olu ion”.
Table 3
Theo e ical a icles
Ca ego ies
Resul s
To al % Row
Quan i a i e Quali a i e
Sys ema ic e iew 9 2 11 27.5
Concep ualiza ions o
amewo ks 27 27 67.5
Essays o e lec ions 2 2 5.0
To al 9 31 40 100
% Column 22.5 77.5 100
Sou ce: Au ho elabo a ion.
4.2. E iden ia y a icles (empi ical o a i icial e idence)
A o al o 240 a icles de ec ed p o ided empi ical o a i i-
cial e idence ega ding hei espec i e objec s o s udy. Below,
he esul s a e p esen ed, o ganized by opic add essed and e-
sea ch pa adigm.
A. Resul s by opic add essed
F om a hema ic poin o iew, OS in es iga ion has ocused
on con en (74%), while jus 6% has been o ien ed owa d he
s udy o p ocess. The emaining 20% has simul aneously s udied
p ocess and con en a iables. In Figu e 2, he numbe o in es i-
ga ions add essing p ocess, con en , o bo h opics, is p esen ed.
Fo hose s udies ocused on p ocess, in addi ion o being he
sca ces ype, hey we e also he mos in e mi en , gi en ha
no a single con ibu ion was egis e ed in se en o he 17yea s
analyzed.
Managemen Le e s / Cuade nos de Ges ión 22/2 (2022) 81-96
T ends and challenges in ope a ions s a egy esea ch: Findings om a sys ema ic li e a u e e iew 87
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Coun
Yea
Con en
Con en & p ocess
P ocess
Figu e 2
Longi udinal esul s by OS opic
Sou ce: Au ho elabo a ion.
Based on 63a icles including p ocess a iables, i was no ed
ha ce ain con ibu ions, which s udied models, me hodologies,
o p ocedu es ha suppo ed decision making, we e no able (67%).
Howe e , i was es ablished ha he majo i y o said in es iga ions
add essed speci ic OS decisions, and did no conside ma e s e-
ga ding i s gene al con igu a ion, o mula ion, o implemen a ion.
Topics, such as pa e n analysis in decision-making and di e se op-
ics in ol ed in he p ocess, ha e ecei ed scan a en ion in he li e -
a u e: op down (16%), bo om up (16%), and mixed (6%).
83%
83%
80%
79%
37%
27%
14%
29%
0% 20%40%60%80%100%
Cos
Quali y
Deli e y
Flexibili y
Inno a i eness
Se ice
En i onmen al p o ec ion
O he s n=150
3a. Compe i i e p io i ies
T ade-o
9%
Sand cone
7%
Nei he
84%
3b. Models es ed
Figu e 3
Compe i i e p io i ies and hei analy ical pa adigms
Sou ce: Au ho elabo a ion.
Con ibu ions ha ha e add essed OS con en a iables
(n=225) ha e concen a ed p incipally on he s udy o com-
pe i i e p io i ies (67%), and in lesse p opo ions, on one o
se e al s a egic decision a eas (52%). In Figu e3 a summa y o
a icles which add ess compe i i e p io i ies a e p esen ed. No e
ha cos , quali y, lexibili y, and deli e y a e he mos ecu en
(Figu e3a). Fu he mo e, i was ound ha 9% o he a icles
empi ically es ed he ade-o model, and 7% es ed he sand
cone model (Figu e3b).
B. Resea ch pa adigm esul s
The esul s p esen ed in Table4 indica e ha he majo i y
o in es iga ions we e based on su eys/in e iews applied in
companies, wi h employees o expe s (55%). In in es iga ions
ha used he su eys applied in companies (n=117), he a -
e age esponse a e was 33.7% (minimum: 5.6%, maximum:
86.1%) and he qua ile dis ibu ion is as ollows: qua ile 1
(17.9%), qua ile2 (26.4%), qua ile3 (45.3%), and qua ile4
(86.1%). This esul may be use ul o u u e s udies based on
su ey esea ch. Case s udies ep esen ed 29.6% o he o al,
and o he ypes o in es iga ion (ac ion esea ch, and a i icial
e idence, among o he s), oge he wi h he use o mul iple ap-
p oaches, ep esen ed 7.5% and 7.9%, espec i ely. F om he
pe spec i e o analysis, s udies wi h quan i a i e app oaches
ep esen ed 56.7% o he in es iga ions, ollowed by quali a-
i e app oaches, which cons i u ed 22.9%. Finally, 20.4% o he
in es iga ions used mixed pe spec i es. Following he longi u-
dinal e alua ion o hese a iables, no pa e ns o endencies
we e ound.
In ega d o esea ch design, he majo i y o he s udies
we e no expe imen al (98%). In his ca ego y (see Table5), in-
es iga ions wi h ans e sal da a we e p e alen . The e we e
ew longi udinal con ibu ions. S udies wi h panel da a we e
no de ec ed ei he . Howe e , i e expe imen al in es iga ions
we e ound, which, al hough ma ginal, indica e ha in es iga-
ion om his pe spec i e is indeed possible. Said s udies we e
comple ed in he ea ly 2000s (Pullman e al. 2001; S ading e al.
2001; Lee e al. 2002; Li e al. 2006; AlDu gham and Ba ghash
2008).
Resea ch ypology showed ha mos o he s udies ga he ed
we e ei he desc ip i e (25.9%) o explana o y (38.3%) (see Ta-
ble6). In ac , no s udy ega ding OS his o y was ound a all.
F om he pe spec i e o Phillips and Pugh (2010), es ing-ou
me hods, hose which a emp ed o es o e u e heo ies, con-
o med he majo i y (49.2%), while he leas equen we e hose
o he heo y-building ype.
Managemen Le e s / Cuade nos de Ges ión 22/2 (2022) 81-96
88 Jo ge A. Vi a es, Lucía A ella, William Sa ache
Table 4
Gene al me hodology and analysis pe spec i e
Ca ego y
Analysis pe spec i e
To al % Row
Quan i a i e Quali a i e Mixed
Su ey/in e iew (sample) 117 1 14 132 55.0
Sample o companies 106 12 118 49.2
Sample o employees 4 1 2 7 2.9
Sample o expe s 7 7 2.9
Case s udies 8 46 17 71 29.6
Single case s udy 3 13 11 27 11.3
Mul iple case s udy (2-4) 4 7 2 13 5.4
Mul iple case s udy (5 o mo e) 1 26 4 31 12.9
O he s 4 6 8 18 7.5
Ac ion esea ch 6 6 12 5.0
A i icial e idence 3 2 5 2.1
O he s 1 1 0.4
Mul iple 7 2 10 19 7.9
Sample o companies and employees 7 1 8 5.0
Sample o companies and case s udy 7 7 2.9
Sample o companies and expe s 1 0.0
Sample o expe s and case s udy 2 2 0.8
Sample o expe s and employees 1 1 0.4
To al 136 55 49 240 100
% Column 56.7 22.9 20.4 100
Sou ce: Au ho elabo a ion.
Table 5
Resea ch design
Ca ego y To al %
Da a ga he ing me hods (coun s) (*)
A B C D E F
No expe imen al 235 98 160 93 31 22 20 43
C oss-sec ional 169 70 145 44 12 15 17 20
Longi udinal 11 5 8 4 3 1
Panel 0 0
Quali a i e 55 23 7 45 19 7 22
Expe imen al 5 2 3 2 0 1 0 2
To al 240 100 163 95 31 23 20 45
No e: (*) A (su eys), B (in e iews), C (documen a y analyses),
D(panels o ocus g oups), E(exis ing da abases), F( ield obse a ions/
measu emen s).
Sou ce: Au ho elabo a ion.
Table 6
Resea ch ypology
Typology 1
Typology 2
To al %
ow
Explo a o y P oblem-
sol ing
Tes ing-
ou
Theo y-
building
His o ical 0 0.0
Desc ip i e 32 9 17 4 62 25.9
Co ela ional 6 2 8 1 17 7.1
Explana o y 1 3 87 1 92 38.3
Explo a o y 6 5 1 2 14 5.8
Quali a i e 25 10 5 15 55 22.9
To al 70 29 118 23 240 100
% column 29.1 12.1 49.2 9.6 100
Sou ce: Au ho elabo a ion.
In acco dance wi h Me edi h e al.’s (1989) app oach o he
examina ion o esea ch pa adigms, OS in es iga ion p edom-
inan ly ep esen s posi i is /empi icis logic, wi h an app oach
o eali y h ough people’s pe cep ions o objec eali y (Table7).
As obse ed in Figu e4, om he na u al/a i icial dimen-
sion, hose s udies wi h di ec obse a ion o objec eali y dou-
bled in he 2009-2017 pe iod, as compa ed o p e ious yea s.
Tendencies we e no ound in he a ional/exis en ial dimension,
and i should be emphasized ha he wo s udies om he axi-
oma ic pe spec i e co esponded o 2002 and 2016 (Choy e al.
2016; Lee e al. 2002).
Managemen Le e s / Cuade nos de Ges ión 22/2 (2022) 81-96
T ends and challenges in ope a ions s a egy esea ch: Findings om a sys ema ic li e a u e e iew 89
Table 7
OS esea ch me hod pa adigms
Dimensions
Na u al/A i icial
To al % Row
Di ec obse a ion
o objec eali y
People’s pe cep ions
o objec eali y
A i icial econs uc ion
o objec eali y
Ra ional/
Exis en ial
Axioma ic 2 2 0.8
Logical posi i is /empi icis 4133 11 148 61.7
In e p e a i e 22 46 5 73 30.4
Mixed (posi i is + in e p e a i e) 1 13 14 5.8
Mixed (axioma ic + in e p e a i e) 2 1 3 1.3
To al 29 192 19 240 100
% Column 12.1 80.0 7.9 100
Sou ce: Au ho elabo a ion.
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
AR 0 10 6 6 14 11 24 21 9 0 5 0 13 0 0 7 7
PP 83 80 82 82 86 89 58 79 64 91 81 94 81 70 64 79 93
DO 17 10 12 12 0 0 18 0 27 9 14 6 6 30 36 14 0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yea
Figu e 4
Gene al esul s by pa adigm (na u al/a i icial dimensions)
Sou ce: Au ho elabo a ion.
No e: AR (a i icial econs uc ion o objec eali y), PP (people’s
pe cep ions o objec eali y), DO (di ec obse a ion o objec eali y).
The speci ic me hods used by he encoun e ed in es iga ions, in
o de o ob ain esul s, ha e been p edominan ly s a is ical. Figu e5
shows ha he mos used echniques included: di e ences in means,
eg ession analysis, S uc u al Equa ion Modelling (SEM), clus e
analysis and measu es o associa ion. Also, 12a icles we e ound o
ha e designed o applied agg ega e pe o mance indica o s. Di e se
echniques and o he ma hema ical heo ies ha e been li le used
in OS s udy (e.g., uzzy logic, op imiza ion, ne wo k analysis, e c.).
22,1%
17,1%
12,5%
11,7%
9,6%
6,3%
4,6%
3,3%
3,3%
2,5%
2,5%
1,7%
1,3%
0,8%
0,8%
0,4%
0,0%
0,0%
17,1%
0% 5% 10%15%20%25%30%
Di e ence in means
Reg ession analysis
SEM
Clus e analysis
Measu es o associa ion
Expe e alua ion
G ounded heo y
Canonical co ela ion
AHP/ANP
Fuzzy logic
Ma hema ical model
Simula ion
E hnog aphy
Op imiza ion
QFD
Ne wo k analysis
Labo a o y expe imen
Delphi me hod
O he s n=240
Figu e 5
Me hods used
Sou ce: Au ho elabo a ion.
5. DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH AREAS
OS in es iga ion has been ela i ely p oli ic du ing he pas
ew yea s. Howe e , i is a ield wi h g ea po en ial and mul i-
ple possibili ies o u u e in es iga ion. When conside ing he
mul iple, complex phenomena which in e ene in a company’s
p oduc ion/ope a ions sys em, he possibili ies o con inued
OS in es iga ion appea o be unlimi ed. Below, a discussion
will a emp o iden i y u u e a eas, in he ollowing o de :
opic pe spec i es and in es iga i e pa adigms o u he e-
sea ch.
5.1. Topic pe spec i es
OS in es iga ion con inues o concen a e p incipally on
con en , and e y li le on he o mula ion p ocess. This demon-
s a es he con inui y o he endency encoun e ed by Dangay-
ach and Deshmukh (2001). The OS o mula ion p ocess is e ile
g ound o in es iga ion, as he e is no uni e sal s a egy which
can be employed by all. Thus, each company mus es ablish hei
own pa h o excellence (Sch oede and Flynn 2001). Mil enbu g
(2009, p.6180) a i ms his, s a ing ha : “Many models a e pos-
sible and he e is no pa icula model ha is bes o all compa-
nies”. Fu he in es iga ion in o he OS o mula ion p ocess is
equi ed, pa icula ly ega ding ma e s such as: a)design and
es ing o models/me hodologies/p ocedu es o s a egy o -
mula ion and implemen a ion, b) he s udy o pa e ns in deci-
sion-making ( op-down, bo om-up, and mixed), c) he e alua-
ion and comp ehension o di e en a iables which a ec he
o mula ion p ocess, such as: ex e nal, cul u al, poli ical, inan-
cial, s akeholde s, lea ning, and discussion-in e ac ion mecha-
nism ac o s, in addi ion o p ojec managemen o imp o e-
men o ope a ions sys ems, among o he hings.
Compe i i e p io i ies ha e been s udied chie ly as ope a-
ions sys em pe o mance indica o s. Ve y ew in es iga ions,
howe e , ha e simul aneously e alua ed he deg ee o impo -
ance which each ep esen o company s a egy. I is necessa y
o sepa a e he capaci ies ha a company wishes o s eng hen in
he u u e (p io i ies) in acco dance wi h hei impo ance o
s a egy, and hei cu en abili y/s eng h/capabili y o compe e
in he ma ke (Co be and Cla idge 2002; Nauh ia e al. 2011;
Managemen Le e s / Cuade nos de Ges ión 22/2 (2022) 81-96
96 Jo ge A. Vi a es, Lucía A ella, William Sa ache
Xu, X., 2012. F om cloud compu ing o cloud manu ac u ing. Robo-
ics and Compu e -In eg a ed Manu ac u ing, 28(1), 75-86. DOI:
10.1016/j. cim.2011.07.002
Yu W., Cha ez R., Feng M., Wong C.Y. and Fynes B., 2020. G een hu-
man esou ce managemen and en i onmen al coope a ion: An
abili y-mo i a ion-oppo uni y and con ingency pe spec i e. In-
e na ional Jou nal o P oduc ion Economics, 219, 224-235. DOI:
10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.06.013
Zhou D., Yan T., Zhao L. and Guo J., 2020. Pe o mance implica ions o
se i iza ion: Does a Manu ac u e ’s se ice supply ne wo k ma -
e ? In e na ional Jou nal o P oduc ion Economics, 219, 31-42. DOI:
10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.05.019
Managemen Le e s / Cuade nos de Ges ión 22/2 (2022) 81-96
