Editorial

Citation

(2007), "Editorial", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijopm.2007.02427caa.001

Editorial

Issue 1 of this volume was dedicated to a Special Issue based on the International Euroma Conference held in Budapest in 2005, and its editorial was written by its Guest Editor – Krisztina Demeter. As we write this, the first regular editorial of Volume 27, it seems apposite to make a few observations about the editing process for a Special Issue of IJOPM. The primary message that we wish to convey, and one that we are sure Krisztina will agree with, is to acknowledge the enormous effort that is required to bring a journal Special Issue to publication. Writing the editorial is the final stage for the editor, and is a relatively straightforward task. The preceding stages of candidate paper selection, review management and issue collation are time-consuming and fraught with frustrations and problems. We often receive enthusiastic expressions of interest for putting together Special Issues. Generally, these concern relevant and contemporary topics, sometimes based around conferences, sometimes around open calls for papers. It is not until the papers begin to come in and the review process starts that the size and complexity of the task hit home. Choosing suitable reviewers and then gaining their agreement to provide reviews can be highly problematic. Whilst there is a tacit obligation to peer review within the OM community, we all have our limits, and good reviewing takes time, energy and commitment. The frustrations of guest editing usually begin to appear when faced with refusals to review, tardiness in providing opinions and unfortunately, sometimes, poor and inadequate reviewer feedback. The ultimate publication of a worthy Special Issue is a testament to the hard work and effort of the guest editor, and should be regarded as a significant achievement. As many of our erstwhile enthusiastic potential guest editors will testify, it is not a task to be undertaken lightly.

So, having acknowledged the determination and hard work of those that bring a Special Issue to publication, we continue to seek expressions of interest for future Special Issues. The IJOPM web site contains guidelines for guest editors, which provide details of the process and guidance as to best practice. We encourage the submission of considered and timely proposals.

Unlike Special Issues, which are themed in some way, general issues of the journal are more eclectic in content. This issue, containing four papers, is an exemplar.

The first paper, by Collins and Schmenner, considers differences in performance between manufacturing plants that are overseen by the same company or company division. It investigates the phenomenon whereby some plants perform persistently well whilst sister plants perform persistently poorly. The findings of empirical research, drawing from senior manufacturing executives that oversee multiple plants, point to the importance of the “mentality” of a plant's management and workforce. This is a soft concept and difficult to define precisely, but consists of a number of clear components, namely, people-oriented, decisive plant leadership style; communication of the business and plant vision; aggressive pursuit of experimentation, follow-up and implementation; and appreciation and use of fundamental operations management principles. Collins and Schmenner's research finds that the factory mentality influences the achievement, or otherwise, of consistently high plant performance and, as a consequence of this, suggests that the use of benchmarking as a way to lift poor plant performance may be unsuccessful.

Our second paper, by Brown, Squire and Blackmon, also takes as its focus manufacturing performance. It investigates the links between the role of manufacturing in business strategy (in terms of both its content and the process by which it is developed) and manufacturing performance. In this research, the operational capabilities that were used to assess performance were based on parameters that measured quality, inventory, supplier management and innovation. Based on longitudinal case studies of 16 computer assembly plants, located in the UK and the USA, they found that manufacturing involvement and alignment with business strategy are higher in high-performing plants than in low-performing ones. The implication for managerial practice that emerges from this work stresses the need for manufacturing personnel to be closely involved in the development of business strategy.

Many of the papers submitted to IJOPM concern supply chain management, reflecting the academic prominence of this topic and its global importance for operations management practice. It is rare that an issue is published without at least one paper that considers some aspect of the management of supply, and this issue is no exception. Ritchie and Brindley present a framework that integrates the dimensions of risk and performance in supply chains and provides classification of risk drivers. It argues that risk management within supply chains is a relatively new concept and that the developed framework provides a useful foundation for future work on the management and measurement of risk in supply chains. The research that underpins the paper consisted of a significant conceptual study from which the framework was generated. Its utility was then illustrated by its application in two empirical case studies. The paper's value stems from the challenges which it seeks to address; namely the ability to prescribe strategies that will address particular risk drivers, and the interaction between risk management and performance.

To conclude the issue, our final paper, by Primo, Dooley and Rungtusanatham, combines the themes of manufacturing and the supply chain. It investigates how manufacturing companies react to supply failure and to suppliers' attempts to recover from such failure. Using case studies from US manufacturers in the electronics and aerospace industry sectors, the research finds that manufacturing firm dissatisfaction increases as the cumulative impact of the failure on its own operations increases, and decreases when it has the slack to absorb the effects of the failure. Dissatisfaction also decreases when the manufacturing firm shares the blame for the supply failure. In respect of recovery from failure, the research finds evidence of decreased manufacturer dissatisfaction when suppliers attempt recovery, possibly seeing this as evidence of the supplier's long-term commitment to the relationship. However, the extent to which supply failure is ameliorated by recovery depends on attributes of the failure, the recovery and the context. The practical implications of this research are clear. Where manufacturers have slack that can offsest the effects of supply failure, e.g. in the form of inventory, they may under-react to supply failure. Conversely, where no slack exists, the perception of risk may lead them to over-react. Thus, this work adds to our understanding of how supplier failure and recovery impact a manufacturer's dissatisfaction with a supplier, and assists in making the decision about whether and when to switch suppliers and /or to develop existing ones.