Operador de enlace externo (outer join)

While process improvement represents a potentially important topic to research within SMEs, to address issues with existing operations management research (Schroeder 2008; Schmenner et al. 2009), it is necessary to identify an appropriate perspective from which

43

to pursue the research. Operations Management as a discipline tends to draw from organisational theory in order to increase legitimacy in relation to other management fields (Schmenner and Swink 1998; Schmenner et al. 2009). Although operations management does have some of its own theories, operations management research can still benefit from undertaking research underpinned by rigourously developed theory drawn from other domains. Amundson (1998) stated that it was important to select a theory consist with the needs of operations management. However, Martin et al. (2011) observed that the majority of theory “borrowed” (over the past 5 years) was transaction cost economics (Williamson 1996) or resource base view (RBV) (Wernerfelt 1984), both of which were considered inappropriate by Amundson (1998).

Transaction cost economics (TCE) takes a short-term view of operations, emphasising cost minimization through selecting the appropriate contracts with external firms when outsourcing production (Williamson 1996; Lockett and Thompson 2007; Cousins et al. 2008). By focusing on cost reduction within a static view of a firm, TCE overlooks the role of relationships and trust that have been found to play important roles with relationship with external firms (Cousins et al. 2006). The short-term view can also result in the outsourcing of activities in an effort for cost reduction that can forfeit the long-term accumulation of resources that can create a competitive advantage (Dierickx and Cool 1989; Cohen and Levinthal 1990).

The RBV addresses this limitation, by acknowledging that sustainable competitive advantage is created by resources internal to the firm (Wernerfelt 1984). Barney (1991) then stated that those firms that possessed resources that were rare, valuable, inimitable and non-substitutable, were able to sustain their competitive advantage over those firms that did not. However, McWilliams and Smart (1995) stated that the RBV also takes a stationary view, overlooking the process orientation of operations management. Not with standing this criticism, Witcher et al. (2008) and Locket et al. (2009) identified RBV as one of the most influential theoretical perspective within strategic management frequently employed within operations management (Powell 1995; Schroeder et al. 2002; Paiva et al. 2008). RBV also tends to be considered the primary contribution strategic management has been able to make to operations

44

management (MacCarthy et al. 2013, p.949. The intangible nature of many of the important resources RBV refers, then make it difficult to research (Newbert 2008) and not necessarily a theory as operations management defines it (Wacker 1998).

Contributions have been made in relations to the core competence/ capabilities perspective on RBV (Hamel and Prahalad 1990; Hamel and Prahalad 1994), which provides greater attention to the accumulation of strategic resources, as explored by Dierickx and Cool (1989). This perspective gives greater emphasis to the knowledge- based resources, that have been identified as the most strategic resource (Grant 1996), that have also been explored within operations management (Hult et al. 2003; Choo et al. 2007a; Anand et al. 2010). While the role of knowledge within small firms has been explored in depth (Thorpe et al. 2005; Macpherson and Holt 2007), from an RBV perspective, it is necessary for such resources to be applied by individuals within the firm (Wiklund and Shepherd 2003) or directed to revenue generating processes (Chaston et al. 2001).

As a development of the RBV, a dynamic capabilities perspective provides an alternative view on the accumulation and application of strategic resources to provide a competitive advantage (Teece et al. 1997; Eisenhardt and Martin 2000; Helfat et al. 2007; Ambrosini and Bowman 2009). While explored within the context of process improvement (Anand et al. 2009), dynamic capabilities have been identified as inappropriate for SMEs due to them having insufficient resources for “a set of specific

and identifiable processes” (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000, p.1105) required by dynamic

capabilities (Mosey 2005; Noke and Hughes 2010).

Although well established, neither TCE or RBV contributes significantly to operations, offering primarily explanatory power but increasing the research’s perceived legitimacy (Schmenner et al. 2009). Amundson (1998) identified organisational learning as an appropriate theory for use within operations management, due to organisational learning being “virtually identical to the OM (operations management) concept of

processes” (p.351). The greater process orientation and knowledge accumulation

emphasis of dynamic capabilities has resulted in the concept being explored from an organisational learning perspective (Zollo and Winter 2002; Benner and Tushman 2003;

45

Schreyogg and Kliesch-Eberl 2007; O'Reilly III and Tushman 2008; Di Stefano et al. 2010). By emphasising how organisations learn, compared to engaging in specific best practices (Tsang 1997), organisational learning can provide a theoretical lens to develop greater understanding of operational processes. Amundsen (1998) also considered there was a high degree of potential integration between organisational learning and OM, with potential to explore “how OL (organisational learning) occurs through process

improvement” (p.351).

Within the context of SMEs, an organisational learning perspective was employed by Jones (2005) and Jones and Macpherson (2006), who presented case studies on how firms were able to undergo strategic regeneration. Consistent with Lee and Klassen (2009), by engaging with external parties, SMEs were able to undergo fundamental changes in the businesses they operated. Organisational learning thus represents a potentially relevant theoretical perspective from which to research process improvement within SMEs, for relating isolated improvements to organisational-level changes.

The role of organisational learning within SMEs was a specific focus of research by Chaston et al. (1999). They stated that supporting SMEs to develop their ability to undertake organisational learning was more beneficial than funding interventions provided by external consultants. This was consistent with Mosey (2005), who stated that while SMEs may have difficulty developing dynamic capabilities, could benefit from the development learning capabilities that over time could become dynamic. Providing structure and support to learning behaviours related to process improvement also provides a connection with Mukherjee et al. (1998). By critically reviewing completed improvement activities it was possible to carry out more fundamental changes, rather than simply solving the problems that were identified or returned from customers. Undertaking learning activities related to process improvement activities could ensure that learning was captured from continuous improvement activities (Bessant et al. 1993) and ensure targets were being achieved or revised for subsequent projects (Linderman et al. 2006).

Drawing from discussions in section 2.3, organisational learning also provides SMEs with an appropriate mechanism for accumulating resources and undertaking improvement. For this reason, organisational learning will be selected as the theory to be

46

employed within the current research. The relevance of other, alternate theory will be explored in relation to the research following presentation of the research findings in section 8.5.

The strong emphasis outlined within section 2.2.2 on project-oriented improvements highlighted the value that can be realized from qualitative, theoretically underpinned research. The complexity of the topics discussed within the previous sections, such as the development of internal resources, involvement with external parties, the role of procedures and the relevance of process improvement highlights the need for exploratory research within this area. The need for such research has not been overlooked within literature, with Tidd and Bessant (2009, p.516) calling for more research to address the problems small firms face. Chaston et al. (2001) explicitly called for less positivist and more case study research on organisational learning in small firms. Overall qualitative, exploratory research on organisational learning and process improvement in SMEs will assist in developing understanding of the phenomenon and each topics’ role in enabling SMEs to realised benefits at a firm level from undertaking process improvement. The literature reviewed on Six Sigma provides a framework through which to view process improvement and to which one can relate the current research, to assist in ensuring its external validity.

While organisational learning has been identified as a potentially appropriate theoretical perspective from which to view process improvement activities in SMEs, an exploration of organisation learning theory is necessary. With numerous conceptualizations of organisational learning (Huber 1991; Crossan et al. 1995), the next section will systematically survey the operations management research that draws from organisational learning theory. This will allow the specific conceptualizations of organisational learning used within operations management to be identified to determine the specific models of organisational learning that should be used within the current research.

47

2.4 The Systematic Analysis of Organisational Learning in Operations