TÉRMINOS PARA DESCRIBIR EL AMBIENTE OPERACIONAL

From the large range of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods that are suitable for supply chain management research outlined in the previous chapter, the literature review methodology represents the most feasible starting point to scope the area of research (Hart 1998; Mentzer and Kahn, 1995). The fact that the steadily growing popularity of supply chain management over the last decades has spawned a substantial amount of literature on this topic, covering a vast array of supply chain management aspects, builds a case for this approach of a comparative assessment of the literature available.

As a scientific research method, literature reviews play an important role in aggregating and disseminating knowledge in the management discipline (Tranfield et

al., 2003). However, in SCM, literature reviews have been utilized less often in the

past compared to other research methods (Carter and Ellram, 2003). Gubi and co- authors (Gubi et al., 2003) therefore called for a higher utilization of literature reviews which they see as a necessity to foster theory development. Accordingly, recent issues of SCM-focused journals publishing special issues on literature reviews (e.g. in Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management) indicate a popularity increase of literature reviews in SCM.

As the “backbone of almost every academic piece of writing” (Seuring and Gold, 2012, p. 554) literature reviews play a vital part in the academic process of knowledge dissemination. However, as reported by Briner and Denyer (2012), few researchers are trained in the proper use of the literature review methodology; and the results are often driven by “partial, haphazard and opinion driven synthesis of

previous research findings” (Briner and Denyer, 2012, p. 331). This neglects the

strength of literature reviews as being an excellent tool to structure a research field (Mentzer and Kahn, 1995), reduce the area of research to a manageable size while providing the grounds for explaining and justifying research objectives, overall research design and methodology used (Hart, 1998). Tranfield et al. (2003) highlight the usefulness of literature reviews for mapping, disseminating, and evaluating the intellectual territory of a research area.

Frankel et al. (2005) argue that a literature review should comprise a detailed analysis and critical summary of previously collected data (often secondary data), allowing for research gap identification and aiding further knowledge development. In this light the literature review supports the researcher in mapping the various connections between different fields of literature, linking them to the corresponding research gaps identified. Thus, it has been recommended to include a literature review as an integral part of any research project (Mentzer and Kahn, 1995; Tranfield

et al., 2003). From a classification standpoint, the literature review methodology can

be categorized as being part of the archival research method family (Searcy and Mentzer, 2003). According to Briner and Denyer (2012) five different types of literature reviews can be distinguished as outlined below:

• Literature reviews motivating empirical studies

• Formal full-length literature reviews by academics (argument/thematic review or expert review)

• Meta analyses

• Reviews in current textbooks

• Reviews in popular management books

Literature reviews motivating empirical studies represent the most commonly used

type of literature review (Briner and Denyer, 2012, p. 333). This type of short, often descriptive-narrative review, also referred to as “foundational literature” (e.g. Hazen

et al., 2012), is often used at the beginning of published empirical research articles to

23 reported to be unbalanced in the selection of literature, including published academic articles in the review that follow the authors rationale, but omitting contradicting articles while rarely stating the specific reasons for the biased selection (Crowther and Cook, 2007).

Formal full-length literature reviews by academics can be further classified in two

subtypes: argument/thematic review and expert review.

The argument/thematic review applies rigorous methods and usually follows a particular argument or theme (Briner and Denyer, 2012, p. 334). Often referred to as systematic literature review (SLR) (Denyer and Tranfield, 2006; Tranfield et al., 2003) this evidence-based review approach (Rousseau et al., 2008) is ground in psychology, psychotherapy, and evidence-based medicine (Briner and Denyer, 2012, p. 341). It follows a systematic and explicit design, engineered to maximize replicability while allowing for a high level of transparency (Crowther and Cook, 2007), and minimize researcher bias in every step of the research process (Carter and Easton, 2011). In addition, the careful mapping of the research process ensures that it is auditable (Wong et al., 2012) as the analysis could be re-run by other researchers (Seuring and Gold, 2012), an aspect positivistic to scientific research. Further advantages of the systematic literature review approach include that the literature can be analyzed through multiple perspectives (Ghadge et al., 2012). It should be noted, however, that the explicit use of methods is not always stated or discussed. In addition, Tranfield et al. (2003) argue that researchers should apply quality assessment criteria on an article level instead of basing research on journal quality ratings only. Furthermore, as Crowther and Cook (2007) discussed, many literature reviews that state to be systematic are narrative, as it requires a skilled researcher to maintain the appropriate degree of rigor in a systematic review. Despite the many advantages, researchers struggle with the proper application of systematic literature reviews as discussed by Briner and Denyer (2012). One major reason may be that the researchers are confronted with the task to manually review a large amount of text which to review has been reported to be time consuming and

“quite laborious” (Ghadge et al., 2012) while being prone to error and bias (Fink,

1998; Hart, 1998). To shorten the process of reviewing and analyzing the literature, qualitative data analysis software could be applied (Ghadge et al., 2012). Still, some concerns prevail as the software does not “understand” the text (in the human sense of understanding) and thus may not decode the meaning of text often hidden in

context of the words (Tausczik and Pennebaker, 2010, p. 30). As a result the analysis of the literature may be missing out important aspects, and findings may thus not be accurate.

An expert review is usually guided by the expertise of the individual researcher in the specific field of study (Briner and Denyer, 2012, p. 334). As opposed to the argument/thematic review this qualitative review does not follow any clear method and promotes a rather descriptive-narrative review style. Expert reviews have been found to be prone to systematic error (Crowther and Cook, 2007) and researcher bias issues (Fink, 1998; Hart, 1998), while lacking thoroughness and rigor (Tranfield et al., 2003). This type of literature review is usually used in exploratory and conceptual studies (Frankel et al., 2005). It can be described as unstructured, leaving the audience confronted with the researcher’s intellectual outcome without disclosing the intellectual process (Seuring and Gold, 2012).

The meta analysis describes a quantitative research technique where “data from

comparable individual studies that address the same topic” is quantitatively combined

with the aim to derive higher-level conclusions (Briner and Denyer, 2012, p. 334). According to Kirca and Yaprac (2010), based on Cooper and Hedges (1994), the meta-analytical approach is not limited to combining findings across studies, but also includes a comparison of research findings aiming to distill the core methodological aspects of the research that lead to differentiated outcomes. The comparisons provide the ground for subsequent definition and testing of theoretical propositions, which may be conducted through statistical and path analyses. This is a key advantage of the meta analysis over other synthesis techniques (such as narrative reviews), as its application of statistical analysis facilitates the detection of effects and relationships, which is not supported by other techniques (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001; Rodriguez Cano et al., 2004). In general, meta analyses of literature and traditional literature reviews do not oppose each other but rather complement one another (Kirca and Yaprac, 2010). While the literature review approach is suitable in case the research process requires to “evaluate the presence or absence of something,” the meta analysis is an excellent tool for “measuring the degree to which something is

present or related to something else” (Terpend et al., 2008, p. 29). This illustrates the

difference between the two techniques: while the meta analysis is applicable for knowledge creation through the systematic, quantitative synthesis of primary research, the literature review technique employs a qualitative research approach.

25

Literature reviews published in current textbooks are usually written for the

educational mass market. As books are restricted by space limitations these reviews seldom aim at presenting a holistic picture of past research. They rather target selected research aspects valued by the author as being relevant to an area of research. The literature findings are presented in a rather simplified narrative manner, with a clear focus on knowledge developments over time, sometimes portraying “the importance of a few key individuals in the style of the ‘Great Man‘

theory of history“ (Briner and Denyer, 2012, p. 335). In contrast to formal full-length

literature reviews by academics, these reviews do not have to withstand a strict test for quality and adequacy, exemplified, as they do not elaborate on the review methodology (Boote and Beile, 2005).

The fifth type of literature reviews, reviews in popular management books, is targeted at practitioners. These books are characterized by presenting presumably new, “leading edge” management techniques which “are not well-established enough to

have been well-researched” (Briner and Denyer, 2012, p. 336). Similar to reviews in

current textbooks the literature reviews in management books are lacking a thorough description of the used review methodology. In addition, they do not follow a systematic, transparent approach and do not undergo a peer-reviewed quality assessment. As selected research findings are presented as “evidence” if they support the author’s argumentation to underline the featured management technique, these books are of little academic value (Rousseau, 2006).

As outlined previously, a key characteristic for the reliability of the sciences is the replicability of research results (Meredith, 1998). Pursuing a scientific perspective, this dissertation employs a transparent, repeatable research design through application of the systematic literature review methodology, focussing on

argument/thematic reviews being a part of formal full-length literature reviews by academics. Therefore, literature reviews motivating empirical studies, as well as reviews in current textbooks and reviews in popular management books will not be

addressed further. In addition and as highlighted elsewhere (Seuring and Gold, 2012, Tranfield et al., 2003) the application of meta analysis may not be suitable for summing up knowledge due to the SCM discipline being in its infancy (Barratt, 2004) and the resulting heterogeneity of the field.

The selection of the systematic literature review approach in this dissertation is also motivated by the idea that the application of the systematic literature review approach, being a scientific technique (Tranfield et al., 2003), is perceived to have great potential in regard to the development of management. The rationale being that the “science of management” since its inception, postulated in the “principles of scientific management” work by Taylor (1911, 1914), has continuously been criticized for being rather “unscientific” compared to other traditional sciences such as medicine or engineering (Freedman, 1992; Ghoshal, 2005; Pilkington and Liston- Heyes, 1999). On a granular level, this is especially evident in regard to the field of SCM, whose legitimacy of constituting an own academic and scientific discipline, separated for example from logistics, has been questioned (Cousins et al., 2006). A key aspect of management science criticisms is linked to the way research is conducted in management. Thus, research is to a high degree based on case studies, as continuously reported by a range of authors (e.g. Burgess et al., 2006), and rarely conducted for instance in a controlled environment, such as a laboratory. It is common understanding that the rather young management discipline requires a substantial utilization of the case based research method in order to address the variety of aspects within this diverse field (Eisenhardt, 1989), which cannot be conducted in a laboratory environment. However, this preference and focus on case study research represents a major challenge, as the replicability of case study results, due to the unique character of each case setting, is only of theoretical nature (Otley and Berry, 1994). However, the general understanding across research disciplines is that a scientific method is characterized by its clearly documented and most importantly replicable research process, which would allow other researchers to get to the same results (Krippendorff, 2012; Meredith, 1998). Although attempts have been made to “upscale” the case study methodology towards being accepted as a scientific method (Lee, 1989; Meredith, 1998), most notably through the use of rigorous documentation procedures, the replicability issues persist. Thus, the case study method, despite being one of the –if not the– most utilized research method in management, is not yet widely accepted by other sciences.

As the characteristics of the scientific method are paramount to the systematic literature review approach, a rigorous application of the systematic literature review methodology could thus add to increase overall acceptance and relevance of the SCM discipline as being regarded as an academic, scientific management discipline

27 in its own right. This links well into the thinking of Harland et al. (2006) who argue that the research quality in SCM needs to be improved. Thus, the systematic literature review approach could present a powerful countermeasure against the demise of SCM (Fawcett and Waller, 2014). In addition, it may not be too far-stretched to assume that if other management disciplines would make increased use of such systematic and scientific approaches, this in general would elevate the way other scientific disciplines view the management discipline. This aspect portrays one of the underlying motivations for this dissertation, which aims to advance and develop the management sciences, in particular SCM, by promoting the use of the systematic literature review methodology.

The above presented overview of literature reviews provided a thorough foundation for the application of the systematic literature review methodology in the latter part of the work. Highlighting the role and potential of literature reviews not only from a SCM perspective but also from a discipline of management point of view, the detailed presentation of the literature review methodology is motivated by its use as being the key research method in the desk research part of this thesis.