A current view of resource based theory in operations management: A response to Bromiley and Rau

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2015.11.004
• Published date: 01 January 2016
• Date: 01 January 2016

Forum

A current view of resource based theory in operations management: A

response to Bromiley and Rau

Michael A. Hitt

a

,

*

, Christina Matz Carnes

b

, Kai Xu

c

a

Texas A&M University and Texas Christian University, USA

b

University of Nebraska at Lincoln, USA

c

The University of Texas at San Antonio, USA

article info

Article history:

Accepted 20 October 2015

Available online 18 December 2015

Accepted by Mikko Ketokivi

In their commentary, Bromiley and Rau (2016) criticized

resource-based theory (RBT) generally, and challenged the appro-

priateness of its application in operations management (OM). As an

alternative to RBT, they offered a new perspective, the practice-

based view (PBV), as “an approach compatible with using

imitable practices to explain the entire range of performance.”

Although the authors provide some valuable points, we believethat

there is “more to the story”that is important for OM scholars to

consider when examining potential theoretical frames that include

RBT. Specifically, we examine their perspective of OM and its pur-

pose relative to how we interpret the field based on OM scholars’

views, review the recent developments in RBT addressing many of

the critiques Bromiley and Rau presented, and explain the value of

resource orchestration (RO) for OM research, potentially in concert

with the PBV.

1. Breadth and depth of focus

Importantly, we believe the definition of OM presented in

Bromiley and Rau (2016) tends to be narrow, excluding some of

currentfoci in the OM field. Bromiley and Rau state that “Webelieve

operations management scholars want to explain which firms use

operations management practices and understand the influence of

thoseOM practices on operationalperformance.”Regardingthe level

of study, Bromiley and Rau (2016) pointed out that the focus of OM

appears to be largelyat the plant level and “operationsmanagement

scholars inherently study part of the firm.”

However, based on recent reviews of OM research (Pilkington

and Meredith, 2009) and our examination of OM research using

RBT, we conclude that the research focus of OM is broader than

imitable OM practices at the plant level. For example, Pilkington

and Meredith (2009) suggested that the field of OM has begun to

emphasize more strategic and macro issues and the general topics

of OM listed on the Journal of Operations Management website

provide further support for this observation. Even though some of

the general topics are closely related to OM plant level practices,

more emerging topics, such as operations strategy and policy,

sustainable supply chain operations, and regulatory and environ-

mental issues in operations, draw top managers' attention at the

firm level and are incorporated into the firm's long-term strategies.

In addition, supply chain management and international and

comparative operations management require collaboration and

strategic planning along the supply chain and even affiliations

across the border. These points alone suggest that the OM field is

interested in a broader set of topics and foci than plant level

practices.

Identifying the research topics and levels studied in a field is

important for at least two reasons. First, it defines the boundary of

OM and facilitates our understanding of how it intersects with

other fields, two factors which are crucial for a healthy develop-

ment of a field over time. Second, it also has a strong influence on

the audience type and size to which the OM field is targeted. In

short, we believe that the potential audience for,and impact of, OM

research is much broader than implied by the arguments presented

by Bromiley and Rau.

As an example, Hitt et al. (2016) show why and how a more

accurate definition of the OM field helps us better understand the

application of RBT in OM research. Indeed, the OM research

examined by Hitt et al. (2016) contributed to four main streams of

research including supply chain management, operations strategy,

performance management, and product/service innovation. Using

this broader set of foci acknowledged by OM scholars (Pilkington

and Meredith, 2009; Taylor and Taylor, 2009), we found that RBT

has been adopted by OM scholars doing research in each of these

four research streams.

Take product/service innovation as an example. RBT has been

*Corresponding author.

E-mail address: mhitt@mays.tamu.edu (M.A. Hitt).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Operations Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jom

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2015.11.004

0272-6963/©2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Journal of Operations Management 41 (2016) 107e109