Journal of Operations Management最新文献

{"title":"Charting the Future of Blockchain in Operations and Supply Chain Management: Opportunities and Challenges","authors":"Fabrice Lumineau, Guangzhi Shang, Jayashankar M. Swaminathan, Gerry Tsoukalas, Stephan M. Wagner, J. Leon Zhao","doi":"10.1002/joom.70014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.70014","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Blockchain technology, underpinned by distributed ledger systems, has evolved from a novel innovation into a transformative and integral component of enterprise digitization across industries. Since its inception with Bitcoin in 2008, blockchain has expanded beyond cryptocurrencies, with applications in operations management (OM) growing rapidly across industries. Despite its promise, however, the integration of blockchain into OM is not without challenges. Scholars have identified significant barriers to successful implementation, ranging from technological and organizational hurdles to regulatory complexities (Chod et al. <span>2020</span>; Hanisch et al. <span>2025</span>; Lin et al. <span>2022</span>; Lumineau et al. <span>2021</span>; Sodhi et al. <span>2022</span>; Zhan et al. <span>2025</span>).</p><p>This Special Issue on <i>Operational Perspectives on Blockchain Applications</i> presents cutting-edge research that explores blockchain's opportunities, challenges, and implications for OM. The articles in this issue provide a diverse and empirically grounded examination of blockchain applications across industries and operational contexts. We will discuss each contribution in turn. However, prior to that, it is useful to dig into the operational nuances, opportunities, and challenges presented by the focal context. Our editorial discussion opens accordingly, outlining the technological, organizational, and regulatory challenges while identifying the conditions under which blockchain can deliver value. We also touch on the broader societal implications of blockchain, addressing its political, economic, social, environmental, and legal dimensions before describing how each of the papers in the special issue contributes to understanding, critical to operations management. Finally, our editorial discussion concludes by charting a research agenda, highlighting key questions and interdisciplinary approaches needed to advance both theoretical and practical understanding of blockchain in OM.</p><p>For this purpose, Ilk et al. (<span>2021</span>) conceptualize the Bitcoin blockchain (and other mainstream permissionless blockchains) as a two-side dataspace market, where users demand a certain amount of dataspace in a future block to store their transactions, and miners compete to produce such dataspace by creating new blocks. To facilitate this market in a decentralized manner—that is, with no centralized party absorbing demand and controlling supply—users attach a transaction fee (which is higher for users with a higher waiting cost) that becomes one of the miners' sources of revenue. With the increasing popularity\u0000 <sup>1</sup>\u0000 of Bitcoin and Ethereum, demand frequently exceeds supply, creating contemporaneous system congestions. The congested service pricing literature, which dates back to the management of highway tolls (Naor <span>1969</span>) and electric power supply (Viswanathan and Edison <span>1989</span>) a","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"71 7","pages":"886-892"},"PeriodicalIF":10.4,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joom.70014","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145196564","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How to Mitigate Misinformation Diffusion on Blockchain-Based Decentralized Social Network Platforms? Insights From an Agent-Based Simulation Model","authors":"Onkar S. Malgonde,&nbsp;Balaji Padmanabhan,&nbsp;Sunil Mithas","doi":"10.1002/joom.70007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.70007","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Although the spread of misinformation on centralized social media platforms has received significant attention, few studies compare centralized and decentralized platforms, and how to mitigate misinformation diffusion in newly emerging blockchain-based decentralized social network platforms. We study misinformation diffusion between the decentralized and the centralized platforms and identify three decentralized governance mechanisms to mitigate the spread of misinformation in decentralized networks: user flagging, user article ratings, and user reputation. Our empirical experiments using agent-based simulations leveraging real-world data from two platforms reveal two findings. First, comparing misinformation diffusion between the decentralized Steemit and the centralized Pokec platforms suggests that in the absence of any mitigation mechanisms, misinformation in decentralized platforms affects more users, at faster rates, and reaches shorter distance from the misinformation initiating user. Second, within the decentralized platforms, misinformation affects fewer users, at slower rates, and reaches shorter distance from the misinformation initiating user in the presence of mitigating mechanisms than in their absence. We discuss the implications of these results both for the understanding of misinformation diffusion and for the governance of decentralized social network platforms.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"71 7","pages":"1068-1084"},"PeriodicalIF":10.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145196968","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Impact of Blockchain-Enabled Smart Contracts on Firms' Operational Efficiency","authors":"Yangchun Xiong,&nbsp;Li Ding,&nbsp;Shu Guo,&nbsp;Tsan-Ming Choi,&nbsp;Hugo K. S. Lam","doi":"10.1002/joom.70006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.70006","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Smart contracts, enabled by blockchain technology, are increasingly adopted by firms to automate the execution of agreements or contracts without the involvement of intermediaries. However, it is still unclear how smart contracts may affect firms' operational efficiency. We address this issue empirically by conducting a quasi-natural experiment in the United States in which certain states have enacted relevant laws that increase in-state firms' propensity to adopt and use smart contracts. Our difference-in-differences estimation suggests that compared with out-of-state control firms, in-state treatment firms' operational efficiency increases significantly after the enactment of smart contract laws. Our post hoc analysis further suggests that state-level smart contract laws help increase in-state firms' actual smart contract activities, which in turn lead to operational efficiency improvement. We also find that the operational efficiency improvement varies across firms with different supply chain complexities. While firms with a large number of supply chain partners (i.e., high horizontal complexity) gain more operational efficiency improvement, the improvement becomes less pronounced if firms' supply chain partners are distributed across different countries (i.e., high spatial complexity). Overall, our research not only demonstrates smart contracts' ability to improve operational efficiency but also reveals the critical role of supply chain complexity in affecting the operational efficiency improvement.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"71 7","pages":"939-963"},"PeriodicalIF":10.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145196781","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Governing Within Semirigid Limits: Navigating the Centralization–Decentralization Paradox in Blockchain-Based Platforms","authors":"Marvin Hanisch,&nbsp;Curtis Goldsby,&nbsp;Mélissa Fortin,&nbsp;Michael Rogerson","doi":"10.1002/joom.70001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.70001","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Blockchain-based platforms can facilitate data sharing and coordination in interorganizational ecosystems by enabling secure, tamper-evident recordkeeping and streamlined, trust-minimized transactions across organizational boundaries. However, their decentralized architecture may conflict with the centralized control exercised by platform sponsors, giving rise to a centralization–decentralization paradox. This study explores how this paradox unfolds in a large, blockchain-based logistics platform that was ultimately discontinued. Through an in-depth, longitudinal case study, we identify three interrelated governance contradictions—regarding ownership, trust, and growth—that triggered destabilizing oscillations between centralized and decentralized governance modes. We introduce the concept of <i>semirigid limits</i> to capture the bounded flexibility within which governance can be made and adapted under such paradoxical conditions. Our findings show that the centralization–decentralization paradox is especially difficult to navigate when strategic boundary conditions—here, industry competition, fragmented coordination, and high interdependencies—are present. Our study contributes to the paradox and governance literature by theorizing how governance contradictions emerge and persist and by identifying the mechanisms that constrain alignment and adaptation. We also offer guidance for managers in regard to addressing the competing demands of centralization and decentralization in interorganizational platforms.</p>","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"71 7","pages":"917-938"},"PeriodicalIF":10.4,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joom.70001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145196897","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Objectives and Guidelines for Advancing Research on Inter-Organizational Operations in the Journal of Operations Management","authors":"Xiaosong Peng,&nbsp;David,&nbsp;Sriram Narayanan","doi":"10.1002/joom.70004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.70004","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In today's business environment, firms must manage the intricate interdependencies between their internal operations and a broad network of external entities. Establishing and maintaining robust connections with a diverse array of stakeholders—including suppliers, customers, third-party service providers, regulatory bodies, external research and development (R&amp;D) organizations, and academic institutions such as universities, has become essential. An interorganizational view of operations is fundamental to an accurate understanding of the context in which process development and improvement occurs, and therefore, the potential for operational actions to generate tangible outcomes. By working collaboratively with these external entities, firms can not only optimize operational performance but also foster innovation, adaptability, and sustained competitive advantage. Thus, researching the drivers, processes, and outcomes of interorganizational operations at different levels of organizations is central to the mission of the Journal of Operations Management.</p><p>While there is no formal definition of inter-organizational operations (IOO) in the operations and supply chain management literature, several related definitions exist. At JOM, we adopt the perspective provided by Oliver (<span>1990</span>), and akin to that of Dyer and Singh (<span>1998</span>), defining inter-organizational relationships as the transactions, flows, and linkages that underlie the relationships between operations in different organizations that collaborate in networks to achieve shared goals.</p><p>The landscape of interorganizational operations thus includes suppliers, customers, ecosystem partners (e.g., third-party service providers), academic entities, and policy stakeholders that often share key human, physical, and knowledge assets with firms. Such organizations exist both in local and global environments. Furthermore, inter-organizational operations (IOO) encompass not only physical, informational, and financial flows but also the movement of talent (people), ideas and knowledge, and legal rights (e.g., franchises), among other things. These flows often occur outside the conventional supplier-customer relationships, such as those involving universities, consulting firms, and other professional service or knowledge providers. In many instances, relationships among these various entities can be little more than arms-length and transactional, if they formally exist at all (i.e., in some cases, firms merely exist in a shared ecosystem). In contrast, in other instances, highly embedded operational co-dependencies are more emblematic. Indeed, operational dynamics are often shaped by both competitive and coopetitive capabilities. A prominent example of coopetition is the relationship between Microsoft and OpenAI—Microsoft is a major investor in OpenAI, yet the two also compete (e.g., Microsoft Copilot vs. ChatGPT).</p><p>As a result, key domains of operational activi","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"71 5","pages":"725-728"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5,"publicationDate":"2025-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joom.70004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144524613","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Beyond the Yield: Enhancing Agricultural Sustainability Through Operations Management","authors":"Christian F. Durach,&nbsp;Dayna Simpson,&nbsp;Frank Wiengarten,&nbsp;Zhaohui Wu","doi":"10.1002/joom.1375","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1375","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Historical records indicate that the collapse of many ancient civilizations, such as those of the Sumer, the Mayans, the Indus Valley, and Rome, was partly driven by the failure of agricultural systems (Diamond &lt;span&gt;2011&lt;/span&gt;; Raman &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;). Many modern farming systems around the globe are potentially approaching similar failures as they struggle with critical challenges such as changing climate or soil biodiversity loss, pressures to reduce costs, new technologies, and infectious diseases or pest outbreaks such as avian bird-flu (Caserta et al. &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;; Chen and Chen &lt;span&gt;2021&lt;/span&gt;; Cinner et al. &lt;span&gt;2022&lt;/span&gt;; Guo et al. &lt;span&gt;2022&lt;/span&gt;; Shi (Junmin) et al. &lt;span&gt;2019&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Agriculture remains essential to the continuity and stability of human civilization. Recognizing its central role, the United Nations has designated ending hunger and achieving food security as a core Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 2). Yet competing pressures to increase agricultural output and lower costs are more often than not in conflict with constraints on natural resources, which have led to major challenges for agricultural supply chains and the environment, its labor force (e.g., increased exploitation, migration), and animals in the system (Howard and Forin &lt;span&gt;2019&lt;/span&gt;; Rossi and Garner &lt;span&gt;2014&lt;/span&gt;; Wiengarten and Durach &lt;span&gt;2021&lt;/span&gt;; Yang et al. &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;). Furthermore, these conflicts have been exacerbated by power imbalances between large markets and small suppliers, and because the degradation of agricultural regions has taken a proportionally greater toll on less well-developed economies (Gómez and Lee &lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Scholarly attention to production systems within the agricultural economics domain has a long history (Le Gal et al. &lt;span&gt;2011&lt;/span&gt;). In recent years, researchers in this field have focused increasingly on identifying more sustainable methods of agricultural production (e.g., Campi et al. &lt;span&gt;2021&lt;/span&gt;; Christiaensen et al. &lt;span&gt;2021&lt;/span&gt;; Giller et al. &lt;span&gt;2021&lt;/span&gt;; Jayne and Sanchez &lt;span&gt;2021&lt;/span&gt;; Rehman et al. &lt;span&gt;2022&lt;/span&gt;; Touch et al. &lt;span&gt;2024&lt;/span&gt;). This has sought, for example, more efficient, less impactful, or technology-driven methods of production that improve yield and reduce harm. These topics are very much in the wheelhouse of the operations management (OM) discipline, yet contributions from OM researchers that explore within, or offer solutions to agricultural systems, have been limited. Given OM's foundational focus on production processes and systems, however, our field is uniquely positioned to meaningfully address the challenges currently facing global agricultural production systems.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the present paper, we recognize and reflect on this gap in OM in order to provide a foundation for the special issue (SI) on sustainable agriculture. The goal of the SI was to achieve two key objectives: (i) raise awareness within","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"71 4","pages":"516-528"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joom.1375","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144206712","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Switching the Telescope Lens: A Sociomaterial Perspective of Sustainable Agricultural (Proto)Practices Transfer in an Agrifood Supply Chain","authors":"Minelle E. Silva,&nbsp;Karina A. Santos,&nbsp;Susana C. F. Pereira,&nbsp;Linda C. Hendry","doi":"10.1002/joom.1369","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1369","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study investigates the implementation and transfer of sustainable agricultural practices (SUSAPs) across a multitier agrifood supply chain (SC) using Brazilian poultry farming as the empirical context. We conduct an interpretive case study of buyer–supplier–subsupplier triads, including those certified under Global Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and noncertified counterparts, using interviews, observations, and secondary data. Adopting a sociomaterial perspective, we investigate how SUSAPs' components—meanings, materials, and competencies—are embedded within specific SC tiers and transferred across the triad. A zoom-in analysis reveals that only animal welfare is a fully adopted practice, whereas waste management, working conditions, and biosecurity remain in development as protopractices. A zoom-out analysis of SUSAPs' components shows limited buyer influence across the triad, while first-tier suppliers facilitate SUSAP transfer. We advance theory by demonstrating how a sociomaterial perspective explains the degree of SUSAPs' implementation and transfer, and introducing the <i>boomerang effect</i>, illustrating how first-tier suppliers enable SUSAP implementation among certified and noncertified subsuppliers to ensure safer and more sustainable products. These insights help managers transfer SUSAPs into their SCs by leveraging first-tier suppliers as boundary spanners.</p>","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"71 4","pages":"529-549"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joom.1369","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144206705","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"From Power to Sustainability? Unpacking the Role of Justice in Agricultural Commodity Supply Networks","authors":"Felipe Alexandre de Lima,&nbsp;Evelyne Vanpoucke,&nbsp;Stefan Gold,&nbsp;Stefan Seuring","doi":"10.1002/joom.1372","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1372","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Agricultural commodity supply networks in the Global South are essential for securing the global supply of crops and livestock. However, they are challenged by power asymmetries, which cause injustice and jeopardize social equity, environmental stewardship, and economic viability for disadvantaged actors. To address this challenge, it is imperative to understand how power impacts justice and sustainability. To this end, we examined a supply network in Mato Grosso, Brazil, that faced power asymmetries through 49 semi-structured interviews, field observations, and archival data. The analysis unveiled three forms of power use—excessive, strategic, and balanced—and associated tactics, impacting justice and sustainability outcomes in various ways. We illustrate, for example, how excessive power manifested in traders' abusive tactics, who compelled farmers to accept quality discounts due to external factors, such as heavy rain or poor road conditions. In response to these injustices, farmers cascaded the pressure through the supply network, disproportionately affecting disadvantaged actors, for instance, by withholding rural workers' wages for low productivity or eradicating wildlife deemed detrimental to profitability. Based on these findings, we provide a set of six propositions and a theoretical model that elucidate how power can be leveraged to foster fairer and more sustainable agricultural commodity supply networks.</p>","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"71 4","pages":"550-574"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joom.1372","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144206706","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Empirically Grounding Analytics (EGA) Research: Approaches, Contributions, and Examples","authors":"Arnd Huchzermeier,&nbsp;Panos Kouvelis","doi":"10.1002/joom.1373","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1373","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Empirically Grounding Analytics (EGA) in operations and supply chain management is a research area at the intersection of empirical and analytical studies. Spearman and Hopp (&lt;span&gt;2021&lt;/span&gt;) identified it as an underserved research area with great opportunity for input. To clarify what EGA is, we use a quote provided in the JOM editorial on the subject (see de Treville et al. (&lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;)) as a definition: “an EGA paper combines mathematical, stochastic, and/or economic modeling with empirical data…. Empirically grounding an analytic model creates knowledge by linking analytical insights to what has been observed using empirical methods (such as case studies, action research, field experiments, interviews, or analysis of secondary data) to establish a theoretically and empirically relevant question.”&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;De Treville et al. (&lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;) propose a framework for discussing EGA research approaches and assessing contributions, summarized in Figure 1 of their editorial. We will refer to this framework rather extensively in our discussion of work in this Special Issue. We provide a “deconstructed” version of this figure, with some added details, in Figure 1.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Research in “empirical grounding” of analytical models can be conceptually viewed as offering two different ways to drive research and lead to impactful contributions. The “left side” approach has as its end goal to establish analytical models verifiably linked to data and observations reflecting the real operational setting. This approach contributes a “calibrated fit” of the model to the operational decision reality. It requires careful empirical justification of modeling assumptions and parameters. The calibration of model parameters involves collecting representative data from the realistic setting, with any remaining model assumptions and approximations well justified for the real situation. The expectation of these grounded models is a high quality of solutions for the approximated real decision problem.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The “right side” approach pursues empirical assessment of model results, solution quality, and applicability of insights in addressing issues encountered in real practice. It carefully verifies that (a) an effective implementation of the model reasonably and accurately depicts the operational setting and decision situation; (b) the obtained solutions lead to improved performance; and (c) incorporating analytical insights and tools leads to improved managerial practice for this setting.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In most cases, “left side” research leads to well-calibrated models with strong hints for improved solution quality and useful insights to be further tested in the real setting and actual practice. “Right side” research carefully tests and confirms the wisdom of new insights and tools, leading to improved practice in the operational setting. However, such testing and analytical insights may reveal irregularities and complexities not effectively depicted in the models, thus","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"71 4","pages":"418-425"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joom.1373","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144206518","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Generative AI and Empirical Research Methods in Operations Management","authors":"Timofey Shalpegin,&nbsp;Tyson R. Browning,&nbsp;Ajay Kumar,&nbsp;Guangzhi Shang,&nbsp;Jason Thatcher,&nbsp;Jan C. Fransoo,&nbsp;Matthias Holweg,&nbsp;Benn Lawson","doi":"10.1002/joom.1371","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1371","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"71 5","pages":"578-587"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144524522","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}