Search results

The purpose of this study is to characterize construction management research at the interface of explanatory science and design science.

The dual nature of construction management research is analyzed by relating this field of research to natural science, design science and its interface. Research at the interface of explanatory science and design science is characterized by identifying studies published on this interface in high quality construction management journals.

Research at this interface should focus on technological rules developed through testing in practical contexts as in design science as well as grounding in the explanatory sciences. The nature of testing technological rules is highly similar to the replication logic recommended for comparative case studies.

Developing and testing technological rules combines the design science and the explanatory science mode of knowledge production in construction management research, while it also respects some of the methodological differences between the two modes.

Developing and testing technological rules is the common ground on which research in construction management practice and research can meet and reduce the relevance gap between science and the world of practice.

The objective of this chapter is to discuss how different techniques in Regional Science and Peace Science and the emerging techniques in Management Science can be used in analysing Disaster Management and Global pandemic with special reference to developing countries. It is necessary for me to first discuss the subjects of Disaster Management, Regional Science, Peace Science and Management Science. The objective of this chapter is to emphasise that the studies of Disaster Management should be more integrated with socioeconomic and geographical factors. The greatest disaster facing the world is the possibility of war, particularly nuclear war, and the preparation of the means of destruction through military spending.

To provide an overview of research published in the management accounting literature on methods for cost management in new product development, such as a target costing, life cycle costing, component commonality, and modular design.

The structured literature search covered papers about 15 different cost management methods published in 40 journals in the period 1990–2013.

The search yielded a sample of 113 different papers. Many contained information about more than one method, and this yielded 149 references to specific methods. The number of references varied strongly per cost management method and per journal. Target costing has received by far the most attention in the publications in our sample; modular design, component commonality, and life cycle costing were ranked second and joint third. Most references were published in Management Science; Management Accounting Research; and Accounting, Organizations and Society. The results were strongly influenced by Management Science and Decision Science, because cost management methods with an engineering background were published above average in these two journals (design for manufacturing, component commonality, modular design, and product platforms) while other topics were published below average in these two journals.

The scope of this review is accounting research. Future work could review the research on cost management methods in new product development published outside accounting.

The paper centers on methods for cost management, which complements reviews that focused on theoretical constructs of management accounting information and its use.

The sciences of knowledge and the sciences of communication have evolved to become two separate disciplines. The current transformations of technologies, managerial practices, and organization of work, force communication sciences to take into account issues related to cognition. Similarly, the science of knowledge needs to better consider the problems of context, economy and social environment, at a higher level of generalization than just those of individuals or groups. This paper seeks to present how both sciences can better integrate.

Starting from an epistemological study of the use of the word “knowledge” in cognitive sciences and in sciences of communication, the authors developed a framework to analyze knowledge management tools and practices.

The framework developed presents the organizational mechanisms for knowledge management in relation to the artifacts (objects) of communication through which they operate. It highlights the cognitive aspects present in communications.

Owing to the general aspect of the framework, some applications in industries might only be relevant to a portion of the framework. Further applications in several contexts are encouraged.

The study of the relationship between knowledge and communication aims to bring together the research which puts into perspective the analysis of forms, tools and methods of knowledge management, with the study of associated communication issues. The implementation of knowledge management systems within organizations is often associated with organizational change. The study of communications implied in this change leads to a macro‐analysis methodology to appreciate strengths and weaknesses of these mutations.

A dictionary definition of management says that it is the “judicious use of means to accomplish an end” (Webster). An alternative definition which may be found in textbooks is that management means the handling of scarce resources so as to maximise utility. Can there be a science dealing with how to handle scarce resources? Economics is also sometimes defined as the science having to do with the handling of scarce resources. Is there then any difference between economics and management? I think there is. Economics derives its normative statements from value systems incorporating economic equilibria (market equilibria). Management, on the other hand, is somehow tied to purposeful decision‐making and actions and the concept is often though not exclusively used about business decision‐making. Management is then seen as the art or science of maximising profits and ensuring efficiency. Even if this is the main pre‐occupation of management researchers and practitioners as evidenced by textbooks and case studies, it does not by any means cover the whole complex area of management. For one thing there are always constraints on behaviour, some of which are so strict that they actually serve as goals in themselves and maximisation of profit is often replaced by criteria for satisficing. It should be noted that management is also used in the sense of “the collective body of those who manage or direct an enterprise” (Webster). This latter definition may explain why management in the first sense is often conceived as relating to the handling of scarce resources in the business firm.

The implicit and indirect influence of classical science on strategic management has been of utmost importance in the development of the discipline. Classical science has underpinned the main and even contrasting strategic management cultures. Classical science has undoubtedly allowed strategic management to thrive. Nevertheless, important limitations, roadblocks and challenges have also been produced. This paper aims to explore the influence of classical science on the main positivist and interpretive strategic management cultures.

A conceptual review is done on the influence of classical science on positivist and interpretivist traditions in strategic management.

The benefits and shortcomings of classical science in strategic management are explored and presented. Furthermore, the convoluted implicit relationship between strategic management and science is shown to be changing but persisting, as to face some of the challenges of the classical science culture of strategic management, a complexity culture, also inspired partially on science, seems to be developing in strategic management. Complexity seems to be emerging as an alternative, which might allow strategic management to solve some of its current dilemmas and, thus, change its implicit relationship with science.

The paper presents a novel way to conceptualize historical cultures of strategic management via their connection with academic cultures that have historically emerged from science. Through the analysis here done, a possible candidate for a Kuhninan normal strategic management and its potential revolution will be suggested, based on the recognition of the inheritance of classical science and currently complexity theory in strategic management.

The purpose of this paper is to recognize the concepts and disciplinary position of management, for faculty members in management circles, which can help them develop their academic career.

Based on review and clarification of domestic and international disciplinary concepts on management, this paper takes data from academic journals of international management as the sample, making use of the latest mapping knowledge domains method.

Reveals the disciplinary boundary of modern management and disciplinary position of general management as a basic discipline, demonstrates the relationship between management and other relevant disciplines, such as psychology, sociology, economics, mathematics, etc. shows the trend of ascending position of management in mankind's knowledge system as an independent discipline.

This paper identifies concepts and information in management sciences which will provide inspiration for management in China, to move forward to the international academic frontline.

Utilizing the findings of a survey of science park managers and directors, carried out in the latter half of 1994, examines the management of property developed within science parks in the UK. Shows that, as a result of the complex motives for the development of science parks and the specialized sector they typically aim to accommodate, the management function may prove complex and consequently labour intensive and costly. Proposes that science park management, out of necessity, has to incorporate proactive and even interventionist techniques in developing an understanding of occupiers, a sophisticated understanding of whose needs are generally, and increasingly, perceived as a key determinant of successful property development and management. Concludes, however, that the increasing maturity and improving commercial profile, and hence viability, of science parks is altering the science park management role

The knowledge generated by academics in the field of management is often criticized because of its reduced relevance for professionals. In the review of the literature, the authors distinguish between three streams of thought. The review of the literature and the understanding of the research streams that have been addressed by the academic–practitioner gap in management has allowed to clarify that what truly underlies each of these approaches is a different assumption or paradigm from which the management science focusses.

This paper reviews the main approaches that have analysed this topic, drawing a number of conclusions.

The knowledge generated by academics in the field of management is often criticized because of its reduced relevance for professionals. In the review of the literature, the authors distinguish between three main perspectives. The review of the literature and the understanding of the research streams that have been addressed by the academic–practitioner gap in management has allowed us to clarify that what truly underlies each of these approaches is a different assumption or paradigm from which the management science focusses. To represent the findings of the literature review in this sense, the authors will present, first, a model that serves as a framework to interpret the different solutions proposed in the literature to close the gap from a positivist paradigm. Subsequently, they question this view through a reflection that brings us closer to a more pragmatic and interpretive paradigm of management science to bridge the research–practice gap.

In recent studies, researchers agree that there is an important gap between management research and practice, which may bear little resemblance to each other. However, the literature on this topic does not seem to be guided by a rigorously structured discourse and, for the most part, is not based on empirical studies. Moreover, a sizeable body of literature has been developed with the objective of analysing and contributing solutions that reconcile management researchers and professionals. To offer a more systematic view of the literature on this topic, the paper classifies previous approaches into three different perspectives based on the ideas on which they are supported. Finally, the paper concludes with some reflections that could help to reorient the paradigm from which the management research is carried out.