Fifty years of irrelevance: the wild goose chase of management science

Modern management science has existed since 1959 when two reports (by Pierson and Gordon & Howell) on the future of business education were published in the US. At least since 1980, there has been a practically continuous, but somewhat fragmented discussion on the relevance of management research. Although many different proposals have been made to rectify the situation, the mainstream of management research seems to be relatively untroubled and unaffected by this widely sensed irrelevance. The paper aims at initial understanding of the reasons for this spectacular failure of (general) management research to reach relevant results in the period of 1960-2010. Two related questions are considered in more detail. How was the social science turn of management science in 1959 justified and achieved? Which correctives have been proposed for management research, up to now

Where Rhetoric and Lean Meet

This paper aims at an initial analysis and explanation of lean through the lens of the discipline of rhetoric. First, the ancient origin, central ideas, subsequent history and current interpretations of rhetoric are outlined. Then, the overall meeting points of rhetoric and lean are discussed. At the outset, it is contended that certain arguments that can be used as a justification in rhetoric seem fertile for understanding the difference between lean and conventional management. Then, persuasion towards compliance in production is discussed. The field of visual management is argued to have an implicit foundation in rhetoric. The existence of a common ground of values, facts and presumptions between the speaker and the audience is emphasized in rhetoric; it is contended that lean construction in many ways endeavours to create such a common ground among the project participants. Regarding deliberation, the rhetorical dimensions in the methods of A3 and Choosing by Advantages are discussed. Further, Target Value Design is identified as based, for their part, on rhetorical ideas. In conclusion, it is contended that many aspects of lean, which as such may seem odd and perhaps peri

On the distinction between metonymy and vertical polysemy in encyclopaedic semantics

In cognitive linguistics, metonymy is seen as a fundamental cognitive process where one conceptual entity affords access to another closely associated one. Cases of vertical polysemy have also often been treated as instances of metonymy (see e.g. Radden and Kövecses, 1999). In vertical polysemy a lexical form designates two or more senses that are in a relationship of categorial inclusion – e.g. dog ‘canine’, ‘male canine’. In this paper I present an account of cases of vertical polysemy from the point of view of domain-based encyclopaedic semantics as described in Langacker (1987). I claim that the domain configurations which underlie the broader and narrower meanings of vertical polysemes are very different from those involved in cases of metonymy. Croft (1993) argues that from a Langackerian viewpoint, metonymy involves a shift in the salience of two domains that form parts of a domain matrix against which a given concept is profiled. In cases of vertical polysemy, on the other hand, the relationship between the broader and narrower meanings may be effected in a number of different ways, none of which involve the kind of domain configurations found in metonymy. For example, the narrower ‘male canine’ sense of dog makes reference to an additional domain of SEX, a domain which is not an essential part of the domain structure of the broader ‘canine’ meaning

Prefácio Lean

This book gives an account on the progress of C. Rolim Engenharia regarding lean and green targets in recent years. It contains a theoretical introduction, a history of lean and green developments in the company, research papers made in or supported by the company, as well as results and future prospects in the field considered. This is the second book by the company giving an account of its progress; the first was published in 2010

Management of production in construction: A theoretical view

The transformation view and the flow view are two major conceptualizations of production. The current practice in construction is based on the transformation view. However, the transformation view is an idealization, and in a complex production situation the associated idealization error may become large. This is exactly what happens in practice. Task management, based on the transformation view, assumes that certainty prevails in production. However, it is widely observed that, due to the inherent variability of production in construction, intended task management degenerates into mutual adjustment by teams on site. It is argued that the transformation view and the flow view should be synthesized into a new theoretical view on construction. The inherent causes of variability in construction can be explained and the countermeasures for eliminating variability or stemming its impact can be pinpointed by this new theoretical view. It is shown that the Last Planner method is compatible with this new view

Moving on - beyond lean thinking

Lean Thinking is currently often positioned as the underlying theory of lean production among practitioners and academics, although its originators, Womack and Jones, seem not to have presented it as a theory. This paper endeavors to analyze whether Lean Thinking can be viewed as a theory of lean production. For this purpose, a critical assessment of Lean Thinking is carried out. Lean Thinking is argued to lack an adequate conceptualization of production, which has led to imprecise concepts, such as the term “value”. The five principles of Lean Thinking do not orderly cover value generation, and they do not always encapsulate the core topics in their respective areas. The failure to trace the origin of lean concepts and principles reduces the opportunity to justify and explain them. Despite claims for generality, the application area of the five lean principles is limited to the transformation of mass production, with, for instance, one-of-a-kind production and construction being largely out of scope. It is concluded that it is opportune to move on beyond Lean Thinking, towards a generic theory of production, for acquiring a solid foundation for designing, operating and improving production systems