1 INTRODUCTION

Since the beginning, humans have worked, and many have sought to do so more productively. Although one can point to many earlier innovations in management, scientific management has its roots in mechanical engineering in the 1880s from the techniques of Frederick Taylor (Crainer, 2003; Drucker, 1993; Kanigel, 1997; Taylor, 1903, 1911). In a natural progression from Adam Smith (1776) and his predecessors, who observed the benefits of labor specialization, Taylor advocated for the separation of managers (not just supervisors, but planners and schedulers) from other workers, making management a technical discipline. He also sought to increase the productivity of workers and machinery by observing, measuring, and developing theories about the best ways of doing work. Although many of Taylor's specific recommendations have not endured, his scientific approach underlies much of the research output in the management academy, which established a scholarly perspective by the 1920s (the first business journal appeared in 1928) and began to flourish post‐World War II.

In a development that would not surprise Adam Smith, the management academy subsequently divided into specialized disciplines—such as strategy, leadership, entrepreneurship, marketing, human resources, and information systems—and drew in other relevant ones such as finance and accounting. Along the way, operations management (OM) research occurred under various monikers, including factory management, production management, industrial management, management science, operations research, and decision sciences.¹1 For more on the historical development of OM, see Singhal, Singhal, and Starr (2007).
To this day, and more so than other management disciplines, OM scholars work in academic departments with highly varied names and participate in a wide variety of professional societies and conferences with diverse emphases and perspectives. Meanwhile, relevant research on managing work has continued in the fields of industrial and mechanical engineering, as well as in engineering management. Over time, conceptions of the scopes and boundaries of these disciplines and nearby fields have evolved.

So, what is the scope of the OM discipline now, at the 40th anniversary of the Journal of Operations Management (JOM)? This question is important to consider when determining what topics should fit into JOM, but it is also essential to the community of OM scholars. I suspect that some contemporary conceptions of the scope and extent of OM are too narrow. Herein, I advance a more generous view of OM, one that acknowledges the management of all of the work required to operate an enterprise²2 Despite this essay's frequent use of the term “enterprise,” most of the discussion applies equally well to nonprofit and governmental organizations.
(and across supply chains)—a work‐based view.

中文翻译：

---

运营管理大笔

1引言

从一开始，人类就开始工作，许多人都在努力提高工作效率。虽然人们可以在管理点很多早期的创新，科学管理有其在从弗雷德里克·泰勒的技术，1880年工程机械根（克雷纳，2003 ;德鲁克，1993年; Kanigel，1997年，泰勒，1903年，1911年）。从亚当·史密斯（1776年）和他的前辈（观察劳动专业化的好处），泰勒主张将经理（不仅是主管，而且是计划者和计划员）与其他工​​人分开，从而使管理成为一门技术学科。他还试图通过观察，衡量和发展有关最佳工作方式的理论来提高工人和机械的生产率。尽管泰勒的许多具体建议并未得到满足，但他的科学方法是管理学院研究成果的基础，该学院在1920年代建立了学术观点（第一本商业杂志于1928年出版），并在第二次世界大战后蓬勃发展。

为了使亚当·斯密（Adam Smith）感到惊讶，该管理学院随后分为战略，领导力，企业家精神，市场营销，人力资源和信息系统等专业，并吸收了财务和会计等其他相关学科。在此过程中，运营管理（OM）研究发生在各种名称下，包括工厂管理，生产管理，工业管理，管理科学，运营研究和决策科学。^1个1有关OM的历史发展的更多信息，请参见Singhal，Singhal和Starr（2007）。
迄今为止，OM学者比其他管理学科更在名称各异的学术部门工作，并以不同的重点和观点参加各种各样的专业协会和会议。同时，在工业和机械工程以及工程管理领域中，有关管理工作的相关研究仍在继续。随着时间的流逝，对这些学科和附近领域的范围和边界的观念已经演变。

那么，在《运营管理杂志》（JOM）成立40周年之际，如今的OM学科范围是什么？在确定适合JOM的主题时，必须考虑这个问题，但对于OM学者社区也很重要。我怀疑关于OM的范围和程度的某些当代概念过于狭窄。在此，我对OM提出了更为宽泛的观点，该观点承认管理企业运营所需的所有工作²2尽管本文经常使用“企业”一词，但大多数讨论同样适用于非营利组织和政府组织。
（以及整个供应链）—基于工作的视图。