One of the most powerful forces affecting companies since World War II has been the globalization of competition. We have seen transport and communication costs fall, the flow of information and technology across borders increase, national infrastructures grow more similar, and trade and investment barriers ease.
A global strategy, involving operations spread among many countries, has been seen as a powerful means of reaping economies of scale, assimilating and responding to international market needs… (Porter, Competing across locations)
Regardless of the sector, the operations manager (OM) has to process inputs into outputs in the most efficient way possible. Modern techniques such as those of Project Management help the OM beat time and costs records by standardizing processes. Thus, keeping the competitive edge.
Knowing this, how can one even flirt with the idea of a non-existent operations management in the service industry?
Take a financial institution as an example, and ignore for a moment the person who leads the payments, booking of loans and investments, foreign exchange processing teams, etc. Put him, out of the picture for a while and during that period increase all volume activities. What would happen? There is a possibility (but rare) that the department has such efficient, knowledgeable and team-oriented personnel that could handle this indefinitely. But what happens if you add innovative products, overlapping tasks, or a system upgrade on top of this increase in volume? Maybe systems crash down?
Services are defined as activities that provide a combination of time, location, form, and psychological value (Stevenson, 2008). This blend needs to be effectively managed on a consistent basis by an expert in the field, if the company expects to (or has a long-term plan of) be on the top of the customer’s minds, most of the time.
Personally, I believe that ignoring the importance in a systematic approach of operations management will only assure us a similar fait that of the losses the manufacturers had when ignoring the importance of standard gauging systems back in the late 1700s.
A White House Press Release in 2000 stated "Manufacturing accounts for over 70 percent of the value of U.S. exports". At first glance, this quotation sounds big, right? It is indeed. But that did not tell me the whole picture. Well, I found a very interesting comparison made by Michael Porter in an update to his famous article "The five forces that shape strategy" where he illustrates the following information:
The most profitable business during the period of 1992-2006 was Security Brokers and Dealers with 40.9% return on invested capital (ROIC). Scrolling down the chart were some manufacturing sectors followed by Advertising Agencies with 27.3% ROIC. The Average industry ROIC in the US during that period was 14.9%
Don't you think that for a service business to be ranked as the most profitable sector of the U.S. economy had to have a prominent operations management? Granted, among many other things, but as time and cost windows are continuously narrowing I would say that it could have easily been the backbone of the whole thing.


