Martin K. Starr: A Visionary Proponent for System Integration, Modular Production, and Catastrophe...

Martin K. Starr: A Visionary Proponent forSystem Integration, Modular Production, and

Catastrophe Avoidance

Sushil Gupta • Aleda V. RothDepartment of Decision Sciences and Information Systems, College of Business Administration, Florida

International University, 11200 SW 8th Street, RB 255, Miami, FL 33199, USADepartment of Management, College of Business and Behavioral Science, 343A Sirrine Hall, Clemson University,

Clemson, SC 29634-1305, [email protected] • [email protected]

Martin K. Starr facilitated the creation of an identity for production and operations management(POM) as an academic discipline. This paper aims to summarize Starr’s substantial contributions

to scholarly inquiry on system integration and interfunctional coordination, modular production, andcatastrophe avoidance. Even after four decades, we describe how his legacy in these areas continues todefine several major drivers of operations and supply chain management research and practice. Starr hasinfluenced several generations of students, professors, and executives with his writings, teaching, andleadership roles in the POM community that include 32 years on the faculty of the Columbia School ofBusiness, 15 years as Editor-in-Chief of Management Science, and presidency of the Production andOperations Management Society.

Key words: Martin (Marty) Kenneth Starr; production and operations management; system integration;interdisciplinary research; modular production; catastrophe and risk

1. The Emergence of Production andOperations Management (POM) asan Academic Discipline andSystem Integration

We describe the contributions and legacy of Martin K.Starr for his role in building the field of POM. Wecover his intellectual contributions to the literature,teaching, and leadership. Starr entered the academicarena in 1953, with degrees from MIT and Columbia.This was a time when many breakthrough develop-ments were taking place in production and operationsmanagement following the emergence and growth ofindustrial age corporations from 1880 to 1932 andmass production during the Second World War. How-ever, it was not until after the Carnegie Corporationand the Ford Foundation’s recommendations to im-prove analytical approaches and research in 1959 thatmodern business education started to emerge. Nota-bly, at that time, POM did not have an identity as adistinct academic disciple in universities, despite the

accumulation of a massive body of new knowledge onproduction (Gupta and Starr 2006; Singhal, Singhal,and Starr 2007). This void created an opportunity forElwood S. Buffa at UCLA to consolidate knowledgefrom various streams of POM into a coherent mana-gerial framework in the first edition of his textbook,Modern Production Management (Buffa 1961).

Having read and taught using the Buffa text, Starrdesigned an introductory operations managementcourse around it at Columbia. In 1964, he expandedthe vision and extended the boundaries of POM witha systems-oriented textbook, Production Management:Systems and Synthesis (Starr 1964a). In his seminal text-book, Starr focused on interdependence of variouscomponents in the architecture of POM and on POM’scross-functional interactions in organizations. Thissystem-oriented textbook was translated into Hungar-ian, Portuguese, Rumanian, Russian, and Spanish.Starr not only facilitated the creation of POM as awell-defined and coherent academic discipline, butalso emphasized the existence of permeable bound-

POMSPRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENTVol. 16, No. 1, January-February 2007, pp. 1–12issn 1059-1478 � 07 � 1601 � 001$1.25 © 2007 Production and Operations Management Society

1

aries between the subsystems and a strong need forintegrating them. In the preface to his textbook, Starrwrote,

“The spirit of this book is embodied in the relation-ship of systems analysis to systems synthesis. Thedistinction between analysis and synthesis is neitheresoteric nor academic. Analytic behavior follows whatmight be called principles of disassembly. It exists interms of operations that involve division, dissection,classification, separation, partitioning, segmentation,and so forth. Thus, using analysis we proceed to takethe production management domain apart. We studythe pieces and attempt to improve them. Then, wereassemble the system, but because of interactions anddependencies between the parts it is quite possiblethat the reassembled production function will not beimproved and may be impaired. Synthesis is requiredto put things back together again in a measurably‘satisfactory’ way. To achieve this objective, it may benecessary to modify the results derived by analysis ofisolated parts. Synthesizing behavior can be expressedas a set of (corollary) ‘principles of assembly.’. . . Synthe-sis. . . can be identified with attitudes and activitiesthat are common in architecture, art, and sculpture.Here, creativity thrives on overview abilities that takeadvantage of penetrating insights.”

Starr’s book also included chapters emphasizingand explaining POM’s interactions with finance andmarketing. The concepts of cross-functional integra-tion and permeable boundaries of POM came to thelimelight three decades later when a renewed empha-sis was given to the importance of boundary manage-ment in world class manufacturing (Giffi, Roth, andSeal 1990; Roth 1992). Stemming from informationprocessing theory and the knowledge-based view, thetheoretical and practical rationale for Starr’s early con-ceptions is this: “The competitive environment andthe strategic manufacturing task have profound impli-cations for the types of knowledge that a manufactur-ing organization requires. New knowledge require-ments often come from outside the manufacturingfunction as companies competing to design successfulproducts contend with different types of process tech-nologies, materials and skill requirements. . . This evo-lution suggests that an open systems model of manu-facturing, which requires an ongoing informationexchange between the manufacturing functions andthe external environment, may be more appropriatefor operation in the twenty-first century. When itcomes to integration, the set of manufacturing choicesbecomes an arsenal of new strategic weapons. . . Forexample, manufacturing, finance, marketing andproduct development may all have different plans fora new product, which when taken alone or combinedwithout an overall structure, may be incompatible.Boundary management defines the way in which the

strategy instruments ‘sound’ together. . . (It) will re-shape the architecture of the manufacturing organiza-tion to an open systems design” (Giffi, Roth, and Seal1990, p. 82).

The concept of permeable boundaries of POM alsobecame important when globalization and vertical dis-integration created a new paradigm for managingsupply chains. Lee and Ng (1997), in their introductionto a special issue of Production and Operations Manage-ment on Global Supply Chain Management, pointedout that interdisciplinary perspectives, combined withthe benefits of interorganizational coordination, wereprimarily responsible for the new paradigm in supplychain management. They noted, “It seems that thedistinction between the so-called supply chain man-agement today and traditional operations man-agement lies in two dimensions of integration andcoordination: organizational integration and flowcoordination. The first dimension is in the integrationof organizations to break the organizational bound-aries. Hence, companies are seeking opportunities toovercome the company boundaries, working closelywith their suppliers and customers. Companies arealso overcoming the functional boundaries, so that thedifferent disciplines and functions, such as manufac-turing, distribution, marketing, accounting, informa-tion, and engineering, are better integrated” (p. 191).

Interdisciplinary and interorganizational researchhas now become a major focus of operations manage-ment. Carrillo (2005), Jain and Ramdas (2005), Mallickand Schroeder (2005), and Schmidt and Druehl (2005)build on the literature in marketing and engineeringfor their work on product development. Seshadri andSubrahmanyam (2005) edited a special issue of Produc-tion and Operations Management on risk management inoperations. Seven papers in this special issue (Gans,Sethi, and Yan 2005; Hendricks and Singhal 2005;Kleindorfer and Saad 2005; Lederer and Mehta 2005;Martınez-de-Albeniz and Simchi-Levi 2005; Miller andPark 2005; and Sodhi 2005) either integrate conceptsfrom finance and operations or modify concepts fromfinance in the context of operations. For a review ofinterdisciplinary and interorganizational research inoperations management, see the article by Buhman,Kekre, and Singhal (2005).

The systems-oriented approach to POM has re-mained a constant in Starr’s works. In the preface tohis most recent textbook, Foundations of Production andOperations Management, Starr (2006) writes, “The sys-tems view integrates information, rejecting functionalboundaries in pursuit of solutions to real problems.Isolation of functions within a company (referred to as‘stovepipe organization’) produces poor decisionscompared with the results of interdisciplinary team-work.” It was not until the late 1980s that this perspec-

Gupta and Roth: Martin K. Starr: A Visionary2 Production and Operations Management 16(1), pp. 1–12, © 2007 Production and Operations Management Society

tive became conventional wisdom in western POMpractices (Giffi, Roth, and Seal 1990).

2. Modular ProductionIn 1965, Starr articulated the concept of “modularproduction” in a pioneering article (Starr 1965a),“Modular production—A new concept,” published inthe Harvard Business Review. The journal’s editors ob-served, “’Modular Production’ is the name Martin K.Starr gives to a newly developing capacity to designand manufacture parts which can be combined in themaximum number of ways.” The paper evolved fromStarr’s 1963 book, Product Design and Decision Theory(Starr 1963). The concept of modular production cre-ated opportunities for mass customization and opera-tional agility and served as a driver of vertical disin-tegration of supply chains.

Starr (1965a) suggested that modular production,like the advent of interchangeable parts, was inevita-ble. Four decades later, consistent with Starr’s proph-ecy, the phrase “modular production” has become apart of the business lexicon and the basic concepts thatStarr articulated have become a part of modern busi-ness vernacular describing operational agility, cellularmanufacturing, and mass customization. Most of thepublished papers (for example, Fredriksson 2006,Mikkola 2006, Patnayakuni, Rai, and Seth 2006, Pers-son and Ahlstrom 2006, Skipworth and Harrison 2006,and Thyssen, Israelsen, and Jorgensen 2006) and un-published papers [http://esd.mit.edu/wps/2001.htm][http://www-innovation.jbs.cam.ac.uk/publications/reichhart_form.pdf] on modular production continue tocite Starr’s work. Starr (1965a) articulated the basic con-cept of modular production as follows:

• “The change . . . can be briefly described as theconsumer’s demand for maximum productive vari-ety (or maximum choice). To achieve this variety,what I call “modular” or “combinatorial” produc-tive capacities—that is, capacities to design andmanufacture parts which can be combined in nu-merous ways—are required, as well as compati-ble managerial abilities” (pp. 131–132).

• “The essence of the depicted capability is techno-logical. The notion of high-volume, low-cost, au-tomated mass production will eventually giveway to adaptive automation capable of producinga sequence of unique outputs at no sacrifice ofvolume and at no significant increase in cost” (p.135).

• “It is the essence of the modular concept to de-sign, develop, and produce those parts which canbe combined in the maximum number of ways”(p. 138).

• “One accent is on design; a second is on the

exercise of adequate managerial controls” (p.138).

• “To achieve differentiation, there will be smallbatches of units with separate setup charges. Andyet, because of the technology and methodologyemployed, the total charges, including those forsetup, can be significantly less than the total rev-enue obtained in the marketplace” (p. 135).

We point out that Starr brought to attention theissue of small batches and low set-up cost long beforethe Japanese companies made them popular in the restof the world.

Consistent with Starr’s prognosis, the concept of mod-ular production has made an impact on five dimensions:accelerated innovation (technology), increased outsourc-ing coupled with vertical disintegration (supply chains),permeable boundaries of functions and integration of thesystem, mass customization (market), and modularity inservices.

Accelerated InnovationModularization accelerates the pace of innovation, re-duces cost, increases flexibility, and cuts time to mar-ket. Baldwin and Clark (1997, p. 86-87) observe,“Through the widespread adoption of modular de-signs, the computer industry has dramatically in-creased its rate of innovation. Modularity in use canspur innovation in design: the manufacturers can in-dependently experiment with new products and con-cepts . . . and find ready consumer acceptance as longas their modules fit the standard dimensions. By del-egating the manufacturing process to many separatesuppliers, each one of which adds value, the assemblergains flexibility and cuts costs. That amounts to arefinement of the pattern of modularity already estab-lished in production.” Fine (2000, p. 217) observes,“Modularizing a product’s architecture breaks itdown into simpler subsystems and often enables afaster development pace.” In the context of the de-fense industry, Fine (p. 217) adds, “Such modulariza-tion and outsourcing not only significantly reducesdevelopment times for defense suppliers but eases theway for frequent and profitable upgrades as morepowerful imaging technology is developed.” In thecontext of outsourcing of medical imaging systems,Fine reports (p. 218) that the “suppliers have cut theirtime to market and stolen a march on some less re-sourceful competitors.” The observations of Baldwinand Clark and also those of Fine are consistent withStarr’s prediction: “The essence of the depicted capa-bility is technological. The notion of high-volume,low-cost, automated mass production will eventuallygive way to adaptive automation capable of produc-ing a sequence of unique outputs at no sacrifice ofvolume and at no significant increase in cost (Starr1965a, p. 135)”.

Gupta and Roth: Martin K. Starr: A VisionaryProduction and Operations Management 16(1), pp. 1–12, © 2007 Production and Operations Management Society 3

Outsourcing and Vertical Disintegrationin Supply ChainsStarr (1965a) observed, “The change represents a fun-damental departure from prior conditions in the sensethat previously one company’s ability to mass-pro-duce identical items could be copied by other firms.But for modular production there are no patterns avail-able with which to model and manage the productionsystem. A great deal of innovation and creativity iscalled for, and with these will be found the inevitablepartners, risk and uncertainty, and real vulnerabilityto astute competitive practices. . . . It is apparent thatwe are dealing with a situation that will involve fun-damental changes in the enterprise” (p. 142).

Modular production has indeed led to fundamentalchanges in the way organizations function; and thechanges are accompanied with “innovation and cre-ativity,” “inevitable partners, risk and uncertainty,and real vulnerability to astute competitive practices”as Starr had forecasted. First, Baldwin and Clark(1997) observe, “As modularity becomes an estab-lished way of doing business, competition amongmodule suppliers will intensify. Assemblers will lookfor the best-performing or lowest cost modules, spur-ring these increasingly sophisticated and independentsuppliers into a race for innovation similar to the onealready happening with computer modules (p. 87).”They added, “Modularity does more than acceleratethe pace of change or heighten competitive pressures.It also transforms relations among companies. Moduledesigners rapidly move in and out of joint ventures,technology alliances, subcontracts, employmentagreements, and financial arrangements as they com-pete in a relentless race to innovate” (p. 88).

Second, modular production is one of the primarydrivers of outsourcing and vertical disintegration. Wedescribe two perspectives on this outcome. Chris-tensen, Verlinden, and Westerman (2002) point outthat interdependent product architectures predomi-nate during periods when the product functionality isnot yet good enough to meet the customers’ needs.When functionality surpasses the level of customers’needs, customization for various market segments be-comes a competitive weapon. This is accomplished bymodular product designs because modularization fa-cilitates innovation and creates additional options forspeed, flexibility, and cost reduction. Christensen,Verlinden, and Westerman (2002, p. 965) note, “Mod-ularity then enables independent, focused providersof individual pieces of value-added to thrive, becausetransactions cost-minimizing structured technical dia-logue can occur. As a result, an industry which at onepoint was dominated by integrated firms becomesdominated by a population of specialized, non-inte-grated firms.”

This trend toward modular archetypes is also ob-

served in modern B2B marketspaces (Rosenzweig andRoth 2007). These authors found three distinct groupsof companies that are defined by the characteristics oftheir interactions with business partners using theInternet, which they labeled e-transactions, modularand integrator types. The modular group, in contrastto the other two types, had supply chain relationshipsthat were more loosely coupled, short-to-mediumterm in duration, making it relatively easy to switchpartners. Thus, while modular archetypes had madesome investments in asset-specific relationships, theycould easily reconfigure their supply chain to be re-sponsive to changing business customer requirements.

Fine (2000, p. 216) offers another perspective on therelationship between modular production and verticaldisintegration of supply chains, “Consider the dy-namic forces at work: When the industry structure isvertical and the product architecture is integral, theforces of disintegration push toward a horizontal andmodular configuration. These forces include: 1) Therelentless entry of niche competitors hoping to pick offdiscrete industry segments 2) The challenge of keep-ing ahead of the competition across the many dimen-sions of technology and markets required by an inte-gral system 3) The bureaucratic and organizationalrigidities that often settle upon large established com-panies. These forces typically weaken the vertical gi-ant and create pressure toward disintegration to amore horizontal, modular structure.”

System IntegrationAfter emphasizing permeable boundaries and integra-tion of the system in his 1964 textbook, Starr returnedto this theme in the context of modular production,“For those companies that will evolve successfully bymaintaining or increasing their total share of a grow-ing market, a new form of effort which will cut acrossmany functional organizational areas is required. Wecan call this new orientation a ‘synthesis’ to distin-guish it from ‘analysis,’ the euphemism which epito-mizes the traditional production management ap-proach” (Starr 1965a, pp. 132–135). He added, “Whatis required is the ability to manage a new kind ofproductivity. An appropriate organizational structurewould provide greater responsiveness to the market.In such an organization, production would be in touchwith consumers, with the contact mediated by themarketing function. An appropriate organizationwould also allow the production manager to respondwith sensitive perception to developing technologies.To achieve such results, a much higher level of func-tional integration is called for. It is also quite clear thatproduction management should once again partici-pate in top management decision making.” We alsopoint out that Starr emphasized the notion of focus on


the customer long before Japan exported the total qual-ity management evolution with this focus as its core.

More than three decades later Baldwin and Clark(1997, p. 91) emphasized the same theme, “For thoseorganizational processes to succeed, however, the out-put of the various decentralized teams (including thedesigners at partner companies) must be tightly inte-grated. As with a product, the key to integration in theorganization is the visible information.” They added(p. 92), “The well-publicized problems of many com-puter companies have often been rooted in inadequatecoordination of their development teams as they cre-ated new products. Less obvious, but equally impor-tant, are the problems that arise when teams fail tocommunicate the hidden information—the knowledgethey develop about modular technology O with therest of the organization. That lack of communication,we have found, causes organizations to commit thesame costly mistakes over and over again.”

Mass CustomizationStarr developed the concept of modular production asa response to “the consumer’s demand for maximumproductive variety (or maximum choice)” and noted,“To achieve this variety, what I call “modular” or“combinatorial” productive capacities—that is, capac-ities to design and manufacture parts which can becombined in numerous ways—are required, as well ascompatible managerial abilities” (Starr 1965a, p. 131–132). The “demand for variety” now has a more for-mal term, “mass customization.” Modularity remainsa key to mass customization (Pine 1993; Feitzinger andLee 1997). Mass customization, like modular produc-tion, has also quickly become a part of the businessvocabulary and has been widely covered in the liter-ature (Kotha 1995; Piller 2004).

Modularity in ServicesModularity has also become a basis for customizingand capability building in services. In the second edi-tion of Production Management: Systems and Synthesis,Starr (1972, p 217–218) wrote about services and mod-ularity, “A major factor in the development of newproducts and services is the ability to achieve the rightlevel of innovation. We can begin to understand thenature of this problem by considering trees of strategicalternatives. . . . Thus, from the point of view of de-signing a restaurant, the relevant variables include:menu variety (both type of food and variety of offer-ings), food quality, service quality, atmosphere pro-vided, and many other factors.” Starr shows a designtree reflecting 7200 different kinds of restaurants con-structed of the various modules.

Twenty-five years later, Baldwin and Clark (1997, p.88) noted, “In addition to products, a wide range ofservices are also being modularized—most notably in

the financial services industry, where the process is faralong. Nothing is easier to modularize than stocks andother securities. Financial services are purely intangi-ble, having no hard surfaces, no difficult shapes, noelectrical pins or wires, and no complex computercode. Because the science of finance is sophisticatedand highly developed, these services are relativelyeasy to define, analyze, and split apart.” They can thenbe rebundled into a wide variety of new offerings.They added, “The other result of the intrinsic modu-larity of financial instruments has been an enormousboost in innovation. By combining advanced scientificmethods with high-speed computers, for example, de-signers can split up securities into smaller units thatcan then be reconfigured into derivative financialproducts. Such innovations have made global finan-cial markets more fluid so that capital now flowseasily even between countries with very different fi-nancial practices” (p. 88).

The conceptualization of modularization in servicesalso provides the impetus for operational agility, “de-fined as the ability to excel simultaneously on opera-tions capabilities of quality, delivery, flexibility andcost in a coordinated fashion” (Menor, Roth, and Ma-son 2001, p. 273). The 2000 Malcolm Baldrige QualityProgram Criteria for Performance Excellence on Agil-ity (NIST, 2000, pp. 3–4) states: “Success in globallycompetitive markets demands creating a capacity forrapid change and flexibility. . . All aspects of timeperformance are increasingly important. . . time im-provements often drive simultaneous improvementsin organization, quality, cost, and productivity.”

The empirical results in the paper by Menor, Roth,and Mason (2001) demonstrate that agile banks hadsignificantly higher levels integrating technologiesthan their nonagile counterparts, and in turn, hadgreater factor productivity and business sustainabil-ity. They conclude “Operationally agile banks appar-ently take a more holistic [systems] approach, withmore highly integrated, cross-functional strategies.While higher investments in technology and capacitywere typically associated with operational agility, per-haps even more striking was the agile group’s atten-tion to understanding their customers and competi-tors and to cultivating a skilled and knowledgeableworkforce. . . Clearly, agile banks coordinate tightlymarketing, human resources and operations practices,as conventional wisdom posits for delivery serviceexcellence” (p. 288).

3. Catastrophe AvoidanceIn his book, Management: A Modern Approach, Starr(1971b) devoted an entire chapter on planning forhigh-risk systems. In that chapter and in three of hisearlier works, which include two books (Miller and


Starr 1960; Miller and Starr 1967) and a paper in Man-agement Science (Starr 1966), Starr described threshold-constrained models for dealing with the possibility of“catastrophic” outcomes. He listed the following char-acteristics of these models:

• The strategic sequence is speculative.• Evolving environmental configurations are fore-

cast with varying degrees of believability.• Network branches associated with probabilities

of “ruin” that are in excess of some value define aruin-path, which must be avoided.

Ruin-paths are more likely to appear when a largepercentage of total assets is involved in the planningdecisions.

Starr described a mathematical model based ongambling theory and offered an important insight“What constitutes threat to one company may not bethreat to another. The differentiating factors are thesize of penalties, their probabilities of occurrence andthe effects of vulnerabilities to such penalties. Even ina specific situation, two executives of the same com-pany may disagree. Their difference of opinion can betraced to psychological, value-based considerations.At the root of this issue are lifetime attitudes concern-ing fundamental utilities. Given two companies withdifferent circumstances, the problem becomes easierto visualize. Companies can be differentiated withrespect to many relevant factors including their totalassets and the percent of total assets that a plan puts atstake” (Starr 1966, p. B-134),

The models described by Starr can be used for max-imizing profit subject to a ruin probability constraintor for minimizing ruin. The solution would discardplans that contain ruin- or catastrophe-prone nodes,that is, the plans, which exceed a certain level ofprobability of catastrophe. Starr pointed out that theanalysis of such models would involve statistics ofextremes (Gumbel 1958), and he referred to Borel(1962) for a fascinating discussion on a “reasonablelevel of safety” where a life was concerned. Consis-tently with his view of organizations, Starr empha-sized that these models “require cutting across thenominal boundaries of an organization to integratevarious functions such as finance, marketing and pro-duction within a single higher-order system” (Starr1966 p. B-138).

Starr suggested that these models could be appliedto floods, earthquakes, gamblers’ wagers, self-insur-ance, liquid reserves, breakeven points, and contests.Starr saw an increasing role of models in dealing withuncertainty (Starr 1971b, p. 32), “A.. reason for theexpanded use of models is that the amount of uncer-tainty with which management must deal has beenincreasing rapidly, along with this has come an in-crease in the consequences of errors. The uncertaintylevel has risen as product life has become shorter,

technology more dynamic, and societal factors moreforceful. The cost of errors has grown with nationaldistribution of products, tighter profit margins, andincreasing social penalties.” The roles of models indealing with uncertainty and possibilities of catastro-phes continues to expand even more rapidly withcoordination and security of global supply chains,increasing complexities of products and organiza-tions, and human-made and natural disasters. Se-shadri and Subrahmanyam (2005) point out that anal-ysis of catastrophic risks has gained greater attentiondue to the widespread use of automated systems andthe perceived vulnerability of digital and global oper-ations to random events. Following 9/11, Starr (2001c,2004b) refocused on this theme in the context ofPOM’s central role in managing safety and security.

4. The TeacherThe disciplines of management science and POM werestill in their infancy when Starr started his career.However, these disciplines contained knowledge thatcould have a major impact on the way the economyand the organizations functioned. Starr became con-vinced that classroom teaching, executive develop-ment programs, and textbooks were critical vehiclesfor creating such an impact and building the field.Since then, he has authored or co-authored 24 bookson production and operations management, opera-tions research/management science, and statistics.Several of them have been translated into variouslanguages.

In 1962, Martin Starr and David Miller published anintermediate-level text, Inventory Control: Theory andPractice (Starr and Miller 1962). It was the first text-book to introduce both mathematical theory and uti-lization of computers at a time when very few com-panies were using either for inventory management.In the preface of this book, Starr and Miller wrote thatthe book covered the “problems whose solutions havemeaningful consequences in the practical applicationsof the theory” and that “for most inventory problems,mathematical analysis” was “the only way to find theoptimal inventory policy,” (p. viii). This book wastranslated into French and Spanish.

Starr broke new grounds with his most favoritebook, Management: A Modern Approach (Starr 1971b) inwhich he used the tools of operations research, man-agement science, information theory, and statistics toexplore the traditional view of management and or-ganization theory. David Hertz, who was head ofMcKinsey’s Operations Research Consulting Officewhen the book was published, said that this was “oneof the three books that he would take if he was iso-lated on a deserted island” ( Hertz 1972). David B.Hertz made a reference to this book in his article Hertz


(1971), in which according to the editor of the Innova-tion Magazine, Hertz explains that Starr treats “quan-titative techniques, however, he delves deeply into themanagement aspects of management science—suchthings as organization theory, concepts of planningand control, and communication of information. Healso takes up specific management problems andshows how the theoretical concepts have been devel-oped to solve the problems.”

Starr underlined the importance of people’s creativeskills on the book’s dedication page, “At every man-agement level myths exist to answer questions that noone has thought to ask. Myths reflect imagined con-straints and objectives chosen by habit. The perceiverof myths discovers in them unexpected opportunitiesto create the future.”

On the increasing role of models in managing com-plex organizations, Starr (1971b, p. 28) observed,“While the scientific position is critical in buildingmodels, it has no parallel in the application of thesemodels. The successful user must be both artist andscientist. In the past, art and science have formed at leasta colloidal mixture—that is, they have never blendedhomogeneously. No neat aphorisms have been devel-oped about how art and science can cooperate tobecome synergistic.” Today’s desktop computers asminiature devices to store and analyze massive data,powerful enterprise, resource planning software andthe ubiquitous Internet, which together have enabledand facilitated tens of thousands of applications ofmanagement science methodology, were not on thehorizon when Starr prophesied, “The future undoubt-edly holds a more harmonious art-science relationshipthan now exists”(p. 28).

Starr coauthored three books on operations re-search/management science. Executive Decisions andOperations Research by Miller and Starr (1960) wastranslated into Portuguese, French, Italian, Japanese,and Spanish, and its second edition ( Miller and Starr1969) was translated into Polish also. The other twobooks are The Practice of Management Science (Starr andStein 1976) and Management Science: An Introduction(Dannenbring and Starr 1981). The latter was trans-lated into Spanish. Starr coauthored three books onstatistics (Bowen and Starr 1982; Sobol and Starr 1983,1993). Starr’s other books include Product Design andDecision Theory (Starr 1963), which was translated intoFrench and Spanish; The Structure of Human Decisions(Miller and Starr 1967), which was translated intoJapanese, Portuguese, and Spanish; Systems Manage-ment of Operations (Starr 1971a), which was translatedinto Spanish; second edition of Production Manage-ment: Systems and Synthesis (Starr 1972), which wastranslated into Spanish and Hungarian; OperationsManagement (Starr 1978), which was translated intoSpanish; Managing Production and Operations (Starr

1989); Global Corporate Alliances and the CompetitiveEdge: Strategies and Tactics for Management (Starr 1991);Operations Management: A Systems Approach (Starr1996); and Production and Operations Management (Starr2004a). Starr (2002) is the Spanish version of the sec-ond edition of Operations Management: A Systems Ap-proach, (Starr 2000), translated by Ana Muriel in col-laboration with a team of Spanish academics.

Starr also wrote papers on a wide range of topics onPOM education. These influential papers include therole of business schools in the United States (Starr1976) (also translated in Japanese), various approachesfor teaching management science (Starr 1970), primarydrivers of the international POM curriculum (Starr1997), on-line learning (Starr 2001b), and executiveeducation (Starr 1969, 1993a–c, 2001a).

Along the way, Starr mentored many students andshaped their academic careers. For example, David G.Dannenbring (2006), Provost and Senior Vice Presi-dent for Academic Affairs, Baruch College, The CityUniversity of New York, recalls, “When I began mydoctoral program at Columbia University in fall 1967,I had intended to major in Accounting. Several of mycolleagues in that class had chosen Columbia becauseof the presence of Marty and were majoring in Pro-duction Systems. . . . . . . He had a way of covering atopic that got us excited enough to spend many hoursoutside class exploring the nuances and depths of thematerial. It was as if he had opened a door, inviting usin to examine what lay beyond.” Dannenbringswitched his major from Accounting to Productionafter discussions with Marty about career choices.Dannenbring further notes, “I actually got my firstacademic position as a result of Marty’s reputation.. . . . . . He has been a true mentor throughout much ofmy career, and for that I will be forever thankful.”

Starr’s teachings leave an everlasting impression onhis students who remember him for a long time. ArtZuckerman, a 1987 graduate of Columbia University,describes (Hermes Magazine 1998) Starr’s class in op-erations research as “fascinating,” since it enabled himto “apply theory to reality.” Norman Faull (2006),Professor Graduate School of Business, University ofCape Town, Cape Town, South Africa, who attendedone of Starr’s executive programs in South Africa in1980, noted, “Several things amazed and impressedme: the unashamed mathematical challenging of theprogram delegates, the range of topics ‘seamlessly’covered, the boyish optimism of the presentations, thewonderful case materials from Marty’s book, the en-gaged relationship with the class, and the raw decencyof the man. I was in awe.” Similarly, Peter W. Robert-son (2006), Vice President, Operations Planning, Blue-Scope Steel, Wollongong, Australia, notes that “in1996 Starr lectured a class of 32 hardened, middle andsenior managers (postgraduate students) of BHP Steel,


Australia. This was no small undertaking as Martylectured, told relevant stories, coached, guided andcapably answered a barrage of questions from thisfairly uncompromising group. This went on for fivefull days, but Marty more than held his own and camethrough the ordeal with the unfettered admiration ofhis experienced and sometimes testy students. . . ”

Starr’s passion for mentoring and helping POM pro-fessionals has continued throughout his career. Alex-ander Reis Graeml (2006), Assistant Professor, Uni-cenp Graduate School of Business, Curitiba, Brazil,who met Marty for the first time in 2001 notes, “Martyhas been one of my ‘intellectual gurus’. Some of hisearly studies on modular production and postpone-ment, from the 1960’s, were important grounds onwhich I formulated my doctoral thesis, as they becameeven more relevant techniques in Internet times. Buthe’s also been a kind of ‘mentor’ to me. When I de-cided that I needed to spend some time at the SiliconValley to better understand the Internet rationale,Marty’s support was essential in getting a visitingscholar’s position at Berkeley. His keen interests inhelping younger researchers achieve tenure and hisguidance to foreign PhD students should be high-lighted as an important contribution to the establish-ment of an international community of researchers inthe production and operations management field.”

5. ResearchStarr’s more than 100 articles in diverse research andpractice journals in several languages cover a varietyof topics including product design, project manage-ment, systems engineering, intellectual property,knowledge management, and dynamics of marketing.Some of his most provocative ideas, which are pre-sented next, are kernels for future research as POMdeparts from industrial age logic to the knowledge era(Roth 1996). Knowledge, customer orientation, andglobalization of resources are increasingly central tocompetitiveness.

Mind versus brain in model implementation.Starr (1971c) used Eric Berne’s (1964) communicationmodel (transactional analysis) to examine the potentialdifferences in the “life styles” and attitudes of themodel builder and the manager and observed, “Thebrain is an instrument for thinking; the mind a set ofcognitive relations. The mind is politically oriented;the brain is used in attempting to achieve politicalobjectives set by the mind. We speak of changing one’smind, not one’s brain.”

Marketing. In 1964, when the field of marketingscience was still in its infancy, Starr (1964b) outlinedhis vision for potential contributions of managementscience toward the development of a science of mar-keting. He argued that the marketing culture pre-

vented adaptation of management science techniquesand suggested a number of approaches to mitigate it.Starr and Rubinson (1978) used simulation to developa Loyalty Group Segmentation model to segment con-sumers into loyalty groups for consumer packagegoods. They used a survey to measure consumer’swillingness to switch and empirical data to obtain apurchase probability vector that is unique to eachloyalty group. Starr (1980) also studied the variety-seeking behavior of consumers and modified theShannon entropy level measure (Shannon and Weaver1949) to explain how holding and switching patternsof purchase behavior reflect consumer brand loyalty.

Artificial customers. In an article on the “construc-tion of artificial consumers,” Starr (1965b) concluded,“This chapter was intended to demonstrate what a testmarket of the future may be like. . . . Interestinglyenough, the weakness that prevents us from using thissimulation approach at this moment of time is not oneof methods and is not one of means. It is the fact thata revolution in information gathering techniques isrequired before we can move rapidly ahead.” TheInternet is beginning to provide the revolution thatStarr anticipated.

Global production and operations. Starr (1984) de-veloped a global network model and identified factorsthat provide comparative advantage in internationaltrade. Starr and Garber (1987) compared the differencebetween the performances of U.S. manufacturingplants of Japanese-owned and American-owned firms.They reported that the Japanese firms were character-ized by scarcity behaviors with emphasis on husband-ing resources and reduction of waste and that thescarcity-oriented value system elevated the impor-tance of people as resources.

Starr’s other works cover productivity issues (Starr1973, 1983), breakeven analysis under risk (Starr andTapiero 1975), adoption of new technologies like flex-ible manufacturing systems (Starr and Biloski 1984),synchronized manufacturing (Ronen and Starr 1990),e-business (Starr 2003), and continuous innovation in-cluding round-the-clock project scheduling (Starr1992).

6. Leadership Roles and GlobalImpact on Academia and Business

Starr served as Editor-in-Chief of Management Sciencefrom January 1967 to June 1982. Since the journalcovered several disciplines, Starr created a depart-mental structure so that each autonomous departmen-tal editor became responsible for processing paperssubmitted to that department and for making deci-sions on those papers. Management Science was per-haps the first leading journal in business to have suchan editorial organization, and it became a model for


others. Although Management Science was already anestablished journal when Starr became its Editor-in-Chief, its standing rose further under his leadership.When Starr completed his term as Editor-in-Chief, theInstitute of Management Sciences (TIMS), which pub-lished the journal, awarded him a “lifetime honorarymembership” in TIMS, which was recognized andcontinued by its successor organization, INFORMS.

In June 1965, Starr started the “Free For All” columnin Management Science. It continued until August 1970.The idea was to get top people in many fields akin tomanagement science involved with expanding the ho-rizons of the academics who were driving the fielddevelopment. At the time, the field of managementscience and operations research (MS/OR) was still inits infancy and there were questions about its long-term viability as a discipline that could make a differ-ence in managing of organizations. Starr was able toattract senior executives and leading academics fromMS/OR and other disciplines to contribute columns.They included Russell L. Ackoff, Kenneth E. Boulding,Timothy W. Costello, Robert L. Froemke, Erich P.Fromm, George W. Gershefski, Nicholas E. Golovin,Donald F. Heany, David B. Hertz, Ronald A. Howard,Peter V. Norden, Ivan Siroyezhen, Robert M. Thrall,Daniel Teichroew, Andrew Vazsonyi, Chi-Yuen Wu,and Sheldon S. Zalkind.

Starr himself contributed columns on such topics asarticulation of ideas, what it takes to be a catalyst, EricBerne’s Transaction Analysis as in “Games PeoplePlay,” concern with the growth of “non-scientific”literature on parapsychology, astrology, etc., adoptionof the Metric System, science fiction literature as aprecursor to simulation and conflict resolution, math-ematical properties of history, ethics, and manage-ment science, and the role of management science in aservice-oriented society.

Starr served as the president of the Production andOperations Management Society (POMS) in 1995 andis now the chair of its Council of Presidents. In 2003,he organized and founded the Operational AdvantageGroup within POMS to further collaboration betweenacademics and practitioners in research, teaching, andpublishing.

Peter W. Robertson (2006), Vice President, Opera-tions Planning, BlueScope Steel, Wollongong, Austra-lia, describes him as the “‘father’ of POMS in ourregion.” Henrique L. Correa (2006), Professor, FGVBusiness School, Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Sao Paulo,Brazil, observes, “Martin Starr’s work has been ex-tremely influential in operations management in LatinAmerica as in other regions of the world for the lastfour decades. Starr’s knowledge of the realities ofLatin American operations started when he spent oneyear in Argentina, in the early sixties, advisingYacimientas Petroliferos Fiscales, the local state

owned oil company on industrial organization andproduction management. One of the first comprehen-sive books on the operations management field madeavailable in Brazil was a translation of Starr’s “Produc-tion Management: Systems and Synthesis” (Starr, 1964a)in the mid-sixties. Generations of POM practitionersand professors were then introduced to Starr’s “sys-tems and synthesis approach” to operations manage-ment. Ever since the first translation, Starr’s bookshave continuously been translated and largelyadopted not only in Brazil but in other countries inLatin America and have continued to be highly influ-ential in the operations management thinking in theregion.”

Starr has influenced the corporate world via hiswritings in practice-oriented journals, consulting as-signments, and executive development programs andby serving on management boards of various corpo-rations. Starr actually started his career working inindustry before joining the faculty of Columbia Uni-versity’s Graduate School of Business. William T. Mo-ran (2006), while working at Young & Rubicam, Inc.,in the 1950s, approached C. West Churchman to sug-gest someone who could employ operations researchconcepts to marketing and advertising. Moran (2006)recalls that “He (Churchman) suggested that I get intouch with a young scientist/engineer working inNew York as a consultant to the oil refining indus-try—a Martin Starr—.” According to Moran, “Martinled us in developing a series of computerized analyt-ical models. One, a model named natural Sales Pro-jection Model, was the first to forecast sales of newproduct introductions prior to market introductions—based on test panel and consumer product test data.Next, he (Marty) was the conceptual and technicaldriving force in the development of the industry’s firstsimulation model for optimizing the selection of me-dia vehicles and the allocation of advertising amongthem, called the High Assay Media Model. In fact, itwas more than an “advertising media model,” as itreally was a total marketing quantitative input andresponse model. Another was what is now called anagent-based dynamic simulation model of fundamen-tal human behavior dubbed Consumeroid.” Starr con-sulted for Moran while he was at Young & Rubicamand later when Moran moved to Lever Brothers Com-pany.

7. Enduring Passion and PursuitsStarr has been bestowed with many honors andawards during his career. He was elected Fellow of theAmerican Association for the Advancement of Sciencein 1969, Fellow of the Institute for Operations Re-search and Management Science in 2002, and Fellowof the Production and Operations Management Soci-


ety in 2003. In 1980, he was the recipient of the Dis-tinguished Teaching Award at Columbia University’sGraduate School of Business. In 2006, POMS institutedthe Martin K. Starr Excellence in Production and Op-erations Management Practice Award to recognize ex-ceptional contributions to the POM field by practitio-ners.

He is currently Professor Emeritus in the GraduateSchool of Business at Columbia University, where heserved from 1962 to 1996, and in the Crummer Grad-uate School of Business at Rollins College, where heserved from 1996 to 2003. He continues to write, men-tor young professionals, consult with companies, pro-vide service to professional societies, and travel allover the world to expand the POM community and toraise its impact on organizations. He wants to con-tinue to pursue the themes that have fascinated himfor more than five decades. During a conversationStarr articulated his future priorities as follows. “Ideasthat I would like to have explored further and maystill pursue include Marketing Variety versus Produc-tion Diversity, which examines the cost-benefits ofgetting customers to perceive variety by having builtin physical differences as compared to market-gener-ated images of differentiation. In general, I remainconvinced that the interaction of marketing and pro-duction, if understood, is a powerful advantage incompetitive strategy. These days, I am interested inexploring the role of POM in securing safety againstconscious acts of terror and acts of Nature that wreakhavoc. Finally, from a pedagogical point of view, Iwould like to find a way to make POM and the sys-tems approach to problem-solving a subject of interestthat will be taught in high schools. Many college stu-dents never understand what the systems approachentails. As a result, when they go to work in bothindustry and government, they cannot bring that bigview of the world around them into play. They also donot realize that POM is the study of how you do workof every kind including having fun. They think it onlyapplies to 9 to 5 drudgery.”

Marty Starr lives in Winter Park (near Orlando),Florida, with his wife, Polly Starr. Norman Faull(2006), who had heard about Polly even before hemet her, says, “My senior colleagues at the GSBwould always talk about ‘Marty and Polly,’ as ifthey were Siamese twins. What they were attestingwas what I would come to experience for myself: thetwinkle-eyed partnership of two people who respecteach other and respect the seriousness of their jointwork on this planet. There is an endearing youth-fulness about their curiosity of life and living. AZulu proverb: ‘umuntu ungumuntu ngabanyeabantu,’ is often translated as ‘people are peoplethrough other people.’ Put differently, ‘I am humanbecause I belong in a community with others.’ I am

indeed richer for being part of a community withMarty and Polly.” Aren’t we all?

AcknowledgmentsThe authors express their appreciation for the informationprovided by many of Marty’s long-time professional col-leagues. In particular, we acknowledge the contributions ofHenrique Correa, David Dannenbring, Norman Faull,Afonso Fluery, Alexandre Graeml, William Moran, and Pe-ter Robertson. The authors also thank Jaya Singhal andKalyan Singhal for sharing their working paper on modularproduction (Singhal and Singhal 2006), which helped indrafting the section on modular production.

ReferencesBaldwin, C. Y., K. B. Clark. 1997. Managing in an age of modularity.

Harvard Business Review, 75(5) 84–93.Berne, E. 1964. Games People Play, Grove Press, New York.Borel, E. 1962. Probabilities and Life. Dover Publications, New York.Bowen E. K., M. K. Starr. 1982. Basic Statistics for Business and

Economics, McGraw–Hill, New York.Buffa, E. S. 1961. Modern Production Management, Wiley, New York.Buhman, C., S. Kekre, J. Singhal. 2005. Interdisciplinary and inter-

organizational research: Establishing the science of enterprisenetworks. Production and Operations Management, 14(4) 493–513.

Carrillo, J. E. 2005. Industry clockspeed and the pace of new productdevelopment. Production and Operations Management, 14(2) 125–141.

Christensen, C. M., M. Verlinden, G. Westerman. 2002. Disruption,disintegration, and the dissipation of differentiability. Industrialand Corporate Change, 11(5) 955–993.

Correa, L. H. 2006. Personal communication.Dannenbring, D. G. 2006. Personal communication.Dannenbring, D. G., M. K. Starr. 1981. Management Science: An

Introduction, McGraw–Hill, New York.Faull, N. 2006. Personal communication.Feitzinger, E., H. L. Lee. 1997. Mass customization at Hewlett Pack-

ard, Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 116–121.Fine, C. H. 2000. Clockspeed-based strategies for supply chain de-

sign. Production and Operations Management, 9(3) 213–221.Fredriksson P. 2006. Mechanisms and rationales for the coordina-

tion of a modular assembly system—The case of Volvo cars.International Journal of Operations & Production Management,26(3–4) 350–370.

Gan, X., S. Sethi, H. Yan. 2005. Channel coordination with a riskneutral supplier and a downside-risk-averse retailer. Productionand Operations Management, 14(1) 80–89.

Giffi, C., A.V. Roth, G. Seal. 1990. Competing in World Class Manu-facturing: America’s 21st Century Challenge, Business One Irwin,Homewood, IL.

Graeml, A. R. 2006. Personal communication.Gumbel, E. J. 1958. Statistics of Extremes. Columbia University Press,

New York.Gupta, S., M. K. Starr. 2006. Elwood Buffa’s pioneering contribu-

tions to Production and Operations Management. Productionand Operations Management, 15(2) 173–178.

Hendricks, K. B., V. R. Singhal. 2005. An empirical analysis of theeffect of supply chain disruptions on long-run stock price per-formance and equity risk of the firm. Production and OperationsManagement, 14(1) 35–52.

Hermes Magazine. 1998. Columbia Business School, Fall, p. 33.Hertz, D.B. 1971. Has Management Science Reached A Dead End?

Innovation Magazine. 71(25) 12-17.


Hertz, D. 1972. Personal communication.Jain, S., K. Ramdas. 2005. Up or out—Or stay put? Product posi-

tioning in an evolving technology environment. Production andOperations Management, 14(3) 362–376.

Kleindorfer, P., G. H. Saad. 2005. Managing disruption risks insupply chains. Production and Operations Management, 14(1) 53–68.

Kotha, S. 1995. Mass customization: Implementing the emergingparadigm for competitive advantage. Strategic ManagementJournal, 16 21–42.

Lederer, P. J., T. Mehta. 2005. Economic evaluation of scale depen-dent technology investments. Production and Operations Manage-ment, 14(1) 21–34.

Lee, H. L., S. M. Ng. 1997. Introduction to the special issue on GlobalSupply Chain Management. Production and Operations Manage-ment, 6(3) 191–192.

Mallick, D. N., R. G. Schroeder. 2005. An integrated framework formeasuring new product development performance in high techindustries. Production and Operations Management, 14(2) 142–158.

Martınez-de-Albeniz, V., D. Simchi-Levi. 2005. A portfolio approachto procurement contracts. Production and Operations Manage-ment, 14(1) 90–114.

Menor, L., A.V. Roth, C. Mason, 2001. Agility in retail banking: Anumerical taxonomy of strategic service groups. Manufacturingand Service Operations Management, 3(4) 273–292.

Mikkola, J. H. 2006. Capturing the degree of modularity embeddedin product architectures. Journal of Product Innovation Manage-ment, 23(2) 128–146.

Miller, L. T., C. S. Park. 2005. A learning real options frameworkwith application to process design and capacity planning. Pro-duction and Operations Management, 14(1) 5–20.

Miller, D. W., M. K. Starr. 1960. Executive Decisions and OperationsResearch (1st ed.), Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Miller, D. W., M. K. Starr. 1967. The Structure of Human Decisions,Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Miller, D. W., M. K. Starr. 1969. Executive Decisions and OperationsResearch (2nd ed.), Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Moran, W. T. 2006. Personal communication.National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 2000. Mal-

colm Baldrige National Quality Award Criteria for PerformanceExcellence. Gaithersburg, MD.

Patnayakuni R, A. Rai, N. Seth. 2006. Relational antecedents ofinformation flow integration for supply chain coordination.Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(1)13–49.

Persson, M, P. Ahlstrom. 2006. Managerial issues in modularisingcomplex products. Technovation 26(11) 1201–1209.

Piller, F. T. 2004. Mass customization: Reflections on the state of theconcept. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems,16(4) 313–334.

Pine, J. B., II. 1993. Mass customization—The New Frontier in BusinessCompetition, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.

Robertson, P. 2006. Personal communication.Ronen, B., M. K.Starr. 1990. Synchronized manufacturing as in OPT:

From practice to theory, Computers & Industrial Engineering,18(4) 585–600.

Roth, A. V. 1992. Setting the agenda for world class operations,Operations Management Review, 9(2) 3–10.

Roth, A.V. 1996. Achieving strategic agility through economies ofknowledge, Strategy and Leadership (formerly Planning Review),24(2) 30–37.

Rosenzweig, E., A.V. Roth. 2007. B2B archetypes: An empiricalinvestigation, Working paper, Emory University and ClemsonUniversity.

Schmidt, G. M., C. T. Druehl. 2005. Changes in product attributes

and costs as drivers of new product diffusion and substitution.Production and Operations Management, 14(3) 272–285.

Seshadri, S., M. Subrahmanyam. 2005. Introduction to the specialissue on “Risk Management in Operations.” Production andOperations Management, 14(1) 1–4.

Shannon, C.E., W. Weaver. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Commu-nication, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.

Singhal J., K. Singhal. 2006. The morphological basis of modularproduction. Working paper, University of Baltimore.

Singhal K., J. Singhal, M. K. Starr. 2007. The domain of operationsmanagement and the role of Elwood Buffa in its delineation.Journal of Operations Management 25(2) 310-327.

Skipworth H, A. Harrison. 2006. Implications of form postponementto manufacturing a customized product. International Journal ofProduction Research, 44(8) 1627–1652.

Sobol, M. G., M. K. Starr. 1983. Statistics for Business and Economics:An Action Learning Approach, McGraw–Hill, New York.

Sobol, M. G., M. K. Starr. 1993. Introduction to Statistics for Executives,McGraw–Hill, New York.

Sodhi, M. M. S. 2005. Managing demand risk in tactical supply chainplanning for a global consumer electronics company. Productionand Operations Management, 14(1) 69–79.

Starr, M. K. 1963. Product Design and Decision Theory, Prentice–Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Starr, M. K. 1964a. Production Management: Systems and Synthesis, 1sted., Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Starr, M. K. 1964b. Management science and marketing science.Management Science, 10(3) 557–573.

Starr, M. K. 1965a. Modular production—A new concept. HarvardBusiness Review, 43(6) 131–142.

Starr, M. K. 1965b. Computers: The marketing laboratory. P. Lang-hoff, ed. Models, Measurement & Marketing, Prentice–Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Starr, M. K. 1966. Planning Models, Management Science, 13(4) B115–B141.

Starr, M. K. 1969. Educating production managers for top manage-ment responsibilities. Synopsis, Brussels, Belgium, (Dutch edi-tion), Nieuwe plaats en verantwoordelijkheden van de pro-ducktieleider, (French edition), Place et responsibilitiesnouvelles du directeur de la production.

Starr, M. K. 1970. Some comments on graduate ed.ucation in themanagement sciences. Management Science, 17(2) B32–B34.

Starr, M. K. 1971a. Systems Management of Operations. Prentice–Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Starr, M. K. 1971b. Management: A Modern Approach. Harcourt BraceJovanovich, New York.

Starr, M.K. 1971c. The politics of management science. Interfaces, 1(4)31–37.

Starr, M. K. 1972. Production Management: Systems and Synthesis, 2nded., Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Starr, M. K. 1973. Productivity is the USA’s problem. CaliforniaManagement Review, XVI(2) 32–36.

Starr, M. K. 1976. Role of the Business School in the United States, AGuide to Graduate Schools of Business. Japan–American Insti-tute of Management Science, ed., the Japanese Foundation forInternational Information Processing Education, Japan, 1–6.

Starr, M. K. 1978. Operations Management, Prentice–Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.

Starr, M. K. 1980. Some new fundamental considerations of variety-seeking behavior. Behavioral Science, 25(3) 171–179.

Starr, M. K. 1983. Building productivity into business school pro-grams. National Productivity Review, 2(4) 410–419.

Starr, M. K. 1984. Global production and operations strategy. Co-lumbia Journal of World Business, XIX(4) 17–22.


Starr, M. K. 1989. Managing Production and Operations, Prentice–Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Starr, M. K. 1991. Global Corporate Alliances and the Competitive Edge:Strategies and Tactics for Management, Quorum Books, Westport,CT.

Starr, M.K. 1992. Accelerating Innovation. Business Horizons, 35(4)44-51.

Starr, M. K. 1993a. Discovering Advanced Training Methods forImproving Product/Process Development and ManufacturingPractices. Final Report, Center for the Study of OperationsColumbia Business School, NY.

Starr, M. K. 1993b. Comparative investment strategies in trainingand technology. International Journal of Technology Management,8(1/2) 86–94.

Starr, M. K. 1993c. Educating Managers to Compete: The Role of Oper-ations Management. Perspectives in Operations Management: Essaysin Honor of Elwood S. Buffa, Rakesh K. Sarin (ed.), KluwerAcademic, Norwell, MA, 445–458.

Starr M. K. 1996. Operations Management: A Systems Approach, South-Western Publishing Co., Cincinnati, OH, 983 pp.

Starr, M. K. 1997. Pedagogical challenge: Teaching internationalproduction and operations management courses. Production andOperations Management, 6(2) 114–121.

Starr, M. K. 2000. Operations Management: A Systems Approach, Open-Mind Publishing Company, Cary, NC.

Starr, M.K. 2001a. Advanced Training Methodology (ATM)—AControlled Study. Research Report, The Center for EnterpriseManagement (CEM), Crummer Graduate School of Business,Rollins College, scheduled for Fall 2001.

Starr, M. K. 2001b. The Application of On-Line Learning to POM;What Should and Should Not be On-Line, Research Report, TheCenter for Enterprise Management (CEM), Crummer GraduateSchool of Business, Rollins College.

Starr, M. K. 2001c. Safety and security: Critical qualities call for

refocusing POM. Production and Production Management, 10(4)361–362.

Starr, M. K. 2002. La Direccion de operaciones: Un enfoque de sistemas,OpenMind Publishing, Cary, NC.

Starr, M. K. 2003. Application of POM to e-Business: B2C e-Shop-ping. International Journal of Operations and Production Manage-ment, 23(1) 105–124.

Starr, M. K. 2004a. Production and Operations Management, AtomicDog/Thomson Custom Solutions, Cincinnati, OH.

Starr, M. K. 2004b, Safety and security: An international imperativefor production and operations management applications in apost 9/11 world.” Rollins Business Journal.

Starr, M. K. 2006. Foundations of Production and Operations Manage-ment, Atomic Dog/Thomson Custom Solutions, Cincinnati,OH.

Starr, M. K., A. J. Biloski. 1984. The decision to adopt new technol-ogy-effects on organizational size. OMEGA, 12(4) 353–361.

Starr, M. K., H. N. Garber. 1987. Business in Japan and the UnitedStates of America; Some implications for management scienceand operations research. OMEGA, 15(5) 383–388.

Starr, M. K., W. M. Miller. 1962. Inventory Control: Theory and Prac-tice, Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Starr, M. K., J. R. Rubinson. 1978. A loyalty group segmentationmodel for brand purchasing simulation. Journal of MarketingResearch, XV(3) 378–383.

Starr, M. K., I. Stein. 1976. The Practice of Management Science, Pren-tice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Starr, M. K., C. S. Tapiero. 1975. Linear breakeven analysis underrisk. Operational Research Quarterly, 26(4ii) 847–856.

Thyssen J, P. Israelsen, B. Jorgensen. 2006. Activity-based costing asa method for assessing the economics of modularization—Acase study and beyond. International Journal of Production Eco-nomics, 103(1) 252–270.


Martin K. Starr: A Visionary Proponent for System Integration, Modular Production, and Catastrophe...

Documents

Transcript of Martin K. Starr: A Visionary Proponent for System Integration, Modular Production, and Catastrophe...