6. CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the evolution of research on scientific development of SM research in the H&T field. As in many other disciplines, SM has become an important focus of attention for H&T scholars in recent years. Although the concept of SM may be challenging to define in the H&T context, similarities of H&T firms with organizations operating in other industries/fields can allow us to relate the evolution of SM in H&T with the evolution of mainstream SM research. However, hospitality and tourism necessitate an own 'strategic management' research track conceptually as well as practically since hospitality and tourism industry have their uniqueness (e.g. globalization and seasonality) and industrial structures (McGahan and Porter, 1997; Rumelt, 1991) matter to formulate and implement strategies. Majority of SM approach based on the manufacturing industries employed in H&T field research adopted to our industry. We should consider unique structure and characteristics (such as perishability, simultaneity, intangibility and heterogeneity) of services in addition to participation of customers in the service process (Okumus & Wong, 2005) when we are investigating SM related issues. For example, Edgar and Nisbet (1996) and Olsen and Roper (1998) argued that long-term strategic planning as defined in main stream research might not be suitable considering complexities surround the hospitality organizations where majority of the firms are small firms. Considering the few differences discussed earlier, if we want to be able contribute to both SM research in H&T and main stream SM research, we need to understand our differences and/or similarities with main stream theories and developments. This way we can build upon this knowledge to create our own approaches. Given this, future research is necessary in order to identify the main aspects of the intellectual structure, conceptual structure, and social structure of literature on SM in H&T.
