Introduction to the special issue on teaching supply chain management

Production and Operations Management, Spring 2000 by Johnson, M Eric, Pyke, David F

Course Structure and Pedagogy

As with other courses, instructors are rapidly innovating in the classroom. In our survey, we observed many different teaching tools and approaches. In most business school classes, the overall approach is still case dominated, with more than half of the sessions dedicated to case discussions. Table 1 provides an extensive list of recent (since 1990) cases used by instructors to illustrate supply chain concepts. The cases are classified within our framework of 12 areas. Since many cases cover multiple areas, we limited the classification to 2 or 3 of the most important points. As can be seen from the table, there are some areas where cases are lacking-specifically in areas of service and after-sales support, reverse logistics and green issues, outsourcing and strategic alliances, and metrics and incentives. Besides the listed cases, there are several texts that contain cases including Flaherty (1996), Dormer, Ernst, Fender, and Kouvelis (1998), and Cavinato and Young (1996). Additionally, the Council of Logistics Management (CML) publishes cases related to logistics. To supplement case discussions, some instructors use recent business press stories to update issues in the case or to highlight emerging business trends. Table 2 provides a list of such news stories, again categorized within our framework. Another common supplement to lectures and cases is guest industry speakers, particularly for rapidly changing, technology-based content.

Beyond the lecture and case format, many instructors use at least one game/simulation or interactive exercise. By far the most popular simulation is the Beer Game (Sterman 1989, 1992). This game has a rich history, growing out of the industrial dynamics work of Forrester and others at MiT (Forrester 1961; Jarmain 1963). The game is so widely used, that in some cases, it is not used in supply chain electives simply because students have already played the game in an earlier class. There are many variants of the game including computer-based versions (Simchi-Levi, Kaminsky, and Simchi-Levi 1998; Chen and Samroengraja 1997) and Web-based versions (Jacobs 2000; Porteus 1998).

The Siemens Briefcase game is another supply chain game designed to be played by small groups (12-18 people) over an extended period of 1 to 3 days. The game illustrates many details of an order-based system with significant customization (Siemens 1996; Mehring, Kotler, and Kiesel 1997). The Llenroc Plastics game (Jackson 1995) is another more detailed simulation that can be played over several class periods. The Poster game is a simple game to illustrate the difficulties of forecasting and inventory planning for perishable goods (Johnson 1998b). Finally, class projects are an important part of many courses.

Table 3 contains abbreviated class syllabi for several different supply chain classes and modules. All of these classes have been successfully conducted for 4 to 5 years, garnering high teaching ratings. These classes were chosen to show a range of treatments from both graduate business programs and engineering. As one would expect, engineering classes tend to be more technical with less reliance on cases. The last two examples show supply chain modules within other courses. In general, we can see most of the 12 key components of supply chain management in each of these courses. However, there is divergence in the treatment of the topics and their relative importance within the course. Least represented is material on reverse logistics and green issues, possibly because of the dearth of teaching material.