2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
Benchmarking Study SCM Syllabi: Focus on Operations Courses
Laura Birou
Patricia I Garland Endowed Professor
Department of Management and Information Systems
Louisiana Tech University
PO Box 10318
Ruston, LA 71272-0046
LauraBirou@aol.com
239-682-4858
Heather Lutz
Assistant Professor of Decision Sciences
Opus College of Business
University of St. Thomas
1000 LaSalle Avenue, Mail 443 TMH
Minneapolis, MN 55403
lutz7741@stthomas.edu
651-962-4195
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
1
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
Benchmarking Study SCM Syllabi: Focus on Operations Courses
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of benchmarking in higher education as a means
of continuous improvement in the quality of the educational experience in the field of Supply
Chain Management (SCM). This paper provides a report on a benchmarking study conducted to
evaluate and analyze the content and nature of SCM curricula in universities across the globe.
The database includes 226 syllabi in the field of SCM focusing on operations, purchasing and
logistics management. The focus of this paper is the subset of the total database, the operations
management function of supply chain curricula. A content analysis of the syllabi will reveal the
subject matter content in the discipline on the undergraduate and graduate level. In addition, the
relative importance of each topic will be determined. Lastly, a comparison between what
industry experts have identified as the important knowledge, skills and abilities with the current
“state-of-the-art” offerings in higher education. This research is part of a longitudinal study
which will track the evolution of the SCM curricula. The findings are designed to foster
transnational benchmarking in the development of SCM courses and curricula in academia as
well as, human resource training, development and recruitment efforts in industry.
Keywords: Benchmarking, Supply Chain Management, Operations Management,
Education, Curriculum, Syllabi
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
2
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
INTRODUCTION
Globally, experts agree that if we do not improve the value-added capability of the product or
service delivery process, economies will suffer and the standard of living will deteriorate (Hayes,
et.al. 1989; Takeuchi and Nonaka 1986). Based on this fact, organizations across the world are
competing for market share based on the holistic strategy of value-added. This pursuit of
providing value to customers has resulted in continuous improvement efforts to reengineer the
product-service delivery process. The desire to be “best-in-class” is being used to characterize
organizations who have obtained peak performance that resulted in financial rewards. One
technique that has been used over time by organizations striving to achieve, or maintain, a bestin-class standing is benchmarking (Foster, T. 1992; Hull, D.1992). Benchmarking is based on
the premise that an organization can distinguished itself through superior performance and
effectiveness in the development and delivery of a product or service, thereby creating a source
of competitive advantage. The driving force behind benchmarking is the burning desire to be
the best (Bagchi and Birou 1994).
The driving force is summarized best by the Japanese word “Dantotsu,” which means striving to
be the “best of the best,” the basic philosophy of benchmarking (Camp 1989, pg. 3).
Benchmarking, utilized as a performance improvement strategy by Xerox starting in 1979, was
the driving force behind the company’s goal to regain market leadership. Led by CEO David T.
Kearns, benchmarking was defined within Xerox as, “the continuous process of measuring
products, services, and practices against the toughest competitors or those recognized as industry
leaders” (Camp 1989, pg. 10). The goal of the benchmarking process is to be leading-edge, and
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
3
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
proactively seek continuous improvement in the value delivered to the customer, whether it is a
product, service or the process of delivering the product or service.
With the premise of deriving higher value from the educational process, and the desire to search
for excellence in the field of Supply Chain Management (SCM) education internationally, this
study will benchmark SCM syllabi from around the world. The contribution of this research is
five-fold. First of all, it is the first large-scale study of this nature due to the intrinsic difficulty in
gathering and analyzing the data. In addition, the focus is global in scope which has often been a
limitation of prior research. Thirdly, the research includes both undergraduate and graduate
courses historically the focus of prior research has been on graduate education only. This
research will also focus on student assessment techniques and the course materials utilized to
facilitate learning. Lastly, the study will identify the gaps in the curriculum based in the needs of
industry.
The objective of this research is to provide a forum for sharing best practice with regard to the
delivery of SCM education globally. With the rapid growth in the field of Supply Chain
Management (SCM) over the past 20 years, coupled with the proliferation of degree programs
and courses offered globally in a variety of formats, a need exists to critically examine this
growth and benchmark the value delivered. This will provide academics the ability to benchmark
their individual courses with the aggregated results of the study. In addition, participants new to
the academic profession will have a database of information to draw on when developing their
own courses. The results of this study will also be of interest to professional trainers, as they can
utilize the data as a reference for corporate development programs in the area of SCM. In
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
4
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
addition, corporate recruiters can evaluate the curriculum content of the programs which they are
recruiting from, to assess the alignment of the competency requirements of their organization,
with those of the particular SCM program. This process is intended to be an on-going effort, and
is designed to promote the continuous improvement of the field of SCM education.
The research project encompassed all of the subject matter considered to be under the umbrella
of SCM including purchasing, operations, logistics and supply chain management. This
manuscript will focus on the findings relating to the operations aspect of SCM education. The
following section will provide a brief review of the relevant research involving benchmarking in
Higher Education (HE) followed by a review of the literature devoted to the evolution of the
field of SCM. Lastly, the literature specifically focused on SCM education will be presented.
Benchmarking in Higher Education
The adoption of benchmarking in HE was recommended by Jeffrey W. Alstete, of The George
Washington University, as a means of improving the quality of the educational process. Alstete
recognized the future of HE marked by higher competition for students, and increasing
expectations from society, for value from the educational process (Alstete 1995, pg. 5). Leslie
and Fretwell (1996) share this sentiment stating, “The financial health of virtually every
American college or university depends directly on the tuition-paying, appropriation-generating
undergraduate students. Giving undergraduates good value for what they, their parents, and the
public invest in higher education is the single most important thing the institution can do to get
out of ‘the mess’” (pg. 26). This general understanding coupled with the ever increasing cost of
HE reflected in rising tuition rates, presents a challenge to the value proposition offered by
advanced degrees.
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
5
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
To address the need for consistent value, this benchmarking process has been “standardized”
within the community of business schools through the organization known as Association to
Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International or, AACSB for short. AACSB developed
their first standards in 1919 and the peer-review process began in 1991, peers being colleges of
similar rank and mission. In 2003, the standards were amended so that they would be relevant
globally. The focus of these reviews for accreditation is at the college level including criteria on
strategic planning, qualified resources, and quantity and quality of research publications. While
helpful for ensuring the viability of a college of business, the focus is macro in perspective, and
does not deal with the quality or effectiveness of the individual programs of study. Methods of
determining the effectiveness of the educational process is delegated to each school through a
process known as the “Assessment of Learning.” Typically this assessment is measured through
the embedding of course specific questions in student exams. While this method ensures that
colleges are monitoring the courses offered, due to its limited scope, it is not designed to assess
the effectiveness of the curriculum or if the curriculum meets the needs of industry.
European universities suffering a similar fate, marked by reduced funding and increasing
competition, have employed benchmarking studies to improve quality, efficiency and costeffectiveness in an effort to increase the value-added proposition in institutions of Higher
Education (HE). “Benchmarking is one method HE institutes (HEIs) can use to help themselves
achieve this objective and to demonstrate to funding councils that they are providing value for
the public investment” (Jackson 2001, pg 219). Jackson (2001) also states that
“...in the global market of higher education there are clearly competitive advantages in
establishing and maintaining a reputation for providing good quality education, high
academic standards and world class research output. UK universities are under increasing
pressure to show how they perform relative to universities in the global community and
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
6
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
there is growing interest in transnational benchmarking to make reliable international
comparisons and learn from other HE systems” (pp. 219).
The challenging environment for HE throughout Europe led to the signing of the Bologna
Declaration by 29 countries to reform HE in a convergent, meaningful way. The Bologna
Process seeks to address the ‘erosion’ of effectiveness in the quality of HE (Jeliazkova and
Westerheijden 2002, pp. 433), through a call for internationalization, standards, peer-review
process and to identify and share best practice. To date, much of the benchmarking efforts have
addressed macro-level issues as well such as services, libraries, facilities, estates, energy,
treasury (Jackson 2001, pp.218).
Historically, educational benchmarking efforts in the United States and Europe have focused on
certifications and accreditation issues. The level of concern is typically on an college or
department level. “Research on the structure and effects of curricula is limited (Stark and
Lowther 1986).” In addition, “Relatively little research exists on the patterns of courses taken
and the specific outcomes these courses produce.” (Gardiner Volume 23 Number 7, pg.25)
Furthermore, a study conducted by Jones and Ratcliff (1990) revealed that the degree of learning
gauged from the college experience was insignificant. (Gardiner Volume 23 Number 7, pg.25)
Much of the blame for this condition is related to,
“The single-minded emphasis on research that dominates universities and distracts from the
faculty’s professional development is often justified by the strong salutary impact faculty
research is alleged to have on the quality of undergraduate education. A meta-analysis of
29 studies that examined a possible relationship between the quality of faculty research and
the quality of their teaching, however, found the former made less than a 2 percent
contribution to the latter under the most favorable analytic assumptions (Feldman 1987).”
(Gardiner Volume 23 Number 7, pg.141)
Yet, the benchmarking process is duplicated annually in the arena of higher education, with the
annual release of rankings by US News & World Report, BusinessWeek and The Princeton
Review. These rankings are determined through the use of proxy measures for effectiveness of
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
7
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
the educational process like “starting salaries of graduates” and “placement rates of graduates.”
The rankings are not to be ignored however, as they can significantly improve the number of
student applications, donations and corporate recognition for research and employment
opportunities for graduates. Interestingly, the report highlights the library holdings, average
GMAT scores and endowments, among other superficial metrics, with no indication of the
quality of the educational process provided at the institutions.
The most recent rankings for undergraduate and graduate business schools focusing on
Supply Chain Management or Operations Management, as identified by US News & World
Report, are shown below in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1: 2010 Top 10 Undergraduate Business Schools Specialty Ranking
Supply Chain / Logistics
1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan)
2. Michigan State University (Broad)
3. Pennsylvania State University – University Park (Smeal)
4. Carnegie Mellon University (Tepper)
5. Ohio State University (Fisher)
6. Arizona State University (Carey)
7. University of Tennessee – Knoxville
8. Purdue University – West Lafayette (Krannert)
9. University of Pennsylvania (Wharton)
10. Univeristy of Maryland - College Park
10. University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
Production / Operations Management
1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
2. Carnegie Mellon University
3. University of Michigan – Ann Arbor
4. Purdue University – West Lafayette
5. University of Pennsylvania
6. Ohio State University – Columbus
6. University of California – Berkeley
8. University of Texas – Austin
9. Indiana University – Bloomington
10. University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill
Source: US News & World Report 2010, accessed February 6, 2010 [available at
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/business]
Table 2: 2010 Top 10 Graduate Business Schools Specialty Ranking
Supply Chain / Logistics
1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan)
2. Michigan State University (Broad)
3. Carnegie Mellon University (Tepper)
4. Stanford University
5. Arizona State University (Carey)
6. Pennsylvania State University – University Park (Smeal)
7. Ohio State University (Fisher)
8. University of Pennsylvania (Wharton)
9. University of Tennessee – Knoxville
10. Northwestern University (Kellogg)
10. Purdue University - West Lafayette (Krannert)
Production / Operations Management
1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan)
2. Carnegie Mellon University (Tepper)
3. Stanford University
3. University of Pennsylvania (Wharton)
5. University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
6. Purdue University – West Lafayette (Krannert)
7. Northwestern University (Kellogg)
8. Harvard University
9. Columbia University
10. University of California - Los Angeles (Anderson)
Source: US News & World Report 2010, accessed February 6, 2010 [available at
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools]
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
8
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
It is interesting to note the variance in the school rankings between undergraduate and graduate
programs as well as, between those identified as Supply Chain/Logistics focused with those
identified as Production/Operations focused. What would be of greater interest is the
identification of any meaningful differences in the quality of the education process that may, or
may not, take place between these schools. This is the purpose of this paper, to provide
benchmarking information in the field of Supply Chain Management (SCM) education as a
means of promoting continuous improvement in the quality and value of the educational
experience. The next section will be devoted to an understanding of the evolution of the field of
SCM and how that evolution impacts “state of the art” content in curriculum.
Evolution of Supply Chain Management
The term supply chain management is linked initially to the research of Oliver and Weber
(1982), then proliferated through the work of Houlihan (1984, 1985, 1988) in his series of
articles describing the management activities to coordinate the flow of materials across
organizational networks. This was followed by the development of the theoretical concepts in
the field of supply chain management which emerged in the 1990’s (Handfield and Nichols
1999, Christopher 1992, Lamming 1993, Ellram 1991, and Harland 1994). Coupled with this
increased attention to the concepts, researchers began to argue that supply chains are a critical
component of organizational strategy, reflecting, as Christopher (1992), Macbeth and Ferguson
(1994) and others authors have succinctly claimed, that today competition takes place between
Supply Chains rather than between individual companies.
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
9
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
Whilst supply chain management (SCM) is an increasingly important topic, a diverse, yet
growing body of literature has resulted in a wide body of knowledge with divergent views
regarding the scope and nature of the discipline (Thomas and Griffin 1996; Copacino 1997;
Cooper et al. 1997; Babbar and Prasad 1998; Narasimhan and Jayaram 1998; De Toni and
Nassimbeni 1999; Narasimhan and Das 1999; Lummus and Vokurka, 1999; Croom et al. 2000;
Lamming et. Al. 2000; Frohlich and Westbrook 2001; Tan 2001; Ho et. Al. 2002; Svensson
2002a and 2002b; Mentzer et. al. 2001; Giannakis and Croom, 2004). Furthermore, the majority
of the published work in SCM has been identified to be empirical and descriptive in nature,
adding little to its conceptual and theoretical development (Croom et al., 2000).
Researchers in the field of SCM (Ellram and Cooper 1993; Harland 1994 and 1996; Saunders
1995; Cooper et. al.; 1997; Monczka and Morgan 1997; Lumus and Vokurka, 1999; Lambert and
Cooper M. 2000; Mouritsen et. al. 2003) note that SCM has evolved largely through an
increasing trend towards the ‘externalisation’ of performance measurement in the field of
operations management (Harland 1994). It is also evident that the literature in SCM has evolved
from its core concerns around logistics and operations processes to incorporate theoretical
concepts and research from strategic management, industrial organization, institutional and
production economics (transaction costs), inter-organizational relationships, knowledge
management and systems theory.
Giannakis and Croom (2004) conducted a study of the literature and clarified the multivariate
nature of the content of supply chain management research, but with a dominant emphasis on the
operational activities of supply chains. However, this emphasis is not a unified one across the
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
10
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
academic community. Their analysis of researcher by geographic location showed that North
American researchers emphasized the importance of the operational activities as the primary
problem domain for supply chain management; Europeans respondents gave equally emphasis to
the relationships issues and operations activities. Figure 1 provides the profile for European,
North American and the total samples in terms of the emphasis on either operational, relational
or ‘holistic’ studies of supply chain.
Figure 1. Differences of perception of SCM focus between American and European Academics
(from: Giannakis and Croom, 2004)
It will be interesting to see if theses biases are revealed in the curriculum content of operations
management courses. The next section is devoted to an exploration of the prior research focused
on SCM education.
Studies into Curriculum in SCM
While there is extensive literature in the area of benchmarking, and numerable research efforts
dedicated to defining the scope of the field of SCM, there are relatively few studies which have
focused on SCM curriculum. Johnson and Pyke (2000) provided one of the first studies. They
analyzed eight graduate course syllabi in order to construct a topic list and provide an outline of
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
11
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
resources (including case studies) used in teaching SCM (see Table 8). This early research
provided a foundation for comparison but was limited in scope, a focus on graduate level
courses, and scale, only eight syllabi included. While ground-breaking at the time, these
limitations have restricted the generalizability of the findings.
Another study conducted by Larson and Halldorsson’s (2004), through a survey of educators set
out to define the scope of SCM, then evaluate and classify the topics taught within SCM courses.
The popularity of the terms ‘supply chain management’ was reflected in their study. They
concluded that there is strong evidence amongst educators relating to the extent to which supply
chain management and logistics curricula are simply renamed or expanded course, or courses
that are reoriented to incorporate SCM topics, rather than brand new product offerings. They
also concluded, that the variation in the approach adopted in developing SCM curriculum most
often reflected the biases, strengths and heritage of the educator developing the course.
Wu (2007) analyzed the curriculum of logistics courses using publically available (Internet)
syllabi and summarized previous studies. He found some significant variation in the content of
logistics curriculum. Of interest to this paper, he identified differences in the emphasis placed on
operations management in different countries’ logistics programs. Although the need for a
content analysis of logistics curricula was highlighted as a major shortfall in his research and
called for in future research efforts.
Building on the work of Johnson and Pyke (2000), Sodhi, Son and Tang (2008) focused their
research effort on 21 of the Top 50 business schools in the United States. Their data was limited
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
12
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
to the course descriptions of 37 SCM electives and 36 operations management core courses.
They conducted a content analysis of these course descriptions and compared the results to a
content analysis of 704 online job postings for individuals with an MBA and/or a focus in SCM.
They categorized the data associated with the content in the syllabi as the supply-side, and the
content associated with the online job postings as the demand-side. By comparing and
contrasting the supply and demand content, they were able to identify gaps between the demands
of industry and the content being offered in the schools they examined. Of interest to this
research are the topics missing in the curriculum identified by industry including forecasting,
marketing, procurement, relationship management, contracts and negotiation, ERP systems and
customer service (pg. 481). In addition to the oversupply of topic coverage on performance
metrics, product design, supply chain design, global management, channel management, logistics
and emerging information technology. There is research is limited to graduate courses and only
schools in the United States. In addition, the data utilized was identified by online course
descriptions and job posting only. Syllabi were utilized only to identify the cases utilized in the
individual courses.
This research adopts a similar research methodology however, it utilizes the entire operations
management syllabi in the research. The research is also different in scope and scale with the
database currently at 226 syllabi, and growing. This research will effectively extend the prior
research by increasing the sample size to include schools globally including both ranked and
unranked schools. In addition, the scope of the research includes undergraduate and graduate
courses. The next section is devoted to a detailed discussion of the methodology.
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
13
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
DATA COLLECTION AND METHODOLOGY
Since the goal of this research is to gain an understanding of Operations Management education
being offered around the globe, a benchmarking approach was undertaken following the
benchmarking process outlined by Alstete (1995) for benchmarking HE. The focus was on
schools offering courses or programs in Supply Chain Management and Operations
Management. The sample population was targeted as the attendees of the joint meeting between
the Institute for Supply Management’s North American Research and Teaching Symposium and
the International Purchasing and Supply Education Research Association in 2005, as this
population represents a significant number of academics in the field of SCM worldwide. The
attendees were emailed an invitation to participate in November 2007, requesting them to send
their syllabi in undergraduate, graduate and executive education in the functional areas of
operations, purchasing and logistics management. The syllabi were therefore self-identified by
each faculty member who responded to the call.
All syllabi were sent to one data repository for tracking and storage. Since some faculty
members referred the researchers to a web-site for data collection, some syllabi were collected
via the Internet off of program web-sites or a faculty member’s personal web-site. During a six
month period ending May 2008, 226 syllabi were collected from around the world. The database
includes a 22% international representation. The syllabi collected were for courses offered
between the Spring 2006 and Spring 2008 semesters. The syllabi were coded into Microsoft
Access 2007 and included categorization into functional area, level of class, textbook(s) utilized
and assessment methods.
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
14
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
The data gathered from each syllabus through content analysis included: the topics covered in
the course, the number of class periods devoted to each topic, the percentage of class time
devoted to topics, evaluation methods and course materials including textbooks. Content
analysis is a research methodology that uses a set of procedures to make valid inferences from
material. It allows for the systematic evaluation of communication at many levels (Kolbe and
Burnett 1991). From the data, a list of 169 topics covered in SCM classes has been identified
from the syllabi. Since syllabi are a written plan of study for the course, the syllabus represents
the overall view of the course content. Although faculty may vary from the schedule, the
syllabus identifies key topics that are important in that class. Statistical content analysis allowed
the relative importance of a topic at an aggregate level to be identified. The next section is
devoted to highlighting the results of this research effort.
Results
This research is a subset of a larger studying focusing on the different functional areas that
encompass Supply Chain Management. The database generated through the benchmarking
process includes 226 syllabi over four functional areas. There are six syllabi which could not be
translated and therefore excluded from further analysis. A breakdown of the 220 remaining
syllabi by functional area can be seen in Figure 2.
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
15
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
This study focuses on the 46 syllabi in the Operations Management functional area. This sample
was identified from the database of all syllabi where the topic was identified as Operations.
Even though there is a 22% international representation in the total database, in this sample
devoted to operations management, there is one international syllabus for a graduate level
course. Due to this low representation, it was decided to analyze the data as a whole, since no
insights can be gained by comparing the United States syllabi against one international syllabus.
The breakdown of the 46 syllabi in regards to level of course can be seen in Figure 3.
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
16
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
Figure 3: Operations Management Syllabi
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Undergraduate
Graduate
Tables 3 and 4 present the most common topics for both undergraduate and graduate programs.
These topics were identified by the number of courses which covered these topics. The tables
also give the average, minimum and maximum percentage of time spent on these topics. These
percentages were calculated by multiplying the number of course periods by the length of the
class and then dividing by the total number of course minutes. For each topic, these calculations
are based soley on the courses that cover that topic. Since class length and duration varies across
schools, this measure was determined to be a standardizing methodology which would account
for theses variations. Three of the syllabi did not include the topics that would be covered in the
course and are excluded from these tables.
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
17
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
Table 3: Most common topics covered in Undergraduate courses
Undergraduate Classes
Topic
# courses Average %
Introduction
23
6.25%
Quality Management
16
12.39%
Forecasting
15
9.05%
Capacity Analysis
12
6.46%
Inventory Management
12
12.90%
Process Design
11
6.47%
Scheduling
11
7.52%
Strategy
11
7.36%
Location Analysis
10
7.44%
Project Management
10
8.86%
Material Requirements Planning
8
6.84%
Statistical Process Control
8
11.84%
* Out of 24 courses analyzed
Min %
3.57%
4.35%
4.17%
2.08%
6.06%
2.08%
4.00%
3.85%
4.17%
4.00%
3.03%
6.67%
Max %
10.00%
59.26%
14.29%
9.09%
33.33%
9.09%
9.09%
15.38%
11.76%
14.29%
9.09%
23.53%
Table 4: Most common topics covered in Graduate courses
Graduate Classes
Topic
# courses Average %
Introduction
18
8.94%
Strategy
10
13.26%
Inventory Management
8
10.77%
Process Analysis
7
10.86%
Process Design
7
10.58%
Material Requirements Planning
7
9.75%
Quality Management
7
9.75%
JIT
5
19.40%
Project Management
5
13.47%
Capacity Analysis
5
9.50%
Lean
5
9.27%
* Out of 19 courses analyzed
Min %
2.16%
3.45%
3.85%
4.35%
4.35%
3.85%
4.35%
2.17%
4.35%
3.85%
2.17%
Max %
16.67%
27.27%
21.58%
18.18%
16.67%
14.29%
16.67%
61.11%
29.41%
14.39%
14.29%
It is interesting to note that the introduction to the course is taking a fair amount of the total time
allotted for the course at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. The analysis of the
undergraduate courses identified 70 topics that are covered in the 24 courses. In addition, it
appears that the undergraduate courses are more quantitative in regards to topics covered, with
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
18
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
modeling, statistical process control and linear programming all showing a large contribution
towards overall class time. A review of the difference between the maximum and minimum
percentages identified Quality Management as the topic with the most variation in regards to the
amount of time spent covering the topic, with a difference of 55 percent.
At the graduate level, there are 61 topics covered in the 19 courses. it is interesting to note that
the most important topic covered in graduate level classes is the introduction to the course. In
fact, the first four topics covered account for approximately 40 percent of class time. As
expected, the graduate course focuses more on strategy and world-class operations than an
undergraduate course. In addition, it is surprising that forecasting was not one of the top
common topic in graduate classes. Forecasting was covered by 4 of the 19 courses and an
average of 9.47% of class time. The largest variation in course coverage can be found in the
topic of JIT, where there is a 58% difference between the minimum and maximum percentage of
class time. These results support Wu’s (2007) findings that there is significant variation in
course content in SCM courses. Besides the variation in topics, this research found that there is
also significant variation in the importance of each topic in the course. With variations ranging
to over 50% of course time, it is vital for faculty members to ensure that the topics covered in
class match the knowledge required by employers.
A breakdown of class readings and assessment methods is provided in Figure 4. This graph
shows the percentage of courses at each level that use varying assessment techniques. As
expected, graduate courses utilize more assigned readings (outside of the textbook) and cases
than undergraduate courses. Undergraduate courses utilize midterm and final exams slightly
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
19
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
more than graduate level courses. Surprisingly, there are more quizzes utilized in our sample at
the graduate level. In addition, it is surprising to see that graduate students are required to
complete homework in approximately ten percent of the classes.
As noted previously, benchmarking identifies performance gaps, which in this research will be
viewed as differences in subject matter, teaching styles, etc. Not only must schools benchmark
against each other, it is necessary for schools to benchmark against the skills / topics that are
important to practitioners. For this research, a list of skills important to practitioners in Supply
Chain Management was developed from published reports regarding careers in SCM and
Logistics (ISM, Commonwealth Business Media).
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
20
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
The results can be seen in Table 5, which identified gaps as those topics which aren’t covered in
the syllabi analyzed. The zeros indicate that none of the 46 syllabi specifically identify this topic
on the class topics. Although some of these topics may be covered throughout the course via
class discussion, experiential learning or some other manner, these topics are currently not
receiving enough attention within the syllabi. Many of the topics which have no coverage are
specifically related to purchasing, such as “contract development” and “legal aspects of
purchasing,” and therefore it is not surprising that these topics are not covered in Operations
Management courses. However, as businesses move more towards a collaborative environment,
students should be exposed to topics such as negotiations and strategic alliances in an Operations
Management course.
Table 5: Gaps from Practitioner Identified Topics
Practitioners Topics
Undergradate Graduate
Benchmarking
1
2
Contract development
0
0
Cost/price analysis
2
1
Distribution
6
1
Economic forecasting
15
4
Electronic commerce
0
0
Inventory control
12
8
Legal aspects of purchasing
0
0
Logistics
2
1
Negotiations
0
0
New technology/software
1
1
Performance measurements
2
2
Relationship management
0
0
Strategic alliances
0
0
Strategic planning
11
10
Supplier evaluation
3
2
Team building
0
0
Transportation and traffic
5
2
Source: "Supply IN Demand" by ISM (2008) and Commonwealth Business Media's "2008-2009
Logistics Career Guide"
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
21
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
Conclusions
In Giannakis and Croom (2004) perceptions of SCM between Europe and the United States
indicated some significant differences in emphasis between operations, relationship and ‘holistic’
perspectives in the field of SCM. This paper focused on the nature of the operations curricula in
universities the United States and internationally.
A significant difference can be seen between undergraduate and graduate courses – not
surprisingly strategy and improvement play a more dominant part in graduate courses whilst
techniques and models for operations management dominate undergraduate syllabi. This could of
course be explained by the relative differences in experience between graduate and
undergraduate. This distinction is further illustrated by the higher incidence of case based
assessment in graduate classes which illustrates the emphasis in graduate course of the practical
application of operations concepts compared to undergraduate classes.
In both Larson & Halldorsson’s (2004) and Wu’s (2007) studies the implication of faculty
preferences/biases was noted as a significant factor in curricula design. This is perhaps a self
evident truth, but one that initial examination of this data supports. There is a significant
proportion of courses which used faculty authored texts, articles and cases. The applied and
‘experience-rich’ nature of OM is greatly enhanced by faculty expertise and thus, this is not a
surprising observation. It may, however, underline one of the challenges of cross program
comparison that Larson & Halldorsson (2004) note in their recognition of faculty biases in
curricula design.
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
22
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
Our next phase in this study it to conduct a wider analysis across the range of supply chain
curricula. Although our database is extensive compared to previous work, the international
presence in the database is weak which limits the comparisons that can be drawn. Future
research is needed to establish the effectiveness of the operations management courses and to
compare the course offerings of ranked schools with unranked schools. As the database of
syllabi grows over time, it will provide for longitudinal comparisons and provide a necessary
tool to study the evolution of the field of SCM.
References and Bibliography
Alstete, Jeffrey W. 1995, Benchmarking in Higher Education, AHSE-ERIC Higher Education
Report No. 5, Washington, DC., The George Washington University Graduate School of
Education and Human Development.
The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business 2009, accessed November 27, 2009,
[available at http://www.aacsb.edu/].
Babbar, S. and Prasad, S. (1998) ‘International Purchasing, Inventory Management and Logistics
Research: An Assessment and Agenda’ International Journal of Operations and Production
Management 18, 1, pp. 6-36
Bagchi, Prabir, and Laura M. Birou, “Benchmarking: A Tool for Achieving Competitive
Advantage,” Proceedings of the 20th International Marketing and Management Conference,
New Delhi, India, January 1994.
Camp, Robert C. (1989), Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead to
Superior Performance, ASQC Quality Press, New York, New York.
Christopher, M. (1992), Logistics and Supply chain Management, Pitman Publishing, London.
Commonwealth Business Media 2007, “Logistics Career Guide 2007-2008.”
Cooper, M. C. Lambert, D. M. and Pagh, J. D. (1997) ‘Supply Chain Management: More than a
new name for Logistics’ The International Journal of Logistics Management, 8, 1, pp.1-13
Copacino, W.C. (1997). Supply Chain Management. Boca Ration, FL: St Lucie Press
Croom, S.R. (2001). ‘The dyadic capabilities concept: examining the processes of key suppliers’
involvement in collaborative product development’. European Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management. Vol 7, (1) pp29-37
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
23
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
Croom, S.R,; Romano, P. and Giannakis, M. (2000) ‘Supply Chain Management: An Analytical
Framework for Critical Literature Review’ European Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, 6, 1, pp. 67-83
De Toni, A & Nassimbeni, G. (1999). ‘Buyer-supplier operational practices, sourcing policies
and plant performances: results of an empirical study’. International Journal of Production
Research, Vol 37(3), pp 597-619
Ellram, L. (1991) ‘Supply Chain Management: The Industrial Organization Perspective’
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 21, 1, pp.13-22
Ellram, L & Cooper, M. (1993). ‘Characteristics of supply chain management and the
implications for purchasing & logistics strategy’. International Journal of Logistics
Management. Vol 4(2), pp 1-10
Foster, T., “Searching for the best”, Distribution, March 1992, pp.31-36.
Frohlich, M.T. & Westbrook, R. (2001). ‘Arcs of integration: an international study of supply
chain strategies’. Journal of Operations Management. Vol 19, pp 185-200
Gardiner, Lion F. Redesigning Higher Education: Producing Dramatic Gains in Student
Learning. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Volume 23, No. 7. Washington, D.C.:
The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human
Development.
Giannakis, M. & Croom, S.R. (2004). ‘Towards the Development of a Supply Chain
Management Paradigm: A Conceptual Framework’. The Journal of Supply Chain
Management Spring. pp 27- 37.
Handfield, R.B. & Nichols, E.L. (1999). Introduction to Supply Chain Management. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Harland, C. (1994) Perceptions of Requirements and Performance in European Automotive
Aftermarket Supply Chains, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Warwick, UK
Harland, C. (1996) ‘Supply chain management: Relationships, chains and networks’ British
Journal of Management 7, (Special Issue), pp. 63-80
Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B., Dynamic Manufacturing-Creating the
Learning Organization, The Free Press, New York, NY, 189.
Ho, D.C.K.; Au, K.F. & Newton, E. (2002). ‘Empirical research on supply chain management: a
critical review and recommendations’. International Journal of Production Research. Vol
40 (17), pp 4415-4430.
Houlihan, J. (1984) “Supply Chain Management”. Proceedings of the 19th Int. Tech. Conference
BPICS, pp. 101-110
Houlihan, J.B. (1985) International Supply Chain Management. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Materials Management. Vol 15 (1) pp 22-39.
Houlihan J. (1988). “International Supply Chains: A New Approach.” Management Decision. 26,
no. 3. pp. 13-19.
Hull, D., “Benchmarking at AT&T networking systems”, CLM Annual Conference Proceedings,
1992.
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
24
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
ISM 2008, “Supply IN Demand: Your Career in Supply Management.” (available at
www.ism.ws)
Jackson, N., “Benchmarking in UK HE: an overview,” Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 9
No. 4, 2001, pp. 218-235.
Jeliazkova, M., and Westerheijden, D.F., “Systemic adaptation to a changing environment:
Towards a next generation of quality assurance models,” Higher Education, Vol. 44, No.
¾, Oct.-Dec., 2002, pp. 433-448.
Johnson, M.E., Pyke, D.F. (2000) ‘A Framework for Teaching Supply Chain Management’.
Production & Operations Management Vol 9(10) pp 2-18
Kolbe, Richard H. and Melissa S. Burnett. “Content-Analysis Research: An Examination of
Applications with Directives for Improving Research Reliability and Objectivity.” The
Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 2 (1991), 243-250.
Lambert, D.M. & Cooper, M. (2000). ‘Issues in supply chain management.’ Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol 29, pp 65-83
Lamming, R.C. (1993). Beyond Partnership: Strategies for Innovation and Lean Supply,
Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hampsted.
Lamming, R.C.; Johnsen, T; Zheng, J & Harland, C (2000) ‘An initial classification of supply
networks’. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. Vol 20(6) pp
675-691.
Larson P. & Halldorsson A. (2004). ‘Logistics versus supply chain management: an
international survey’. International Journal of Logistics, Vol 7, 1, pp. 17-31(15)Lummus,
R.R. & Vokurka, R.J. (1999). ‘Defining supply chain management: a historical perspective
and practical guidelines’. Industrial Management & Data Systems. Vol 99(1). pp 11-17
Leslie, DW, and E.K. Fretwell Jr. (1996) Wise Moves in Hard Times: Creating & Managing
Resilient Colleges & Unverisities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Macbeth, DK, and N Ferguson. (1994). Partnership Sourcing. An Integrated Supply Chain
Approach. London: Pitman.
Mentzer, J.T.: De Witt, W.; Keebler, J.S.; Min, S; Nix, N.W.; Smith, C.D. & Zachariah, Z.G.
(2001). ‘Defining supply chain management.’ Journal of Business Logistics. Vol 22(2), pp
1- 25
Monczka, R.M. & Morgan, J. (1997). ‘What’s wrong with supply chain management?’
Purchasing, Vol 122(1), pp 69-73.
Mouritsen, J; Skjott-Larsen, T & Kotzab, H. (2003). ‘Exploring the contours of supply chain
management.’ Integrated Manufacturing Systems. Vol 14(8) pp. 686-695.
Narasimhan, R. & Das, A. (1999). ‘Manufacturing agility and supply chain management
practices’. Production & Inventory Management Journal, Vol 40(1), pp 4-10
Narasimhan, R & Jayaram, J. (1998). ‘Causal linkages in supply chain management: an
exploratory study of North American manufacturing firms’. Decision Sciences, Vol. 29(3),
pp 579-605.
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
25
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
Oliver, R.K. and Weber, M.D. (1982) “Supply-Chain Management: Logistics Catches up with
Strategy”. In: Christopher, M.1., (Ed.) Logistics: The Strategic Issues, pp. 63-75. London:
Chapman & Hall
Sodhi, M.S., Son, B., and C.S. Tang (2008), “ASP, The Art and Science of Practice: What
Employers Demand for Applicants for MBA-Level Supply Chain Jobs and the Coverage of
Supply Chain Topics in MBA Courses,” Interfaces, pp. 469-484.
Strauss, A and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures
and Techniques. Sage Publications.
Svensson, G. (2002a). ‘Supply chain management: the re-integration of marketing issues in
logistics theory and practice’. European Business Review, Vol 14(6), pp 426-436.
Svensson, G. (2002b). ‘The theoretical foundation of supply chain management: A functionalist
theory of marketing.’ International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management. Vol 32(9) pp 734-754.
Takeuchi, H. and Nonaka, I., “The new product development game”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol.64 No.1, January-February 1994, pp.77-86.
Tan, K.C. (2001). ‘A framework of supply chain management literature.’ European Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management. Vol 7(1), pp 39-48
The Bologna Declaration on European Space for Higher Education: an Explanation,
Confederation of EU Rectors’ Conferences and the Association of European Universities
(CRE), February 29, 2000.
Thomas, D.J. & Griffin, P.M. (1996) ‘Co-ordinate supply chain management’. European Journal
of Operational Research. Vol 94, pp 1-15
Wu, Y-C. J. (2007) ‘Contemporary logistics education: an international perspective’.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. Vol 37 (7) pp.
504-528
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
26