Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Graduate Student Project: Employer Operations
Management Analysis
Lynn A. Fish
To cite this article: Lynn A. Fish (2008) Graduate Student Project: Employer Operations Management Analysis, Journal of Education for Business, 84:1, 18-30, DOI: 10.3200/ JOEB.84.1.18-30
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.1.18-30
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 54
View related articles
perations management is a par-ticularlydifficultfunctiontoteach because many students do not readily comprehend the application of opera-tionsprinciplesandstrategies(Sampson, 2000;Wright&Ammar,1997).Incourse development, instructors consider sev-eralissues:developingrelevantlearning experiences, satisfying audience needs and instructor abilities simultaneously, and meeting external requirements. Experiential-learning activities such as projects,simulations,andgamesenhance the classroom environment and encour-agestudentlearning(Kolb,1984).More than a decade ago, I sought an opera-tions-management activity to encour-age experiential learning for part-time graduate students who were employed full-time in for-profit and not-for-profit organizationsinserviceandmanufactur-ing industries.At that time, a search of availableliteraturedidnotrevealaproj-ecttosatisfythisneed.Theobjectivesof thepresentarticleare(a)todescribeand verifytheeffectivenessoftheemployer-operations-management-analysisproject, whichIdevelopedsothatotherinstruc-tors may integrate it into their courses, and (b) on the basis of several course offeringsandprojectchanges,todiscuss the impact of adding periodic feedback andchangingcourse-weightingschemes onstudentperformance.
Experiential learning, a process by which knowledge is created through
the transformation of experience, can increase student interest and improve courseoutcomes(Kolb,1984).Research has supported the belief that learning occurs best when students are actively involvedinconcreteexperiences(Adler &Milne,1997;Foggin,1992;Hill,1997; Mockler,1997;Walters&Marks,1981) thatdevelopalasting,effectivemeansof transferring information and modifica-tion(Hendry,1996).Studiescomparing student-centeredlearning(e.g.,projects, simulations, and games) to instructor- centeredlearning(e.g.,lecturesandread-ings)favorstudent-centeredmethodsas ameanstobettermotivatestudents.This greatereffectivenessisbecausestudent-centered learning provides more rele-vant, real-world experiences (Sherrell &Burns,1982),whichenhancecritical thinking skills and improve retention more than instructor-centered methods (Bredemier & Greenblatt, 1981). The most effective methods for improv-ing critical thinkimprov-ing skills in business educationinvolvepracticaltaskcomple-tion (McEwen, 1994). The employer-operations-management-analysisproject engagesstudentsinapracticaltaskthat isrelevanttoeachstudent.
Today, operations management instructors actively engage their stu-dents in experiential learning through games, demonstrations, projects, simu-lations, case studies, theatrical films, videotaping, research reviews, and
GraduateStudentProject:Employer
OperationsManagementAnalysis
LYNNA.FISH CANISIUSCOLLEGE BUFFALO,NEWYORK
O
ABSTRACT.Part-timegraduatestudents atanAssociationtoAdvanceCollegiate SchoolsofBusiness–accreditedcollege completeauniqueprojectbyapplying operationsmanagementconceptstotheir currentemployer.Morethan92%of368 graduatesindicatedthatthisexperiential projectwasapositivelearningexperience, andresultsshowapositiveimpactoncon-tentlearning.Among16courseofferings, theprojectwasmodifiedandincluded periodicfeedbackandproject-weightmodi-fication.Periodicprojectfeedbackdidnot improveprojectperformance,butitdid enhanceexamlearningandhighlightthe criticalbalancebetweeninstructorfeedback andstudentperformance.Course-weighting schemesdonotalwaysaffectstudenttask performance—asinstructorsmayexpect— andsuchschemesmaynegativelyaffect othercoursetasks.
Keywords:operationsmanagement,strat-egyproject,teachingmethods
Copyright©2008HeldrefPublications
internships. My purpose in the present article is not to debate the effective-ness of one method over another, but rather to demonstrate the unique fit of the employer-operations-management-analysis project in today’s academic literature. Literature searches on oper-ations management teaching projects do not reveal any experiential projects that are available to part-time mas-ter of business administration (MBA) students and that assist in integrative learningofcompanystrategywithoper-ationsmanagementdecisionsinservice and manufacturing environments. The current literature fails to fulfill this particular audience’s needs: part-time, graduate, and experiential projects that areintegrativeandthatsatisfytheneeds of service and manufacturing integra-tion. A sample of literature in opera-tions-management-teaching techniques focused on the full-time, undergradu-ate population, not full- or part-time graduate audiences (Fish, 2007a). The reviewofferedfewoperationsmanage-ment projects for either undergraduate or graduate audiences. I present this finding not to indicate that instruc-torsdonotuseprojectsbuttoindicate that instructors often talk about their projects,whereasfewreportsofopera-tionsmanagementprojectsarecurrently availableinacademicjournals.
Most published operations man-agement projects meet the needs for full-time, undergraduate programs, not graduate or part-time programs. Only fourprojects—operationsimprovement projects(Ahire,2001),theglobal-team-work-in-supply-chain-management project (Kopczak and Fransoo, 2000), the topic review project (Klassen, 2000), and the University of Minneso-ta’s new product-development project (Cardozoetal.,2002)—haveaddressed these needs of graduate students.With theexceptionoftheUniversityofMin-nesota project these projects, although providing valuable experiences, do not integrate corporate, business, and operations management strategy. It is also interesting that only two of these projects have addressed the needs of service operations management, which isgrowingintheUnitedStates.Theser-vice-learning project (Sampson, 2000), a videotaping of situations to
docu-ment potential process improvements, addressed service and manufacturing organizations, at the undergraduate level, whereas the operations improve-ment projects (Ahire, 2001) improved processesinserviceandmanufacturing organizations at either level. Perhaps thepublishedprojectthatwasclosestto the employer-operations-management-analysis project was the University of Minnesota’s new product development project, which required students to develop a working physical prototype and an extensive business plan with production, marketing, and financial considerationsfortheproductsthrough ayearlongcoursethatcombinedinten-sive project work at local companies with classroom education (Cardozo et al.,2002).Unfortunately,theemployer-operations-management-analysis proj-ectdidnotachievethislevelofbusiness and engineering integration, and it did notrequiretheintenseyearlongstudy.
Although such projects appear to be few,asampleofotherexperientialtech-niques (e.g., simulations, games; see Table1)makesobviousthatoperations managementinstructorsuseawidevari- etyofexperientialtechniquestodemon-strateoperationsmanagementconcepts andprinciplesattheundergraduateand graduate levels. However, this sample demonstratesthatthemajorityofthese tools focus on exploring one particu-lar concept of operations management. Onlyafewofthepublishedtoolsfocus on integration in operations manage-ment—such as those of Llenroc plas-tics (Muckstadt & Jackson, 1995) and productionplanningintegration(Wright & Ammar, 1997)—and both of these techniques do so within a manufactur-ingenvironment.Twonotedsimulations integrate operations management con-cepts:TheE-OPSgame(Jacobs,2003) encourages students to integrate across purchasing, production, and market-ing functions, whereas the Beer game (Sterman, 1995) requires students, act-ingasdifferentsupplychainmembers, to make inventory management deci-sions.Thisliteraturereviewrevealsonly simulations and games that focus on manufacturingintegrationanddoesnot include services. Experiential-learning simulationandgamestointegratebusi-ness strategy and operations
manage-ment decisions are not currently avail-able. Although simulations and games aboundforteachingoperationsmanage-mentconceptsandprinciples,published operationsmanagementprojectsarenot asprevalent.
Hence, a gap exists in current peer-reviewed, academic journals for an operationsmanagementprojecttofunc-tion as an experiential-learning tool to (a)meettheneedforanoperationsman- agementapplicationamongthepopula-tionofpart-timegraduatestudentswho work for-profit or not-for-profit orga-nizations in service or manufacturing industriesand(b)helpstudentstointe-grateoperationsmanagementdecisions with overall company strategy, while meetingbusinessknowledgeobjectives and assessment goals. The employer-operations-management-analysis proj-ectmeetsthisneed.
What makes this project unique in comparison with others is specifically that it requires part-time graduate stu-dentstoanalyzetheircurrentemployer, and therefore it is similar to an intern-ship: Each project is (a) unique, (b) experienced-based,(c)usableforanaly-sis of services or manufacturers and for-profit or not-for-profit companies, (d) different from student to student for academic integrity, (e) modifiable ascurricularneedsnecessitate,(f)ade-quate to satisfy external requirements forcurriculardirectivesoftheAssocia-tion to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), and (g) requiring studentstointegrateoperationsmanage-mentdecisionswithoverallstrategy.
Inspecific,theemployer-operations-management-analysisproject:
• is a graduate project. Although operations management projects exist, the majority favor undergraduate and full-time students. The employer- operations-management-analysis proj-ect is useful in a graduate curriculum thatispart-time.
• provides an internship-like integra-tionexperience. Byitsnature,theproj-ect requires students to analyze their workingenvironmentwhileemployed, much as in an internship. The proj-ectencouragesemployees—thatis,the students—to ask relevant, pertinent questions regarding their employers’ operations and overall strategies. The
project is similar to individual intern-ships (Kent & Swift, 2000), on-site case studies (Reilly, 1998), and the newproductdevelopmentproject(Car-dozoetal.,2002).However,theproject allows each student to evaluate his or herownsituation.
• applies to for-profit or not-for- profit organizations in manufacturing or service industries The percentage of employees in the service sector has risen in recent years (Ritzman & Kra-jewski, 2003) and as a result, 50% of the student population in our program is employed by a service company. Becauseofalackoftangibleevidence,
service-employedstudentsorthosewho are not directly involved in operations often have difficulties understanding theoperationsapplications.Theproject maybeappliedtoanyorganization. • develops business-writingskills.The project encourages business-writing skillsinaccordwithAACSB-accredita-tionstandards.
• is a modular or semester-long proj-ect. This project is not as intensive as the new product development project because it does not require creation of a complete business plan (Cardozo et al.,2002).Itonlyrequiresamoduleor semester,notayearlongcourse.
• can adapt to changing curricu-lum requirements. As the curriculum changedoverthedecade,Imodifiedthe projecttoreflectcoursecontent. • encourages experiential learning. The employer-operations-management-analysisprojectisexperientialinnature and requires students to analyze their current employer’s strategy and opera-tionsmanagementstrategy.
• yields unique individual projects. Instructorsarealwaysconcernedabout academic integrity within and between semesters. Because of the size of the school’s program, it is rare that two students from the same employer are TABLE1.ExperientialOperationsManagementTechniques:Games,Demonstrations,andSimulations
Topic Operationsmanagementtopic
Statisticalqualitycontrol Thebeadfactory(W.E.Deming,1986)
Statisticalqualitycontrol:Developingstudents’understandingofvariablecontrolchartsusing
string(L.A.Fish,2007b)
Assemblylinebalancing WeplayedOPMgamesandwon!(R.Wright&S.Ammar,2003)
Teachingassemblylinebalancing:Amini-demonstrationwithDUPLO®blocksor“The
runningofthedogs”(L.A.Fish,2005) Paperpuppets(J.Heineke&L.Meile,1995) MRPa CooperstownCars,Inc.(L.Dolinsky,1995)
Materialrequirementsplanning:Tinkertoylawnmoweractivity(L.A.Fish,2006a) JITbproduction GozintoProducts(P.Arnoldetal.,1995)
Pushversuspullmini-demonstration:Acontinuationofthemini-demonstrationwithDuplosor “Therunningofthedogs—PartII”(L.A.Fish,2006b)
Thecupsgame(P.Jackson,1996)
Supplychainmanagement Thebeerdistributiongame(J.Sterman,1995) inventorymovement
Integrationsimulation: E-OPSgame(F.R.Jacobs,2003) Purchasing,production,
andmarketing
Supplychain:Facility Simulationofdemandfrommultifactoriestomultiwarehouses(F.R.Jacobs,2003) location
Inventorysystems UsemoresoapB(F.R.Jacobs,2003)
Productionsystems:Craft CelluloseAircraft,Inc.(W.Benoit&D.McDougall,1995) andmass
2-tierdistributionsystem Llenrocplastics:Market-drivenintegrationofmanufacturinganddistributionsystems(J.Muckstadt &P.Jackson,1995)
Reducingproductionline Goldratt’sgame(E.Goldratt,1992) variation
Inventorymanagement: WeplayedOPMgamesandwon!(R.Wright&S.Ammar,2003) Productionplanning
integration
Jobshopscheduling Shellgame(J.Ward&L.Schwarz,1995)
Mockfactorysituation Improvingoperationsmanagementconceptrecollectionviathezarcoexperientiallearning activity(T.Polito,J.Kros,&K.Watson,2004)
aMRP=materialrequirementsplanning.bJIT=justintime.
registeredforthesameclass.Hence,the possibility of collaboration among stu- dentswithinasemesterisrarelyacon-cern. Also, because companies change their strategies over time, researchers and educators should expect student responses among semesters to change with the changes that occur in their companies.
At an AACSB-accredited college in the Northeast, the current graduate programlearninggoalsandassessment include business knowledge.These are partoftheSchoolofBusinessinternal documents and are not formally pub-lished.Relevanttobusinessknowledge isthegoaltoensurethat“studentscan explain how value is managed through operationsmanagementareasofprocess strategy and quality management.” To meetthisobjective,theinstructorneeds todevelopanduserelevantinstructional materials that motivate and encourage students. The employer-operations-management-analysis project meets the business knowledge objective, as showninTable2,bycreatingalearning experiencethatisexperientialandcon-crete.Inspecific,theprojectaddresses process analysis and quality manage-ment.Toencouragelearning,educators must tie educational material to
busi-ness situations in which students are interested(Sampson,2000).Studyinga student’sbusinessisaneffectivemeans for preparing the student to become a manager who can adjust to business changesBurgi,Victor,&Lentz,2004). For the student, the course may be the firstintroductiontotherelationsamong corporate, business, and functional strategies. The project helps students to discover how critical these relations are to business success and brings the theory into the real world for them. Becausetheprojectrequiresstudentsto analyzeemploymentexperienceincor-porate, business, and functional strat-egy,theprojectincreasestherelevance ofoperationsmanagementforpart-time graduatestudentswhoworkatjobs,and therefore it motivates students to learn operationsmanagement.
Through appropriate modification, educatorscanusetheprojectinopera-tions management classes for full-semester offerings or 8-week modules. In either case, the project user should understandwherethecoursefitsintothe MBA program. The course on opera-tions planning occurs as part of foun-dation-level courses. Founfoun-dation-level courses include courses on statistics, economics, corporate finance,
market-ing,financialaccounting,organizational behavior,andoperationsplanning.After completing foundation-level courses, students take more in-depth courses in various business areas. As expected, program completion involves a full-semester capstone strategy course. To encourage integration, the MBA cur-riculumchangedatourschoolin1996 fromafull-semesterprogramtoamod-ularcurriculum,andthenseveralyears laterbacktoafull-semesterprogram.At itsinception,Iusedtheprojecttodevel-op application-based operations man-agement learning over a full-semester course. With modularization, I divided theoperationsmanagementcourseinto operationsplanningandoperationscon-trol modules. The project, because it coverslong-termplanningtopics,high-lightstopicsintheoperations-planning 8-week session. Topics in the course include, but are not limited to, criti-cal business areas such as operations strategicdevelopment,processanalysis, quality management, customer service, competitive advantages, technology management, location, facility layout, andproductivity.Hence,theprojectcan beeasilymodifiedtosuittheacademic and business curriculum changes that naturallyoccurovertime.
TABLE2.BusinessSchoolObjectives,CourseObjectives,andProjectRelations
Objective Courseobjective Projectrelations
Businessschoolobjectives
Businessknowledge:Processanalysis Studentscanexplainhowvalueismanaged Thestudentwillanalyzetheprocessflow throughoperationsmanagementareaof foraproduct(manufacturing)ora
processstrategy. servicecompany.
Businessknowledge: Studentscanexplainhowvalueismanaged Thestudentwillanalyzethequality Qualitymanagement throughoperationsmanagementareaof managementsystemofanorganization.
qualitymanagement.
Othercourseobjectives
Businessskilldevelopment Thestudentwillgrowinhisorher Thestudent’sprofessionalskillswillgrow, professionalbusinessskillswithan asheorshewillunderstandthe emphasisonwrittencommunicationskills. employer’sbusinessprocesses,strategy,
andoperationsbetter.Awell-written
reportisexpected.
Basicintegrationofoperations, Thestudentwillunderstandthebasic Thestudentevaluatesthemission marketing,finance,andstrategic relationbetweencompanystrategicgoals statement,competitivepriorities,product businessconcepts andthefunctionalareas. positioning,andcostsystems.
Thestudentwillbeintroducedtothe
conceptofstrategyandintegration
betweenfunctionalparts.
Feedback
Educational literature supports rein-forcement methods for improving stu-dent understanding of course content (Mukherjee, 2002). Although the lit-erature supports reinforcement through practice and drill (Burden & Byrd, 1994;Kauchak&Eggen,1993;Kozma, Belle, & Williams, 1978; McCormick, 1994),theimpactofperiodicinstructor feedback is not clear.What is the role offeedbackinstudentcontentdevelop-ment at the collegiate level? Results haveshownthatinaninternationalbusi- nesscourse,instructorfeedbackonwrit-ingassignmentshasapositiveeffecton contentlearningandincreasesthetime that students devote to learning course content (Ranney & McNeilly, 1996). However, the majority of college stu-dentsdonotincorporatewhattheylearn from instructors’ constructive criticism intofuturedraftsoftheirwriting(Wil-tse, 2002). In a forthcoming article, I demonstrate the positive role that con-tinuousonlinefeedbackhasonstudent projectperformance,butInotethatthe students may have used the constant feedback only to improve their project gradeattheexpenseofcontentlearning (Fish,2007a).Becausecontinuousfeed-backisextremelytimeconsumingtothe instructor, in the forthcoming article, I explorewhetherperiodicfeedbackpro-motescontentlearning.
Is there a value to instructors’ pro-viding periodic feedback to college students? Current literature does not provide information on the effects of timing or quantity of instructor inter-ventiononstudentlearning.
ProjectWeighting
Research into modifying course-weighting schemes and student per-formance is lacking. With a similar project,Iexploredtheimpactofproject weightchangesonstudentperformance and content learning (Fish, in press). Through my analysis, I found that an economies-of-scaleprinciplemayexist as students responded to increases in project weight by decreasing their effortsinothertasks.Atagivenweight on a similar experiential-learning proj-ect (Fish, 2007), although student performance improved, the students
performed significantly worse on con-tent-based testing. Because the results fromthatstudyarenotclear,Icontinue toexploretheimpactofcourse-weight- ingschemesonprojectandtaskperfor-mance.Whatistheimpactofweighting schemes on student performance and contentlearning?
METHOD
Employer-Operations-Management-AnalysisProject In 1994, to encourage experiential learning in the operations management classroom, I developed the employer-operations-management-analysis proj-ect. The project requires part-time students who are employed by for-profit or not-for-for-profit organizations in manufacturing or service industries to apply theoretical operations manage-ment topics learned in the classroom to current employment situations and thereby to develop concrete applica-tion-based learning.AsTable 3 shows, for each topic, the student addresses specific questions that are pertinent to classroomdiscussion.Thequestionsare listed in the order in which the topics aredevelopedbytheinstructorinclass, and the instructor encourages students toanswerthequestionsaftereachclass session.Theprojectisdividedintothree sections: introduction, further develop- ment,andapplication.Duringtheintro-ductionphase,thestudentisintroduced tooperationsmanagementandthebasic process of developing operations man-agement strategy to support corporate strategy. In the program pedagogy as described previously, this phase is the student’sfirstintroductiontocorporate strategy development. Therefore, the corporate strategy analysis is basic: It ismerelyanobservationofthecurrent corporate strategy and not an in-depth analysis.Itisimperativethatthestudent beginstounderstandthatthefunctional strategy—in this case, the operations strategy—must align with the corpo-rate strategy. The course emphasis is on operations management topics, and therefore these topics are covered in moredepth.Duringthephaseoffurther development, the student analyzes the operationsstrategicdecisionsinprocess management, technology management,
and location. To complete the project, in the application phase, the student uses an applications approach to facil-ity layout and qualfacil-ity management at thecompany.Onthebasisofcurricular changes, the instructor can modify the projectquestionstoincludeorexclude different project sections. To complete thequestions,thestudentusestheclass textbook,Foundations of Operations Management (Ritzman & Krajewski, 2003); classroom discussions; instruc-tor guidance; additional readings that the instructor highlights in class dis-cussions;andinformationthatstudents haveacquiredatwork,includingdiscus-sions with supervisors and coworkers, directobservations,andinterviewswith peersandsuperiors.
The instructor grades each project onconceptapplication,responsedepth, andconceptintegration.Studentscom-plete each question or the instructor penalizes their project appropriately. The instructor also grades the project onproperuseofterminology,appropri-ateapplications,andexplanations.With respect to depth, the instructor judges thestudent’sabilitytoproperlydevelop and demonstrate operations terminol-ogyandapplicationinterpretation.The instructoradvisesthestudentthatwhen the application differs from the theory (e.g.,highcustomizationwithlowcost as competitive priorities), the student should offer an in-depth explanation of the actual situation. The instructor challenges response accuracy when it differsfromtheexpectedorchangesin thecontentofthepaper.
Other project particulars include project format and confidentiality issues.Thepagelength(fivepagesper section, double-spaced, and typed), character size and font family (12-point Courier or Times New Roman), and page layout (1.25-in margins on eachside,1-inmarginsatthetopand bottom)guidethestudentonresponse depth. To avoid confidentiality issues, students may disguise the name of their company (e.g., ABC). To avoid potentially difficult situations, the instructordoesnotmakeacopyofthe report, and students are discouraged from including proprietary informa-tion. If necessary, the instructor may sign a confidentiality form. Students
TABLE3.Employer-Operations-Management-AnalysisProject
Topic Objective Question Classdiscussiontopic
Introduction
Operations Introductiontooperations Identifytheindustrythatyourcompany Operationsmanagement Linktocompanystrategy existsin. Manufacturingvs.services Economicanalysis Whatisthecorporatestrategy?(Please Trendsinoperationsmanagement includethemissionstatement.) Basicdecisionsincorporateand Whatarethedistinctivecompetenciesof businessstrategies
yourcompany? SWOTaanalysis
Whatarethemajortrendsinyourindustry? Missionstatement
Listatleasttwo.
Whatisyourcompanydoingtomeetthe variouscompetitivechallenges(i.e.,
trends)?
Strategic Marketing,operations, Whatareas,andhow,doesyourcurrent Marketanalysis
choices andstrategicinterrelations productlineemphasize:price,quality, Operationsstrategy:Strategy,design, time,orflexibility?(Pleasedescribethe andoperationdecisions
twoorthreekeyareasonly.Thisshould Competitivepriorities relatetoyouroperationsandcorporate Lifecycles
strategy.) Entrance–exitstrategies
Whatistheoperationsstrategyandhow Newproductdevelopmentcycle doesitrelatetocorporatestrategy? Positioningstrategies:Process,product, Whatisthecurrentpositioningstrategy andintermediate
foryourproductionsystem:process- Manufacturingstrategies:Make-to- focused,product-focused,or
order,make-to-stock,andassemble- intermediate? to-order
Isthecompanyamake-to-order,make-to- stock,orassemble-to-ordercompany? (Yourresponseshouldindicatehowyou
cametoyourconclusion.)
Furtherdevelopment
Process Businessknowledge: Whattypeofprocessdesigndoesyour Processdesign
management Processanalysis companyuse?Describeit.Comment Capitalintensity,verticalintegration, Integrationtooperations onverticalintegration,resource resourceflexibility,customer strategy flexibility,customerintegration,and integration,andrelationamong capitalintensiveaspectsofthecompany. facetsofprocessdesign
Processchoices:Projectprocess,job
process,batchprocess,lineprocess,
andcontinuousprocess.
Processanalysis
Technology Operationsstrategic Whattwonewtechnologieswillgive Roleoftechnologyinoperations management planningandinformation yourcompanyanoperational Managementoftechnology systemsinterrelations competitiveadvantage? Informationtechnology
Integrationtoprocess Describehowthesetechnologiesfitthe E-commerce,business-to-consumer management companycompetitivepriorities. commerce,business-to-business
commerce,enterpriseresource
planning
Creatingandapplyingtechnology
Technologystrategy
Location Operationsstrategic Whateconomicandspecificfactors SignificantU.S.trends concepts determinedyourcurrentlocation? Globalizationofoperations Long-termplanning Whatspecificfactorsshouldbeconsidered Factorsaffectinglocationdecisions shouldyourcompanydecidetoexpand? Introductiontosupplychain Howdoesyourcurrentlocationrelateto management
yourcustomersandsuppliers? Locatingafacility
Locationmethodologies
(tablecontinues)
areencouragedtoseekassistancefrom theirmanagersandinstructor.Because the instructor cannot control the class makeup and to avoid legal and con-fidentiality issues, individual projects arenotpresented.
At the inception of the employer-operations-management-analysis proj-ect, because only one course offering inagivensemesteroccurs,theopportu-nitytosimultaneouslytesttheproject’s effectiveness by comparison to a con-trol group was not available. Instead, I tested the project’s effectiveness in encouraging content learning on the finalexamthroughregressionanalysis. Regardless of the course’s time frame, a student’s grade is determined by the project, weekly quizzes, and exams. Several years after the project’s ini-tial inclusion in the course, more in-depthprojecteffectivenessmaterialized whenthesameinstructor(I)offeredand taughttwosections.
Feedback
Originally, students submitted their completed project 1 week prior to the final exam. However, on the basis of student anecdotal comments, which I discuss in the next section, and to encourage student understanding, I had the students submit the project in three equal sections: introduction, fur-ther development, and application. I readstudents’workforthesectionand returneditinthefollowingweek,prior tothenextsection’sduedate.Ianalyzed the periodic-feedback method versus theoriginalno-feedbackmethodforits overallimpactonstudentperformance and content learning as measured by thestudents’project,final-examscores, finalaverages,andquizaverages.Ialso tested whether students incorporated instructor feedback into future project part submissions by testing the differ-ence between project part grades by
usingt test analysis (such that Part 1 istheintroductionsection,Part2isthe further-developmentsection,andPart3 istheapplicationsection).
ProjectWeight
Students’ comments periodical-ly encouraged increasing the proj-ect weight (as a percentage of course weight). In response to (a) student’s requests to modify the project, exam, and quiz weights and (b) the students’ anecdotalcommentstoincreaseproject weight(relativetoothertasks’weight), theprojectweightincreasedthreetimes. Originally 15%, the project weight increasedfirstto20%,thento25%,and lastto30%.Toteststudentperformance differencesinweightingschemes,Iana-lyzedttestcomparisonsamongstudent scoresontheproject,finalexam,quiz, andfinalaverageamongsemesters(dif-feringinprojectweight).
TABLE3.(cont.)
Topic Objective Question Classdiscussiontopic
Applications
Facilitylayout Long-termoperations Pleasediagramtheproductusinga Layoutstrategicissues planning blueprint-likelayoutifyourcompany Productlayout:Advantages, Integrationtoprocess isamanufacturerorserviceflowusing disadvantages,andmethodologyto analysisand anappropriateprocesstoolifyour develop
competitivepriorities companyisaservicecompany.Address Processlayout:Advantages, thisforthespecificproductorservice disadvantages,andmethodologyto ofthecompanyandnotanancillary develop
service. Fixedpositionlayout:Advantages,
Clearlylabelthe: disadvantages,andmethodologyto (a)Typeoflayoutthatthecompany develop
uses Hybridlayouts:Advantages,and
(b)Typeofequipmentusedinyour disadvantages
process Serviceprocessflowandmethodsto
(c)Skillleveloftheemployees evaluate
Quality Businessknowledge: Whatqualityattributesdoyoufeelare Definitionsofquality management Qualitymanagement importanttoyourcustomersinrelation Qualitymanagement Integrationtooperations tothecompany’smissionstatement Costofquality
strategy (note,maynotnecessarilybetrue)? Totalqualitymanagement Listatleastthreeproductorservice Benchmarking
qualityattributes. Qualityfunctiondeployment
Doesyourcompanytrackthecostof Toolsforimprovingquality quality:failure,prevention,and Qualitymanagementphilosophies appraisalcosts?(Addresseachcostof Qualitymanagementawards quality.)Ifyourcompanydoesthis,
pleasedescribehowitaccomplishes these.Ifyourcompanydoesnot,please addresswheresuchcostscould
potentiallybefound.
aSWOT=strengths,weaknesses,opportunities,andthreats.
RESULTS
ProjectEffectiveness
Student evaluations provided anec- dotalandquantitativefeedbackonstu-dent support for the project. In more than16courses,368studentscompleted thisproject.Afterprojectcompletion,I surveyedstudentsfortheirinput,allow-ing their responses to be anonymous. Specifictotheproject,Iasked,(a)“Did you learn to apply operations concepts by doing the project?” and (b) “Do you have any suggestions to improve the project?” In all, 340 students com-pleted the survey. The survey did not include28studentswhocompletedthe project but were missing from class during the survey. Students’ responses wereextremelypositiveandfavoredthe learning technique. More than 92.06% (313)ofthestudentsindicatedthatthe projectwasapositivemethodforlearn-ingtoapplyoperationsconcepts.Only 2.65% (9) of the students responded negatively,and5.3%(18)wereunsure. Manyoftheunsurestudentsmentioned that they were waiting for final grades tobedeterminedpriortoanalyzingtheir experience.
The students’ comments were very supportive. Positive comments includ-ed such remarks as “The project was wellworthit”;“Theprojectwasagreat learning tool and I enjoyed it thor-oughly! It allowed the application of concepts to my job”; and “This was a superb project.” Course integration was supported by comments such as “The project focused on the study of theentiresemesterandencouragedme to use knowledge I learned in other courses.” Most importantly, the project encouraged application-based learning as noted by comments such as “The project increases my understanding of whatwe’retryingtodoatwork”;“Ilike the idea of the weekly quiz so I kept up with the assignments, but I think therealapplicationofthetheorieswas “The project allows the student to get closertoreallifeexperiences.”
Although the students’ responses favored the project, exactly how effec-tivetheprojectactuallyisandwhether the project has positively influenced studentcontentlearninghaveyettobe answered. Because my program only has one course offering each semester, theabilitytotesttheseissuesremained unavailable for several years. Initially, I discovered that for students complet-ing the project, quiz average (p = .00) andprojectaverage(p =.05)weresig-nificantvariablesinpredictingstudents’ porating the project into the course, I was able to run simultaneous course offerings using the same materials and testingdevices.Oneclasscompletedthe project, whereas the other did not. As Table4shows,students’exam(p=.05), finalaverages(p=.00),andquizscores (p = .01) were significantly different between the two classes (p = .05) and favoredcontinueduseoftheproject.
FeedbackVersusNoFeedback Inadditiontothepositivecomments regardingtheproject,otherstudentcom-ments encouraged me to change stu-dents’submissionoftheoriginalproject at the end of the course to submission
in phases. Such comments included, “Maybe put the ‘pressure’ off handing inprojectattheendbyhandinginsome oftheprojectmid-module.It’stooeasy to put off the entire project to the last weekorso!”Oncetheprojectwasmod-ifiedtoaformhavingperiodicfeedback andsubmissionoftheprojectinphases, comments included, “Feedback was helpful”; “More time in-between parts forfeedback”;and“Definitelycontinue todoprojectinstageswithfeedback.”
Unfortunately, periodic project feed-back did not significantly improve stu-dents’ performance. As shown in Table 5, statistical analysis did not reveal the project grade (p = .12), final average (p =.07),orquizzes(p=.14)asignificant difference among the conditions of the instructor’s providing periodic feedback andnot.However,studentperformanceon thefinalexamwassignificantlyimproved whenfeedbackwasgiventhroughoutthe project(p=.01).Furtheranalysisofgrade improvement between the three sections oftheprojectasshowninTable6revealed that the project improvement—between Part1andPart2(p=.10)andbetween Part2andPart3(p =.13)—wasnonsig-nificant. However, the students signifi-cantlyimprovedtheirscoresbetweenPart 1andPart3(p=.01).
ProjectWeight
Student insight into the changes in theproject’sweightoveritshistory(see Table 7) favored maintaining the proj-ect’sweight(64.4%)whileaportionof
TABLE4.ProjectVersusNoProject:Exam,FinalAverages,andQuizAverages
Exam Finalaverage Quizaverage
Measure Project Noproject Project Noproject Project Noproject
M 50.88 45.85 86.57 73.46 89.07 78.68
SD 11.74 92.91 35.06 98.23 54.89 148.35 Observations(N) 13.00 12.00 13.00 12.00 13.00 12.00 HypothesizedM
difference 0.00 0.00 0.00
df 14.00 18.00 18.00
t 1.71 3.97 2.55
p(T≤t)one-tail 0.05 0.00 0.01
tcriticalone-tail 1.76 1.73 1.73
p(T≤t)two-tail 0.11 0.00 0.02
tcriticaltwo-tail 2.14 2.10 2.10
Note.ttest:Two-sampleassumingunequalvariances.
students favored increasing (29.97%) the project’s weight. In general, my decision to increase the project weight arosefromstudents’commentsrelative to quiz and exam weight. As I dis-cussed previously, the project weight increasedfrom15%to20%,andstudent responses (72%) favored the weight at 20%. Although student responses did notindicateanoverallshifttoincreas-ingtheprojectweightfurther,Iwanted to emphasize experiential learning by increasingprojectweightfurther.Again, as with the Hawthorne effect, students responded by favoring the increased weightto25%overthelower20%.This change did not necessarily correspond to a positive improvement in students’
performance on the project. However, overtime,students’dissatisfactionwith the25%projectweightappearedasmy trackingofresponsesfavoredincreasing theweightfurther(nearlya50–50split toincreaseoverremainingthesamein later semesters). Regarding the latest 30%project-weightingscheme,53.85% ofstudentsfavoredthisprojectweight, whereas 34.62% of the students rec-ommended increasing it further, and 11.54% of the students recommended decreasingit.
AssummaryTable8shows,increas-ingtheprojectweightfrom15%to20% relativetocoursegradehadsignificant effectsonstudents’performanceonthe project (p = .01), final average (p =
.00), exam (p = .00), and quizzes (p = .00), which favored the increase. Note that the project weight increase was offset by a decrease in exam weight-ing (to 40%) and an increase in quiz weighting (to 40%). When the proj-ect’s weight increased to 25% (with exam weight decreasing to 35%, and quiz weight staying at 40%), students’ performance on the project (p = .02), the final average (p = .00), and the final exam (p = .00) favored the 20% project-weighting scheme, but no sig-nificant effect on the quiz average (p = .60) appeared. When project weight increasedfurtherto30%,students’per-formancesignificantlyfavoredthe30% weighting on the project (p = .03) and the exam (p = .02); whereas with the 25%project-weightingscheme,theper-formancefavoredthequizzes(p=.06) nonsignificantly.
DISCUSSION
Based on the results, specific con-clusions include (a) that the employ-er-operations-management-analysis projecthasapositiveeffectonstudent-content learning as measured by the final exam; (b) that periodic project feedback, although it does not directly improve project performance, enhanc-es content learning and highlights the criticalbalancebetweeninstructorfeed-back and student performance; and (c) thatincreasingprojectweightdoesnot always increase student project perfor-manceorcontentlearning(asmeasured TABLE5.FeedbackVersusNoFeedback:Project,Exam,FinalAverages,andQuizAverages
Project Exam Finalaverage Quizaverage
Measure Nofeedback Feedback Nofeedback Feedback Nofeedback Feedback Nofeedback Feedback
M 90.23 87.81 73.47 81.05 80.74 84.35 79.09 85.29
SD 34.18 32.89 77.55 97.90 49.06 39.50 298.74 51.70
Observations(N) 11.00 35.00 11.00 35.00 11.00 35.00 11.00 35.00 HypothesizedMdifference 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
df 17.00 19.00 15.00 11.00
t 1.20 –2.42 –1.53 –1.16
p(T≤t)one-tail 0.12 0.01 0.07 0.14
tcriticalone-tail 1.74 1.73 1.75 1.80
p(T≤t)two-tail 0.25 0.03 0.15 0.27
tcriticaltwo-tail 2.11 2.09 2.13 2.20
Note.ttest:Two-sampleassumingunequalvariances.
TABLE6.FeedbackVersusNoFeedback:Part1VersusPart2,Part2 VersusPart3,Part1VersusPart3
Part1vs.Part2 Part2vs.Part3 Part1vs.Part3 Measure Part1 Part2 Part2 Part3 Part1 Part3
M 8.79 8.91 8.91 9.04 8.79 9.04
SD 0.49 0.71 0.71 1.05 0.49 1.05 Observations(N) 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 Pearsoncorrelation 0.38 0.46 0.41
HypothesizedM
difference 0.00 0.00 0.00
df 74.00 74.00 74.00
t –1.27 –1.15 –2.28
p(T≤t)one-tail 0.10 0.13 0.01
tcriticalone-tail 1.67 1.67 1.67
p(T≤t)two-tail 0.21 0.26 0.03
tcriticaltwo-tail 1.99 1.99 1.99
Note.ttest:Two-sampleassumingunequalvariances.
by exams) as I had expected and at a certainpoint,increasingprojectweight negativelyaffectsanothercoursetask.
ProjectEffectiveness
In combination, (a) the literature review, which shows the need for and uniquenessoftheproject;(b)thepres-entresults,whichshowthattheproject hasapositiveimpactonstudents’exam scores; and (c) a direct comparison of usage versus nonusage of the project together establish that the project has a positive impact on students’ exam scoresandthatthevalueoftheemploy-er-operations-management-analysis project to student learning is positive. Theliteraturereviewsectionhighlights thegapforapart-time,graduateproject
to encourage integration of operations management decisions with company strategyforalltypesofcompanies:ser-vicesandmanufacturingcompaniesand for-profit and non-profit companies. The employer-operations-management-analysisprojectfillsthisgap.Similarto the excellent and intense new product development project at the University of Minnesota (Cardozo et al., 2002), the employer-operations-management-analysis project encourages business plan integration between strategy and operations management. However, unlike the new product development project, the employer-operations-man-agement-analysis project can be com-pleted in a module or semester. The significanteffectoftheemployer-opera-tions-management-analysis project on
the student final-exam results supports theconceptthattheexperientialproject positivelyaffectsstudentcontentlearn-ing. Also, comparison of project use versus nonusage in the course verifies thesignificancethattheprojecthason content learning. Students’ comments also support the application-based learning.
Inthecurrentassessmentenvironment of schools’ meeting accreditation stan-dards, the present quantitative results andanecdotalcommentsimplythatthe project met external requirements. In specific,Iembeddedtheschool’sbusi-ness knowledge objective (i.e., “Stu-dentscanexplainhowvalueismanaged through operations management areas of process strategy and quality man-agement”) in the further-development andapplicationssectionsoftheproject. Becausetheprojectisawrittenassign-ment, another school objective (i.e., to encourage written business commu-nication) is also satisfied. The project fosters functional business integration andservesasanintroductiontostrate-gic business planning in the introduc-tory phase as students are introduced tothetop-downalignmentamongcom-pany,business,andoperationsstrategy. Through project completion, students developanunderstandingoftheinterre-lations among various operations man-agementstrategic-leveldecisions.
Hence, the project (a) offers an application-based experiential tech-nique in operations management that meets the needs of part-time gradu-ate students who work in service or manufacturing companies and (b) encouragescontent-basedlearningand external-requirements satisfaction. The project attains the positive benefits of application-basedlearning(Kolb,1984; Mockler,1997),meetstheneedsofstu- dentsemployedinserviceormanufac-turing industry (Ritzman & Krajewski, 2003), and mimics the benefits of an internship-likesituation(Kent&Swift, 2000) or on-site case studies (Reilly, 1998).Educatorscanmodifytheproject asthebusinessenvironmentorcurricu- lumchanges.Becausestudentsaretypi-callyemployedbydifferentcompanies, academic integrity exists, and cheating is minimized. Because of application-based learning and grade relevance, TABLE7.ShouldtheWeightoftheProjectIncrease,Decrease,or
RemaintheSame?
Increase Same Decrease
Offering weight(%) n % n % n %
Fall1994 15 0 26 0
Summer1995 15 21 3 0
Subtotal 21 42 29 58 0
0
Spring1995 20 2 19 0
Spring1996 20 9 17 3
Subtotal 11 22 36 72 3 6
Fall1996 25 0 34 0
Spring1997 25 2 24 2
Fall1997 25 6 10 2
Spring1998 25 11 17 5
Fall1998 25 13 13 0
Spring2002 25 13 12 1
Subtotal 45 27.27 110 66.67 10 6.06
Spring2003 30 9 16 3
Spring2005 30 9 12 3
Subtotal 18 34.62 28 53.85 6 11.54 Total 95 29.97 203 64.04 19 5.99
Project
TABLE8.ComparisonofProjectWeight:StudentsFavorWhichProjectWeight?
Project Finalexam Finalaverage Quizaverage Projectweight(%) % p % p % p % p
15vs.20 20 .01 20 .00 20 .00 20 .00 20vs.25 20 .02 20 .00 20 .00 ns .60 25vs.30 30 .03 30 .02 ns .23 25 .06
Note.tTest:Two-sampleassumingunequalvariances(significancelevelofcomparisonsbetween projectweightandproject,finalexam,finalaverage,andquizaverage).
studentsaremoreanimatedduringclass discussions.
Feedback
Through continuous efforts to improve this project, significant proj-ect modifications that I have made to include periodic feedback and change course-weighting schemes offer valu-ableinsightintoinstruction.Theresults do not support periodic feedback to improve student project performance. By giving periodic feedback, students’ project grades did not improve signifi-cantly over the grades of those who didnotreceivefeedback.Thisresultis unexpected and contrary to literature regarding feedback in general (Burden &Byrd,1994;Kauchak&Eggen,1993; Kozmaetal.,1978;McCormick,1994; Mukherjee, 2002). However, because examresultssignificantlyimprovedfor studentsreceivingperiodicprojectfeed-back, content learning may be encour-agedthroughregularfeedbackfromthe instructor,andthatpossibilityisconsis-tent with international business results (Ranney&McNeilly,1996).
It is interesting that students’ per-formance between the beginning of the project and the end of the project significantly improved by the instruc-tors giving feedback, but not initially betweenParts1and2orbetweenParts 2 and 3. A nonsignificant impact of periodic feedback on student project performance between sequential parts reinforces the idea that the majority of college students do not incorpo-rate instructor constructive criticism into future drafts (Wiltse, 2002). Per-haps, as the significant improvement between Parts 1 and 3 shows, either thestudentsrequiremoretimetotruly grasp the intent of the feedback or more feedback is necessary to affect studentperformance.
Because of today’s technological capabilities, continuous project feed-back can significantly affect students’ project performance (Fish, 2007a). However, the employer-operations-management-project results show periodic project feedback with fewer contact points between the instructor and students does not have the same positive effect.At least two
communi-cations were necessary for students to respond to instructor feedback. There-fore, more communication appears to improve student project performance, and the results favor open communi-cation channels between instructors and students to improve task or proj-ect performance. However, continuous feedbackmaynegativelyaffectcontent learning as measured by exam perfor-mance (Fish, 2007a), whereas periodic feedback positively affected exam per-formance. Therefore, how much feed-back should the instructor provide the student?Twocontactsimprovecontent learning but not the project, whereas continuousfeedbackimprovestheproj-ectbutnotcontentlearning.Therefore, researchers cannot definitely answer thisquestion.Theemployeroperations management project results highlight the critical balance between instructor timing of feedback and student perfor-mance. Further study of feedback in termsof(a)thenumberofinteractions
In general, instructors set course- weightingschemestoaffectstudentper-formancethroughcoursetaskemphasis. After considering several changes of course-weighting scheme, research-ers can ask this question: What is the impact of weighting schemes on stu-dent performance? The present results are two-fold: The impact of weight-ing schemes on students’ performance is not always as researchers or educa-tors would expect because instructors’ increasing project weight (vs. decreas-ing project weight) does not always positively affect students’ project per-formance, and the economies-of-scale principlestillapplies(Fish,2007a).
At the lower project weight, by the instructors’ increasing the project weight to 20% and the quiz weight, while decreasing the exam weight, all of the students’ activities improve. Theseresultsimplythattheincreasein the instructor’s emphasis on the proj-ectincreasesstudents’emphasisonthat taskandcontentlearning(asmeasured
by the exam and quizzes). However, results show that when the instructor increases the project weight further to 25%anddecreasesexamweightfurther, students’projectandexamperformanc-es decrease. Obviously, these results arecontrarytoresearchers’expectations because increasing project weight did notsignificantlymotivatethestudentsto performbetterontheprojectatthe25% level. Similar to results when project weighting increased to 20%, a project- weighting increase to 30% results in a shiftinstudentemphasis,asresearchers wouldexpect.Thatis,ifinstructorsgive more weight to a particular task, then the student should respond by spend-ing more time on achievspend-ing a better grade on that task.At the 30% project weightlevel,studentemphasisisonthe project and correspondingly the final exam performance but not on the quiz average, which favors the 25% project weightforencouragingstudents’study-ingfortheweeklyquizzes.Therefore,at the higher project weight, the students appear to shift their emphasis toward theprojectbydecreasingtheireffortsin lar changes that significantly modified theprojectovertime.
Inapreviousarticle,Isurmisedthat theremaybeapointwherebystudents shifted their efforts to one task over another, resulting in improvement in one task at the expense of the other, following an economies-of-scale prin-ciple(Fish,2007a).Thepresentresults support this concept. However, instead of the project’s affecting exam con-tent,thisprojectnegativelyaffectedthe quizaverage.Atthehigher30%project weight, student’s emphasis shifted to theprojectandexamattheexpenseof their weekly quiz performance, which favored the lower project-weighting scheme(25%).
So, what conclusions can research-ers draw regarding project weighting schemes?The results of the preceding study (Fish, 2007a) and the present study indicate that merely increasing project weight relative to other tasks does not always increase students’
