Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji 08832320109599668

(1)

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20

Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] Date: 13 January 2016, At: 00:04

Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

Contemporary Management and Operations

Research Graduate Programs: A Review,

Recommendations, and Integration

Joseph A. Petrick , George G. Polak , Robert F. Scherer & Carmen Gloria

Muñoz

To cite this article: Joseph A. Petrick , George G. Polak , Robert F. Scherer & Carmen Gloria Muñoz (2001) Contemporary Management and Operations Research Graduate Programs: A Review, Recommendations, and Integration, Journal of Education for Business, 77:1, 34-39, DOI: 10.1080/08832320109599668

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832320109599668

Published online: 31 Mar 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 14

(2)

Contemporary Management

and Operations Research Graduate

Programs: A Review,

Recommendations, and Integration

JOSEPH A. PETRICK

GEORGE G. POLAK

ROBERT F. SCHERER

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Wright State University

Dayton, Ohio

CARMEN GLORIA MUNOZ

Lexis-Nexus

Dayton, Ohio

uring the last 20 years, economic

D

and competitive environments for businesses have changed very rapidly. Nowadays, globalization and e- commerce are fundamental concepts in the strategic plans of many companies. Also, technology changes have been dramatic during the last decades, and today many new tools are available to help managers in their daily tasks. All these changes have generated pressures for change in business schools, necessitating a new evaluation of the actual educational programs. In this article, we discuss the main criticisms and challenges facing the management and operations management graduate programs in the United States. We also present possible alternatives to direct future business education.

Graduate Business Management

Education

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Trends and Challenges in Business

Management

With respect to 20th-century U.S. business management trends and theories, researchers have found that decisionmaking through the playing of multiple, even competing, roles in a highly balanced and complementary way

(Quinn, Faerman, Thompson,

&

McGrath, 1996; Wren, 1994) results in

ABSTRACT. In the United States

today there are over 1.000 graduate programs offering master’s degrees in

management and operations research. Many of these programs, including those offered at 1st-tier schools, are based on models developed in the 1960s and 1970s. Although they con-

tinue to attract a greater number of

students each year, industry profes- sionals have been critical of such programs. In this article, the authors dis-

cuss the development and characteristics of graduate programs

in management and operations research, critically assess them, and

offer recommendations for integrating

these

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

2 disciplines so that their contin-

uous improvement and revision can

meet both student and business needs.

excellent managerial performance.These role-playing competencies historically have been best categorized as entailing four types of management theories: rational goal theory, internal process theory, human relations theory, and open systems theory.

The rational goal theory, which Fred-

erick Taylor introduced at the beginning of the 20th century as a form of quantitative scientific management, focuses on external control and stresses the director and producer role responsibilities of set- ting goals, taking initiative, increasing productivity, and maximizing output by emphasizing goal clarification, rational analysis, and action taking. The internal process theory, which Max Weber and

Henri Fayol developed in the first quarter of the 20th century, focuses on internal control and stresses the monitor and coordinator role responsibilities of information management, documentation control, efficient processing, and consol- idated continuity by emphasizing process measurement, smooth function- ing of organizational operations, and bureaucratic order. The human relations theory, made famous by Elton Mayo and

the Hawthorne studies in the second quarter of the 20th century, focuses on internal flexibility and the facilitator and mentor role responsibilities of fostering openness, participation, team morale building, and commitment by emphasizing involvement, humane conflict resolu- tion, and consensus building. Finally, the

open systems theory, which was advocat-

ed by Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch in the third quarter of the 20th century, focuses on external flexibility and stresses the innovator and broker role responsibilities of cultivating organizational learning capabilities and developing the competitive power of continual creativi- ty, political adaptation, and negotiated external resource acquisition by emphasizing external trend scanning, creative system change and technological development, and negotiated contractual agreements and networking.

Overemphasis or underemphasis on any one of these theories in manage-

34 Journal

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

of Education for

Business

(3)

TABLE 1. Factor Structure

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Perceived challenge Description of challenge Education change responses

1. Inappropriateness for university education and later inappropriateness for

practitioner performance

2. Inadequate strategic responsiveness to

changing forces

3. Inadequate curriculum content

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

4. Inappropriate faculty performance incentives

5. Unsatisfactory proficiencies of management school graduates

6. Inadequate relations with business com-

munity

7. Inadequate E E M D services

Too vocational and insufficiently scholarly and later too academic, too technically narrow

Strategic rigidity and unresponsiveness to rapid economic, technological, demo- graphic, and societal changes

Lack of crossfunctional, interdisciplinary curricula, integrated program emphases, global perspectives, diversity concerns, teamwork and enriched learning environments/technologies, and customer focus

Structural incentives for rewarding faculty only for disciplinary-related research and department-based teaching headcounts, thereby neglecting student and employer performance expectations of faculty

Graduates criticized for unrealistically high job expectations and lackluster organizational leadership skills

Business school is out of touch with business community needs

Uncompetitive EE/MD services provided for business needs

Improvements in balance of academic and business standards (MBA Enterprise

Corps)

Improvements in strategic leadership (strategic partnerships)

Multiple improvements in curriculum

Improvements in faculty performance incentives (expanded range of scholarship)

Improvements in proficiencies of management school graduates (benchmarked role competencies)

Improvements in business community relations (BACs at all levels)

Improvements in E E M D services (selec- tive development)

ment practice and education will distort managerial judgment and prevent business managers from arriving at balanced judgments that adequately address business complexity. Overemphasis, for example, on the director and producer roles-in line with the rational goal theory-will offend individuals and destroy cohesion, whereas overemphasis on the coordinator and monitor roles stifles progress and neglects possibili- ties. Alternatively, underemphasis on such things as effective outcomes, efi- cient processes, motivated people, and/or innovative systems risks inadequate analyses and resolutions of business management problems. The quality of U.S. graduate business management education in the 20th century is largely determined by the extent of integrated, inclusive, and balanced emphases of these four management theories.

There have been many criticisms of U.S. graduate management education. First, critics questioned whether management education belonged in a uni-

versity because the curriculum was regarded as too vocational and insufficiently scholarly (Gordon & Howell, 1959; Piersen, 1959). Then, in respond- ing to this vocational status criticism by raising academic standards, producing more scholarly faculty, requiring more quantitatively rigorous coursework, increasing graduate work, and reducing the commercial specialization of undergraduate education, U.S. graduate management education later was criticized for becoming too academic and technically narrow and for inadequately preparing graduates to be leaders in the current organizational environment (Boyer, 1990; Louis, 1990; Porter &

McKibben, 1988).

More recently, criticism of U.S. grad-

uate management education focused on six major factors: (a) strategic leadership incompetency, (b) curriculum inad- equacy, (c) structural defects in faculty performance incentives, (d) unsatisfactory proficiencies in management school graduates, (e) mixed management school

stakeholder relations, and

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

( f ) uncompeti-

tive executive education/management development (EEMD) services (Keys &

Wolfe, 1988; Porter & McKibben, 1988).

Changes in Graduate Business Management Education

In response to the criticisms of graduate business management education, U.S. business schools have adopted a number of changes. In Table 1 we sum- marize seven of these changes and the challenges that led to them.

Changes in the balance

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

of academic

and business practitioner standards. In partial response to the criticisms of being too vocational and too narrowly academic, business management schools are incorporating both academic and business outcomes into their strategic and operational missions. One best practice for balancing academic and business practice skills in U.S. graduate management education is the

SeptembedOctober 2001 35

[image:3.612.51.561.77.410.2]

(4)

TABLE 2. Challenges to and Responses of U.S. Graduate Operations Research Education Programs

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Perceived challenge Description of challenge Education change responses

1. Overemphasis on abstract or theoretical

issues in quantitative courses

2 . Inability to solve realistic instances

of

many quantitative models

3. Lack of capacity in curriculum for quantitative courses

4. Lack of coherence in traditional “tool-

box” methodology

5. Lack of connection between quantita-

tive courses and burgeoning information technology fields

Employers of MBA graduates require immediate applicability of quantitative and other skills

Many of the models studied (e.g., integer programming problems) are computationally intractable

MBA programs are severely constrained in terms of quantitative content because of

required content in other areas of business

Large multifaceted problems in business and administration require concerted approaches

Pervasive role of information technology and computer science in business and administration demands attention in all

aspects of curriculum

Increased emphasis on OM topics, includ-

ing forecasting, production and inventory

management, logistics, and scheduling Employment of software that implements state-of-the-art algorithms and heuristics

into master’s level courses

Shift in course focus from manual compu-

tation to modeling and software use; development of separate “techno-MBA” curricula

Inclusion of supply-chain management

and electronic commerce in curricula Inclusion of object-oriented methodology (e.g., the SCOR model)

MBA Enterprise Corps (Petrick

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

& Rus-

sel-Robles, 1992). The Enterprise Corps is to the 1990s and beyond what the Peace Corps was to the 1960s. The MBA Enterprise Corps’s consortium of business, government, and education institutions provides resources for the awarding of graduate academic credit for supervised management consulting services provided to businesses, primarily in Eastern Europe. These resources help command system organizations to

transition successfully to free-market- based firms. This form of integration of academic and business experience could be adapted to other international or

domestic settings.

Changes in strategic leadership. In par-

tial response to the need for more responsive and flexible strategic plan- ning, graduate management education has begun to factor change management and strategic partnerships into mission statements (Boyatzis, Cowen, & Kolb, 1995). The University of Florida and Fordham University in New York, for example, have formed strategic partnerships with AT&T and MCI, respective- ly, to offer customized programs for their executives. Management graduate schools are generating a range of con- text-specific directions that simultane-

ously meet AACSB standards, but the pace of innovation is sketchy and less rapid than market forces.

Changes in curriculum. In partial

response to improved curricular changes, islands of curricular revision emerged but without any centralized clearinghouse of curriculum best practices (Boyatzis et al., 1995; Zolner, 1996). Among the curricular improvements are the following: crossfunctional, interdisciplinary curricula; new graduate management program emphases; global perspectives; increased student and faculty diversity; teamwork and a richer learning environment; greater use of learning technologies; and more applied learning with a quality customer focus.

Changes in structural defects in faculty pefotmance incentives. This criticism

has not been fully addressed by most management schools, so the strategic and curricular cosmetic changes are not likely to be sustained if structural faculty performance incentives remain discipline oriented. Some departmental reorganiza- tion and reengineering have been imple- mented for alignment of mission and reward systems, and the expansion of the scope of scholarship has influenced the

priorities of some faculty (Boyatzis et al., 1995; Boyer, 1990). Furthermore, the inclusion of educational institutions for consideration for the prestigious U.S. Baldrige Quality Awards for Organiza- tional Excellence requires that they align mission priorities and reward processes to sustain eligibility.

Changes in unsatisfactory projkiencies in management school graduates. Some

graduate schools are beginning to look at outcome evaluations of managerial proficiencies in formative and summa- tive assessments of academic and work competence (Prideaux & Ford, 1988; Spencer & Spencer, 1993). Systematic role competency assessment and benchmarking outcome evaluations with com- parable institutions, domestically and internationally, would begin the process of determining world-class management education proficiency rather than the current fragmentation of outcome evaluation.

Changes in relations with business com- munity. Though some headway has been

made in improving business community relations through business advisory council (BAC) contributions in hiring graduates and providing adjunct faculty,

the primary emphases remain with the

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

36 Journal

of Education for Business

(5)

academic community and the accredit- ing agency. As the domestic and international business communities begin to coordinate their feedback to management educators through published rankings or BACs at all levels of a management school, the opportunity for shared learning from the highest ranking educational institutions with other management schools is a promis-

ing best practice.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Changes in uncompetitive executive education/management development (EE/MD) services. Though some of the more prestigious management schools are providing competitive EE/MD services, the majority are not; in-house and third-party providers continue to expand

their marketplaces (Crainer &

Dearlove,

1999). Opportunities for selectively improving EE/MD services lie, however, in benchmarking for competitive

parity with best-of-class providers.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Quantitative Fields Face New Challenges in a Second Era

The fields of operations management (OM) and management science/popera- tions research (MYOR) are relative newcomers to business education, dat- ing to the 1950s. Throughout industry and academia, operations research has grown rapidly in acceptance since its

military origins during World War

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

I1

(Kirby, 2000). Its counterpart in business and administration became known as management science. Both disciplines represent applications of the scientific method, principally mathemat- ics and statistics, to practical decisionmaking problems (Hillier &

Lieberman, 1998). For all intents and purposes, the twin disciplines had merged into one, known as OWMS, by the mid- 1990s.

A rapid pace of discovery and

an

explosive growth of knowledge charac- terized these fields in the intervening decades. As MS/OR students graduated and became practitioners, they imple- mented applications that streamlined production, broke bottlenecks, efficient- ly directed transportation and distribu- tion, and even advanced national securi- ty objectives in the United States and other nations. The culmination of this

first era of education was an unprece- dented decade of improved productivity and economic growth.

Along with the success, however, has come constructive criticism that the discipline could be improved. Woolsey and Swanson (1975, p. xiii) stated that “our profession is turning more and more inward and is talking less and less to the managers who have real problems. This trend is exemplified by the appearance of papers in the journals of the profession that seem to be cures searching for a disease.” Meredith, Raturi, Amoako- Gyampah, and Kaplan (1989) made a strong case that OR/MS could be applied better to discipline-specific research. These observers proposed a research methodology framework that gave prominentce to cross-disciplinary studies and empirical field work (see Graman, 1994).

Changes in Graduate

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

OWMS Business

Education

Thus the groundwork was laid for a second era of eduaction, in which quantitative fields were faced by a re- examination of priorities and proce- dures. We discuss five principal challenges and educators’ responses to

them (see Table 2).

Changes in curricular emphasis. In the first era, much of the master’s level course work in MS/OR focused on mathematical modeling, the development and implementation of algorithms, and the implementation of simulation in all-purpose computer languages. For example, it was quite common to devote many hours to implementation of the simplex algorithm by hand. By the close of that era, spectacular improvements in computer hardware and software, including optimization and simulation software, shifted emphasis to taking advantage of versatile and relatively powerful solvers and add-ons that are almost universally available to businesses in spreadsheet software. The text by Camm and Evans ( 1 999) is a compre- hensive treatment of this new approach. Undergraduate antecedents of these developments at the MBA level were discussed by Gunawardane (1991).

Recent years have also witnessed an

ascendance of operations management (OM) in graduate business curricula. OM combines the qualitative with the quantitative analysis techniques and is oriented toward the practical. Drawing on analytical tools and models from OR/MS and industrial engineering, OM reintroduces some qualitative elements of management that had largely van- ished from these other areas. In addi- tion, whereas much research in OR/MS is devoted to algorithms for finding optimal solutions to difficult mathematical models, OM instead emphasizes the development of efficient but approxi- mating heuristics. In some respects, this ascendance is a direct response to the criticisms of O M S .

Advances in optimization. Many of the applications of mathematical modeling that were proposed and studied during the first era of quantitative education, such as the celebrated “traveling sales- man problem” and machine scheduling problems, have the unfortunate property of being computationally intractable. Recent advances in solving hard problems in combinatorial optimization, however, have changed the research landscape. These have followed break- throughs in integer programming (IP), such as branch-and-cut and branch-and- price, and have become accessible to advanced graduate students via specialized computer languages such as AMPL (Fourer, Gay, & Kernighan, 1993). Moreover, a newer, alternative approach known as constraint programming (CP) is becoming available to master’s level students through software such as ILOG’s OPL Studio (Van Hentenryck, 1999). The difference between IP and CP can be summarized as follows: IP offers the tried and true combination of the simplex method and branch-and- bound search but requires clever problem formulation for good advantage. CP allows much more freedom in modeling as well as formulation permitting logical and nonlinear constraints besides linear constraints, but it requires implementation of advanced combinatorial search strategies.

The techno-MBA. Although the academic discipline of OR/MS has grown greatly in content, the curriculum of the

September/October 2001 37

(6)

general MBA program is a “knapsack” of limited capacity, to borrow an idiom from optimization. In some institutions, such as Indiana University, OR/MS is primarily presented in combination with other areas, such as financial engineer-

ing.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

At other universities, such as the

University of Cincinnati (see <http:// qaom.cba.uc.edu/msqd>), OR/MS has become the focus of very successful specialized master’s programs. Often called a “techno-MBA,” such a program prepares future managers to take advan- tages of all the new tools available to problem solvers. At still other universities, OR/MS courses simply seem to be losing their place in this knapsack to

other disciplines.

Development of supp1.y chain manage- ment. Meredith et al. ( 1 989) called for a new research agenda with an integrative view. The premier example is the development and teaching of supply chain

management (Tayur, Ganeshan, &

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Mag-

azine, 1998). Every business, whether dealing with goods or services, belongs to one or more supply chains stretching from raw material suppliers to retail outlets. Synthesized from elements of multi-echelon inventory management, logistics, information systems, and strategic management, supply chain management is an ambitious effort to analyze and optimize entire networks of production and transactions. In addi- tion, SCM is at the forefront of the world of e-commerce.

The not-for-profit Supply-Chain Coun- cil is actively promoting the use of the Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model as a foundation for graduate education on this topic (Sup- ply-Chain Council, 2000). SCOR was formulated to provide standard descrip- tions of management processes, standard metrics, and benchmarks to mea- sure process performance as well as to foster common terminology and com- munication across many industries, including electronic, aerospace and defense, chemicals, and utilities. All relevant management processes are classified as one of four types of activ- ities (plan, make, source, or deliver) at one of three levels (process, conjgura-

tion, and process element) of a plan-

ning hierarchy. For each activity at each level, there is an associated performance metric, such as the number of “raw materials days of supply” in a job shop. An entire supply chain is thus mapped into this hierarchy and ana- lyzed and re-engineered much like a large software project. An illustration is provided by Haughton, Grenoble, Thomchick, and Young (1997) in an application of SCOR analysis to import-export businesses.

The advent of object-oriented manage- ment. Information systems and computer

science loom ever larger in importance in both OM and OR/MS and are likely to play an important role in shaping quantitative education in the second era. The SCOR model is significant in this regard because, though not software, it strongly suggests a computer science idiom or paradigm. Indeed, we observe that it embodies an object-oriented approach to management, in homage to object-ori-

ented programming (OOP), the prevail-

ing paradigm in computer science today. In OOP, data and functions are encapsu- lated in entities known as objects, which can be nested one within another (Brown, 1997). Analysts can use efficient OOP to exploit commonality among programming tasks to define a minimal set of objects. The SCOR building blocks

make, source, and deliver can be consid-

ered analogous to classes of objects in which performance metrics are functions defined on encapsulated data, whereas

plan can be interpreted as a management shell containing instructions for manipu-

lating objects in its domain. In this way,

plan is analogous to elements of a com-

puter operating system.

Given the pre-eminent role of the Internet and information systems in today’s supply chains, this development should not be surprising. Is object-oriented management then yet another sce- nario in which “computers take over the world” and cause pessimists to learn C++ and optimists to learn Java? For perspective, let us note that OOP itself represents sound management princi- ples, such as logical organization and system maintainability, as applied to data and functions. So in some sense, business education in OM and OR/MS may merely be coming full circle.

Discussion

The history and challenges to both the management and OR disciplines have targeted the way in which they have developed separately, when in reality they require integration (Porter

& McKibben, 1988). Thus, we propose a holistic approach to the further development of graduate management and operations research programs. A holistic approach provides for the integration of both disciplines and addresses the increasingly complex dimensions of problems whose solutions require consideration of human, physical, and financial resources and constraints.

As educators, we must focus on at least three important factors that affect the continuing evolution of our curricula. First and foremost, we must interact with our business practitioner col- leagues so that we understand the types of skills that businesses need and the problems that must be solved.This ongoing dialogue will serve as the integrative lever to keep us connected with the world of business and production. Second, we must adapt our curricula more rapidly so that we do not lag behind business and industry, but rather keep pace with it or stay ahead of it and anticipate the required curricular changes. This external and internal scanning and forecasting exercise will ensure development and adoption of new pedagogical methods quickly; not just in time, but ahead of time. Finally, we must open the lines of communica- tion between the management and operations research disciplines to provide for sharing of knowledge and multidis- ciplinary problem solving.

In this review of graduate management and operations research education in the United States, we focused on past practices and the resultant reasons for change. We have provided new themes (“best practices”) for guiding development and implementation of classes, curricula, and entire programs in the discipline over the next 25 years. Grad- uate management education programs that continuously and successfully keep up with change will thrive during the opening years of this century and

beyond.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

38 Journal of Education for Business

(7)

REFERENCES

Belasen, A. (2000). Leading the learning organi-

zaiton. Albany: State University

of New York

Press.

Boyatzis. R., Cowen. S., & Kolb, D. (1995). Inno- vation in pmfessional education: Steps on a juurney,frotn teaching to learning. San Francis- co: Jossey-Bass.

Boyer, E. ( I 990). Scholarship reconsidered: Pri- orities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Education.

Brown, D. (1997). An Introduction to object-ori- ented analysis: Objects in pluin English. New York: Wiley.

Camm, J. D., & Evans, J. R. (1999). Management science and decision technology. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing.

Crainer,

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

S., & Dearlove, D. (1999). Gravy train-

ing: Inside the business of business schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fourer, R., Gay. D. M., & Kerhighan, B. W.

( 1993). AMPL:

A modeling language for math-

rmatical programming. South San Francisco. CA: Scientific Press.

Gordon, R., & Howell, J. (1959). Higher educa- tionfiw business. New York: Columbia Univer- sity Press.

Graman, G. A. (1994). A research agenda for operations management. Unpublished manu- script. Cincinatti, OH: University of Cin- cinatti.

Gunawardane, G. (1991). Trends in teaching management science in undergraduate business programs. Interfaces, 21(5), 1 6 2 1 .

Haughton. M. A,, Grenoble, W. L., Thomchick, E. A,, & Young, R. R. (1997). Measuring and improving import process performance. Techni- cal Report, 97-3, University Park: The Penn- sylvania State University.

Hillier, F. S . , & Lieberman, 0. J. (1998). Intro- duction to operations research. Oakland, CA: Holden-Day.

Keys, B., & Wolfe, J. (1988). Management education and development: Current issues and

emerging trends. Journal of Manugement,

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

14,

205-229.

Kirby, M. W. (2000). Operations research trajec- tories: The Anglo-American experience from the 1940s to the 1990s. Operations Research, 48(5), 66 1-670.

Louis, M. ( 1 990). The gap in management education. Selectiuns, 6(3), 1-12.

Meredith, J. R., Raturi, A,, Amoako-Gyampah, K.,

& Kaplan. B. (1989). Alternative research para- digms in operations. Journal of 0peration.s Management, 8(4), 297-236.

Petrick, J., & Russell-Robles, L. (1992). Chal- lenges in the education of the contemporary U S . international manager. The International

Piersen, F. (1959). The education of American businessmen. New York: McGraw-Hill. Porter, L., & McKibben. L (1988). Management

education

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

mid development: Drqt o r thrust

Executive, 34(3), 25 1-26 I .

into the 21st century. New York: McGraw-Hill. Prideaux, G., & Ford, J. (1988). Management development: Competencies. contracts, teams. and work-based learning. Joirrnul of Manage- ment Development, 7( I ) . 5 6 6 8 .

Quinn. R., Faerman, S . , Thompson, M., &

McGrath, M. (1996). Becoming

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

u muster mcm-

ager: A conz~~etencv,framework (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Spencer, L., & Spencer, S . (1993). Competence uf

work: Models ,for superior performance. New York: Wiley.

Supply-Chain Council. (2000). Supply-Chain operations reference-model: Overview of SCOR version 4.0. Pittsburgh, PA: Supply- Chain Council, Inc.

Tayur, S., Ganeshan, R.. & Magazine, M. J. (1998). Quantitative models for supply chain management. International Series in Operu- tions Reseurch & Managrnierit Science, 17. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishing. Van Hentenryck, P. (1999). The OPL optimiztrtion

programming lunguuge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Woolsey, R. E. D., & Swanson, H. S . (1975). Operations reseurch,for immediate application: A quick and dirty manual. New York: Harper &

Row.

Wren, D. (1994). The evolution o f mnnngernent thought (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Zolner, J. (1996). Moving the academic grave- yard: The dynamics of curricular change. Selec-

tions. 12(1), 1-10.

September/October 2001

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

39