Monthly Archives: November 2007

“A Vision of Students Today”

On this Youtube video — A Vision of Students Today* — you find a very interesting view of how students view their own characteristics: “…how they learn, what they need to learn, their goals, hopes, dreams, what their lives will be like, and what kinds of changes they will experience in their lifetime”.

Take five minutes and watch this video.

I am going to show this to my students at the beginning of a course next spring semester, discuss perspectives and expectations, and then ask them to write a reflective paper at the end of the course.

Faculty 2.0 (mentioned in an earlier entry) suggests that student may be way ahead faculty what regards use of technology.

Árni

*Created by Michael Wesch in collaboration with 200 students at Kansas State University.

Logistics performance index

The World Bank – and Lauri Ojala from the Turku School of Economics – have finally issued the full report on their assessment of the “logistics performance index” (LPI) of different countries. Nicely enough, not only the report but also, a lot of cross-country comparisons, rankings, and the original questionnaire can be accessed from the website. While the focus is on shippers perceptions and “logistics friendliness”, it also touches upon transport infrastructure assessments, with the aim to give donors an idea what to focus on.

Gyöngyi

The vulnerability of Christmas

After all our discussions about product recalls and toy safety, The Guardian just published an article of another type of potential vulnerabilities affecting Christmas – all depending on one giant vessel transporting toys from China to e.g. Europe. It would be interesting to know just how many of the toys are actually the LEGO version of the ship?

Gyöngyi

Down the supply chain

Have you heard the phrase “down the supply chain” lately? Preferably at a SCM conference, against all common definitions of whatever is upstream and downstream? And no, it wasn’t someone in reverse logistics challenging the direction of upstream when looking at product returns, just someone who uses “down the supply chain” randomly to denote something happening at raw material suppliers…

While I agree with Árni on the danger of putting up academic silos (the good old “don’t step on my toes” way of thinking), there is also a danger of crossing the lines of disciplines, especially when terminology doesn’t just get confused but used with the completely opposite meaning to how it’s understood in mainstream literature. (Another lovely example would be “closing the loop” in industrial ecology vs. SCM…) But when it comes to SCM terminology, it might be our own fault. What are the core concepts of the disciplne after all? It’s not enough that we SCM scholars know about what up- vs. downstream would denote; rather, we’d need more research into each of our core concepts, concept maps, and a rigorous use of these concepts within the discipline at least. How are we to overcome academic silos without any clarity what we SCM academics are talking about?

Gyöngyi

Silos at business schools?

It is not uncommon to see large business schools being organised around institutes or departments; accounting, marketing, logistics, organisation, economics.

This translates into program taught in subject specific areas; a master in marketing, accounting, logistics, for example.

Process thinking and the problem of functional silos have been of great for concerns for companies, resulting in sub-optimisation rather than holistics thinking.

Bowersox hinted strongly at this in his paper from 1969, cf. this entry. The popularity of Business Process Re-engineering in the early 1990s had influence on logistics scholars. Take for example the papers of Cooper et al. (1997) and Lambert et al. (1998) published in International Journal of Logisitcs Management; the proposed model is much influenced by process thinking, and has probably gained attention due to it’s use of ‘processes’ as unit of analysis.

Back to business schools and their curriculum: Will their departmental structure and curriculum be urged to change in similar form and pace as businesses?

Arni

Fuzz about level of analysis

In this entry on Academic Journals and Functional Silos, I hinted at the idea that academic journals are centred traditional business functions such as operations, marketing, logistics, and purchasing.

Does this translate into a ‘functional silo’ thinking among academics and/or practitioners? That is, does this reproduce the ‘individual organisation’ as level of analysis rather than break out into other levels of analysis, such as teh the dyad, a set of three or more companies (a.k.a. supply chains), or a comprehensive network of companies?

Extending the level of analysis does not come without confusion. The term ‘supply chain’ is often used to denote a variety of situations related to the boundaries of the firm; supply chain performance measurement, supply chain innovation, supply chain relationships, and improving the supply chain. The danger is that the label of ‘supply chain’ is used to situations of everthing from relationships in dyads to comprehensive networks.

Take the concept of supply chain performance as an example; where does it start, and where does it end? Who should measure the performance? And what supply chain should be measured?

Adding supply chain to concepts such as management, performance, impact, competition, and improvement does not come without challenge.

Árni

Trainspotting

Meteorologists are about 70% wrong when they predict the weather, yet everyone watches the weather forecast (btw, snow to come again this weekend in Helsinki). But how about spotting trends in SCM? (á la trainspotters, and lovely plane spotters who have been in the news when spotting illegal CIA transports of people via e.g. Warsaw to Guantánamo or when monitoring the use of Dash aircrafts after the ban by SAS…)

Few dare to make predictions about future events in SCM. While we may every now and then be trend spotters, looking at what’s hot and what’s not in SCM research, admittedly, even good Delphi studies are rather rare in this field. At the same time, future studies has become an established field, rapidly developing their methods. Not as if these were used in much detail, but MIT’s “supply chain 2020” now has a nice blog reflecting on current news and instantly analysing these in terms of scenarios for SCM. Watch out for the trends!

Gyöngyi