AMR Research 0906MSTS-R-Aquino1 Tcm7-43813 Leading US Supply Chain Programs 2009

8/6/2019 AMR Research 0906MSTS-R-Aquino1 Tcm7-43813 Leading US Supply Chain Programs 2009

1/14

Leading U.S. Supply Chain Programs, 2009

June 2009

AMR Research surveyed 126 companies and 19 universities to determine which U.S.-based

university supply chain programs are best preparing students to manage increasingly global,

integrated supply chain organizations. Although most universities are only partially meeting

the most pressing needs rom industry, the ndings show innovative teaching approaches and

relevant research rom all o the schools in our study.

by David Aquino and Bob Kraus

Supply Chain Technologies and Services


2/14

Copyright 2009 by AMR Research, Inc.

AMR Research is a registered trademark o AMR Research, Inc.

No portion o this report may be reproduced in whole or in part without the prior written permission o AMR Research. Any writtenmaterials are protected by United States copyright laws and international treaty provisions.

AMR Research oers no speciic guarantee regarding the accuracy or completeness o the inormation presented, but the proessional stao AMR Research makes every reasonable eort to present the most reliable inormation available to it and to meet or exceed anyapplicable industry standards.

AMR Research is not a registered investment advisor, and it is not the intent o this document to recommend speciic companies orinvestment, acquisition, or other inancial considerations.


3/14

2009 AMR Research, Inc.Supply Chain Technologies and Services | June 2009 1

Supply Chain TeChnologieS and ServiCeS

Leading U.S. Supply Chain Programs, 2009by David Aquino and Bob Kraus

What does it mean to run a great university supplychain program in the United States? AMR Researchhas just completed its rst dual industry and academicstudy o U.S.-based university programs ocused onsupply chain management. 126 companies respondedto our industry survey, and 19 universities providedsignicant program detail or our analysis.

Our assessment showed many strong programs, withinnovative teaching approaches and relevant researchbeing conducted. Unortunately, most universities areonly partially meeting the most pressing needs rom

industry, with supply chain programs on average teach-ing only 5 o 11 academic areas needed, inconsistentlyapplying supply chain technology, and not ensuringsucient applied knowledge transer.

AMR Researchs goal in researching supply chain uni-versity programs is to meld industry perspectives withobjective elements o existing programs in order create acomprehensive view o a given universitys capability todeliver the quality and quantity o needed students. It isclear that with the right clarity and partnership betweenindustry and academia, the skys the limit or buildingcomprehensive, high-quality supply chain programs.

Wht idsty wts

AMR Researchs growing body o research on talentdevelopment and organizational design highlights theincreasing number o capabilities that a supply chainmanagement proessional needs early in her career. InSupply Chain alent: Te State o the Discipline, we

outlined 11 key components, or what we call talentattribute stations, o an advanced supply chain:

Seven functional stations Plan, source, make,deliver, customer management, post-sales support,new product development and launch (NPDL)

Four key enabling stations Strategy and changemanagement, perormance measurement and ana-lytics, technology enablement, and governance

Unortunately, supply chain programs are not prepar-ing students well enough in these stations. Industry hasa part in this as well, as they have given a mea culpa

about the historical lack o clarity provided to universi-ties about the number and type o graduates needed.

Trough our survey, industry has stated its mostpressing need: the additional capabilities required ormost advanced supply chain organizations demand adierent academic experience that educates general-ists. Successul supply chain programs oer studentsopportunities to experience more o the stations withinthe curriculum and deliver applied knowledge throughsimulation, timed projects, cooperative opportunities,and meaningul internships. Te best programs create

a more ully ormed supply chain proessional that canmake a quick transition rom recruit to productivemember o the new organization.

Beyond competence in the 11 academic stations,industry expects students to have a broad understand-ing o supply chain concepts. Additionally, problemsolving and judgment, analytical capabilities, relevantwork experience, and an ability to eectively work inteams are viewed as high priority. Each o these priori-

The Bottom Line: Penn State University and Michigan State University lead U.S. supply chain

programs in terms of industry value, program depth, and program scope.

June 2009


4/14

2009 AMR Research, Inc.2 Supply Chain Technologies and Services | June 2009

ties reinorces the importance o training supply chainproessionals to better manage increasingly global anddispersed supply chain organizations.

In comparing industrys view o university perormancein delivering against these expectations (see Figure 1),

we see our o the ve largest gaps pointing to develop-ing a students practical ability to eectively manage aglobal operation now fooded with available inorma-tion without becoming paralyzed with ear.

Worse, in spite o the overwhelming requirement romindustry to deliver better prepared and more expe-rienced graduates that have amiliarity o the workcontent, time constraints, and communication require-ments, only 25% o supply chain programs mandate acooperative or internship program in order to graduate.

While we will highlight several impressive examples oinnovative teaching methods at schools like Universityo Michigan and Western Michigan University, webelieve a simple adjustment to curriculum requirementsis a common-sense enhancement that is easy to achieve.

60%

Ability to work in teams

Balancing IT and business skills

Analytics capability

Understanding risk management

Ability to manage virtual/matrixed teams

Direct experience using supply chain technology

Problem solving/judgement

Leadership skills for global business

Broad understanding of supply chain concepts

Relevant real-world experience

Ability to integrate information/see the big picture 51%

41%

33%

28%

26%

21%

18%

18%

16%

13%

8%

Q. In which of these attributes do your recruits most need development? (n=126)

Figure 1: Attributes that recruits most need help with

Source: AMR Research, 2009


5/14

2009 AMR Research, Inc. 3Supply Chain Technologies and Services | June 2009

uivesity evltio citei

In studying how best to represent relative strengths andweaknesses driven rom industry expectations and per-ormance o existing programs, we organized 11 criteriainto 3 major groups (see able 1).

Te rst broadly ocuses upon perceived industry value,or whether companies eel that the university is deliver-ing as promised. Te second speaks to depth, whichbroadly evaluates commitment through total numberso students, programs, proessors. Te third is scope,which allows us to consider i the university under-stands what needs to be taught and how research andother innovations make their way back to the studentpopulation.

All three elements were normalized on a ve-point scalein order to reduce either outliers or ballot stung.

1. Industry value

Te major elements constituting perceived industryvalue concern where companies are recruiting, i agiven program is viewed as the best, and the measure-ment o average salary inormation across all programsoered at an institution. Te combination o mentions,best mentions, and average salary make up a compositeview o perceived industry value.

Highlights

Penn State University and Michigan StateUniversity had the strongest recruiting mentionsand best university mentions, while Arizona StateUniversity and Georgia Institute o echnology hadhigh numbers o recruiting mentions as well.

MI and University o Michigan had the highestaverage base salaries across programs at $116,000and $100,000, respectively.

he University o ennessee rounded out the topive in this category because o strength in companyrecruiting mentions and an average base salaryacross programs o $85,000.

2. Depth of program

Te depth o the program allows quantication o a

given universitys commitment to the discipline osupply chain management. Industry has spoken clearlyabout not only needing improved supply chain qualitybut also sheer number o graduates. For a universityto rate well, we considered the total number o under-graduate, graduate, and doctoral students across theormally dened supply chain degree programs, as wellas how many total programs were oered across under-graduate, graduate, doctoral, and executive education.Additionally, we considered how many total ull-timeproessors are assigned to teaching and research.

Tble 1:


University evaluation criteria

Mjo ae Citei

Industry Value Number of recruiting mentions Number of best program mentions Average base salary across programs*

Depth of Program Number of undergrads Number of grad students Number of full-time professors Number of supply chain programs oered

Scope of Program Number of supply chain stations taught Number of supply chain courses oered Mean number of supply chain courses required Academic and research innovation

* Average of Bachelors, Masters,and Ph.D. base salaries.


6/14


Highlights

Penn State has a huge number o students, withmore than 800 involved in the program. It also has29 ull-time proessors ocused on supply chainmanagement.

Michigan State, Ohio State, Arizona State, and the

University o ennessee each have more than 400total students within their programs.

he median number o ull-time proessors was 12.Penn State, Georgia ech, Ohio State, and ArizonaState each have over 20 ull-time proessors.

3. Scope of program

Scope o program tries to quantiy the breadth or spano the program, including how many o the 11 talentattribute stations are taught within the program. We

also assessed how many supply chain courses are oeredoverall, the number o supply chain courses required tograduate, and an analyst rating o the depth o aca-demic or research innovation inormed through surveyresponses and independent evaluation.

Highlights

Michigan State oers over 39 supply chain coursesand requires an average o 8 to graduate.

Both Penn State and Michigan State have the maxi-mum number o programs (ive) across all levels,

including large executive education programs thateach graduate 1,000 students annually.

exas A&M teaches nine stations o the talent attri-bute model, with 39 total courses and an average oseven courses required to graduate.

Academic and research innovation

We took a closer look at the type o research that pro-essors are conducting in order to understand i univer-sities are market driven. We hold the view that relevant,powerul research will nd its way into the classroom.

For example, the top-tier universities we tracked haveevolved their research to solve critical questions sur-rounding risk management, sustainable new productdevelopment and launch, and eective collaborationin a global environment. As we believe that universitiesshould be rewarded or the strength o their researchand the useulness o their corporate/academic partners,we included an analyst-based rating within programscope to account or this.

Demand-driven academic research highlights includethe ollowing:

Arizona State has ocused research on integratedsupply chain management.

Ohio State University is working on understandingthe role o eective partnerships in supply chainmanagement.

University o Michigan is conducting research onsupply chain redesign and transormation.

University o ennessee is conducting research onbuilding stronger operating partnerships to supportan integrated supply chain.

Other academic research areas include the ollowing:Risk management Syracuse University, MichiganState, Penn State, Rutgers, Western Michigan

Sustainability Michigan State, Rutgers, Syracuse,University o Wisconsin

Successful supply chain programs offer students

opportunities to experience more of the stations within

the curriculum and deliver applied knowledge through

simulation, timed projects, cooperative opportunities,and meaningful internships.


7/14


Industry has impressed upon us that top-perorminguniversities need to have an expansive span o control,a wide breadth o program oerings, and the ability toprovide delivery methods that drive applied knowledge.Industry wants recruits that can more quickly transitionto the challenges o supply chain management, and this

can only come through required internships, simula-tion and technology being embedded in the classroom,team/timed exercises, and less dogma around legacyteaching methods. Here are ew compelling examples:

Lehigh University Undergraduates are requiredto take an Integrated Production DevelopmentCourse and are put on a team with Engineering,Arts, and Sciences students to support a corporateproject.

University of Michigan Guaranteed 14-weekpaid summer team project with industry partners

and ocused on strategic supply chain analysis.University of Wisconsin 12 supply chain execu-tives grade curriculum and talent development.

University of Maryland Supports a wide varietyo production-level supply chain applications likethose rom Oracle, SAP, and i2.

Western Michigan Uses an ERP simulation or aproduction planning course.

Which ivesities hve the bestspply chi poms?

Ater tallying the normalized ve-point scores (theexception being academic and research innovation, or

which we used a three-point score) across 11 metrics,Penn State University and Michigan State Universityhad the highest total scores, with Arizona State, OhioState, MI, University o ennessee, and Georgia echnot ar behind.

Te top ve programs that we evaluated taught animpressive 10 o 11 stations in our talent attributemodel, had powerul collaborative partnerships (suchas Penn State with 45 corporate partners, including 4rom AMR Researchs Supply Chain op 25 ranking),oered rich simulation and applied learning opportuni-ties, and continue to aggressively drive relevant researchthrough their institutes.

While both Michigan State and Penn State were bal-anced across each o the three dimensions, the qualityo student experience and industry value shone through

at MI with the highest average salary across programs.Georgia ech was one o the highest ranked schoolsevaluated in depth because o a large number o gradu-ate students, as well as the number o total programsoered across all levels.

Tere are many bright spots in the next tier o pro-grams, including the University o Wisconsins strengtho corporate collaborators who grade the universitysperormance in talent development, and SyracuseUniversitys strong heritage as the oldest supply chainmanagement program and one who rewards corporate

innovators through the prestigious Harry E. SalzbergMedallion. Rutgers University is another growing pro-gram, with an undergraduate program being added thissummer to build upon a strong group o proessors.


8/14


DepthofProgram

Industry ValueSize of bubble = Scope

Penn

State

Penn

State

OhioStateOhioState Arizona

StateArizonaState

GeorgiaTechGeorgiaTech

MITMIT

Universityof FloridaUniversityof Florida

University ofWisconsin

University ofWisconsin

RutgersRutgers

SyracuseSyracuse

University ofMaryland

University ofMaryland

LehighLehigh

University of

Oklahoma

University ofOklahoma

IowaStateIowaState

MichiganState

MichiganState

University ofTennesseeUniversity ofTennessee

University ofMichigan

University ofMichigan

UniversityIndustry

ValueDepth ofProgram

Scope ofProgram Total

Penn State 14 19 15 48

Michigan State University 12 16 17 45

Arizona State University 10 15 12 37

Ohio State University 9 16 11 36

MIT 11 8 15 34

University of Tennessee 11 13 9 33

Georgia Tech 11 17 5 33

Texas A&M University 9 9 12 30

Syracuse University 7 12 8 27

University of Michigan 9 9 8 26

Rutgers University 8 10 7 25

Lehigh University 5 7 12 24

University of Wisconsin, Madison 7 8 9 24

University of Maryland 6 9 7 22

University of Florida, Gainesville 7 5 9 21

Western Michigan University 3 6 11 20

Iowa State University 3 4 8 15

North Carolina A&T State University 3 5 7 15

University of Oklahoma 4 6 5 15

WesternMichiganWestern

Michigan

North CarolinaA&T

North CarolinaA&T

TexasA&M

TexasA&M

Figure 2: University program strengths



9/14


10/14


Tble 2b:


University program strengthdepth of program

uivesitynmbe of

deds

nmbeof d

stdets

nmbe offll-time

pofessos

nmbe ofpoms

(totl) Totl

Penn State 5 4 5 5 19

Georgia Tech 3 5 4 5 17

Michigan State University 4 4 3 5 16

Ohio State University 3 4 4 5 16

Arizona State University 4 4 4 3 15

University of Tennessee 4 3 3 3 13

Syracuse University 3 2 2 5 12

Rutgers University 3 4 3 10

Texas A&M University 2 1 3 3 9

University of Michigan 3 3 3 9

University of Maryland 2 2 2 3 9

MIT 2 3 3 8

University of Wisconsin,Madison

1 2 2 3 8

Lehigh University 1 1 2 3 7

Western Michigan University 3 2 1 6

University of Oklahoma 1 1 1 3 6

University of Florida,Gainesville

3 1 1 5

North Carolina A&T StateUniversity

1 1 2 1 5

Iowa State University 2 1 1 4

5 = highest score, 1 = lowest score


11/14


Tble 2c:


University program strengthscope of program

uivesity

nmbeof sttios

tht

nmbeof coses

offeed

Membe ofeqied

spply chicoses

acdemicd esechiovtio* Scope

Michigan State University 5 5 4 3 17

MIT 4 4 4 3 15

Penn State 5 4 3 3 15

Arizona State University 4 3 4 1 12

Texas A&M University 3 5 3 1 12

Lehigh University 5 3 1 3 12

Western Michigan University 1 2 5 3 11

Ohio State University 3 4 3 1 11

University of Florida,Gainesville

1 2 5 1 9

University of Wisconsin,Madison

2 2 4 1 9

University of Tennessee 3 3 2 1 9

Syracuse University 3 2 2 1 8

Iowa State University 2 3 2 1 8

University of Michigan 3 3 1 1 8

North Carolina A&T StateUniversity

1 2 3 1 7

Rutgers University 3 1 2 1 7

University of Maryland 2 2 1 2 7

Georgia Tech 1 1 1 2 5

University of Oklahoma 2 1 1 1 5

5 = highest score, 1 = lowest score* Academic and research innovation is on a 3-point scale.


12/14


gdti to the ext level

We had a rare opportunity to grade the universities onthe key industry priorities through our latest study (seeFigure 3). While we want to reward universities orspeeding innovation within their curriculum design,

delivery mechanisms, and industry collaboration, it is

clear that there are areas that need to be improved. On

a weighted basis, the university group we evaluated this

year in the United States would score a B. Tere are

still concerns surrounding incorporating risk manage-ment into courses as well as leadership/management

techniques or global or matrixed teams.

n = 126

3.50

Ability to manage virtual/matrixed teams

Understanding risk management

Leadership skills for global business

Direct experience using supply chain technology

Relevant real-world experience

Ability to integrate information/see the big picture

Balancing IT and business skills

Problem solving/judgement

Ability to work in teams

Broad understanding of supply chain concepts

Analytics capability 3.37

3.34

3.28

3.22

2.99

2.95

2.84

2.75

2.63

2.54

2.53

C+

B-

B

B+

Figure 3: Best supply chain programsoverall grades



13/14


Industry eels strongly about improving the educa-tional experience to ensure that graduates will haveapplied knowledge, direct experience, and amiliaritywith cross-unctional, time-constraint events. Tey alsoclamor or aster change management within the aca-demic structure, and are willing to work collaboratively

in order to acilitate positive growth or the discipline.

Te academic initiatives currently underway are makingprogress toward codiying core curriculum, building thenecessary governance model, dening what success lookslike, and capturing and distributing content deliverymodels. Te goal remains that more students nd outabout the strength o supply chain management as acareer choice and graduate with the skills needed to beproductive members o the organization immediately.

We anticipate a great amount o eedback rom allconstituent groups, and look orward to the debate andprogress moving supply chain education orward.


14/14

resech d advice Tht Mtte

AMR Research is the No. 1 independent

advisory firm serving supply chain, operations,

and technology executives. Founded in 1986,

AMR Research focuses on the intersection

of business processes with value chain and

enterprise technologies. We provide our

clients in the consumer products, life sciences,

manufacturing, retail, and technology sectors

with subscription advisory services and

expert-led Peer Forums. To learn more about

our research and services, please visit

www.amrresearch.com.

More information is available at

www.amrresearch.com. Your comments are

welcome. Reprints are available. Send any

comments or questions to:

AMR Research, Inc.

125 Summer Street

Boston, MA 02110

Tel: +1 (617) 542-6600

Fax: +1 (617) 542-5670

Documents

AMR Research 0906MSTS-R-Aquino1 Tcm7-43813 Leading US Supply Chain Programs 2009