Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education

Volume 12 Number 4 
C 2014 Decision Sciences Institute
October 2014
Printed in the U.S.A.

TEACHING BRIEF

Teaching Lean Six Sigma within A Supply

Chain Context: The Airplane Supply Chain
Simulation
Scott C. Ellis ∗
University of Kentucky, 455 Gatton College of Business & Economics, Lexington, KY
40506-0034, e-mail: scott.ellis@uky.edu

Thomas J. Goldsby
Ohio State University, 536 Fisher Hall, 2100 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210,
e-mail: goldsby_2@fisher.osu.edu

Ana M. Bailey
LeanCor, LLC, 7660 Turfway Road, Suite 200, Florence, KY 41042,
e-mail: abailey@leancor.com

Jae-Young Oh
University of Kentucky, 425 Gatton College of Business & Economics, Lexington, KY,
e-mail: jy.oh@uky.edu

ABSTRACT
Lean six sigma is a management methodology that firms can employ to achieve sub-
stantial improvement in supply chain performance. However, few pedagogical exercises
facilitate students’ use of a comprehensive set of lean six sigma principles within a
supply chain context. We describe the Airplane Supply Chain Simulation that helps
students understand how lean six sigma concepts may be leveraged to improve supply
chain performance. The basis of this simulation is a four-tier supply chain, consisting
of suppliers (two tiers), a manufacturer, and a customer, that produces three models
of paper airplanes to meet randomly distributed customer demand. In the first of three
successive runs, a highly structured simulation is executed in which supply chain roles
are well defined, material flows are convoluted, and a “push” production strategy is fol-
lowed. The first simulation as the “current state” and, for the second and third simulation
runs, challenge competing student teams to leverage lean six sigma concepts to develop
a “future state” that enables the fulfillment of all customer orders at the lowest cost.
Results based on statistical analyses of survey response data from 194 MBA students

∗ Corresponding author.

287
288 Teaching Lean Six Sigma within A Supply Chain Context

show that the Airplane Supply Chain Simulation is an effective participative, team-based
learning tool.
Subject Areas: Supply Chain Management Pedagogy, Lean Six Sigma,
Airplane Simulation, Participation, Organizational Identification, and Per-
ceived Learning.

INTRODUCTION
Lean six sigma (LSS), which integrates the customer focus and continuous im-
provement tenets of lean manufacturing with the project discipline and quantitative
rigor of six sigma, is a management methodology that enables improvement of
intra- and interorganizational supply chain processes (Goldsby & Martichenko,
2005). As noted in Table 1, the practical utility of LSS has motivated the develop-
ment of several participative learning exercises that separately focus on underlying
principles, such as forms of waste (Swanson, 2008), kanban (Ashenbaum, 2010),
pull systems (Billington, 2004), and variation (Martin, 2007). Yet, few pedagogi-
cal tools facilitate students’ understanding and application of an integrated set of
lean manufacturing and six sigma principles within a supply chain context. We
contribute to the pedagogical literature by describing the Airplane Supply Chain
Simulation, a structured, active learning approach that requires student teams to
develop and execute efficient supply chain processes using LSS concepts taught
in class. The simulation incorporates an iterative approach in which the initial run
requires students to execute a push-oriented supply chain in which product flows
are intentionally disconnected. For subsequent simulation runs, student teams re-
design the supply chain using a broad set of LSS principles and tools with the goal
of filling all customer orders at the lowest possible cost. Through design iterations,
students gain first-hand experience with LSS techniques that facilitate supply chain
improvement. Results based on analyses of survey response data show that the Air-
plane Supply Chain Simulation provides a rich context for students to learn how
to improve supply chain performance using LSS.

SIMULATION ADMINISTRATION
To facilitate students’ understanding of LSS supply chain management principles,
we describe a progressive, “hands-on” simulation that emphasizes the short com-
ings of traditional approaches to supply chain management and the benefits of LSS
application. Built upon the work of Billington (2004), Snider and Eliasson (2009),
and Vaughan and Gartner (2009), it is pedagogical exercise that utilizes approxi-
mately 20 students to support a four-tier supply chain, consisting of a customer, a
focal manufacturer, and multiple raw material (RM) suppliers (two tiers) to pro-
duce paper airplanes. In each simulation run, which lasts exactly five minutes, the
airplane supply chain is asked to fill 60 randomly distributed customer orders, each
order consisting of a single red, green, or blue airplane.
As outlined in Table 2, the instruction of supply chain management and LSS
principles are integrated with three successive simulation runs. The initial simu-
lation run is highly structured, is based upon traditional arms-length supply chain
 Ellis et al.

Table 1: Summary of lean and six sigma pedagogical simulations.

Pedagogical Unit of
Study Game Title Stream a Analysis Activity Key Principles Taught

Ashenbaum 20-minute exercise HP Firm Assemble switches using Coordination of pull systems using
(2010) MEGA BLOKS building kanban
blocks Kanban equation: k = (DL(1 + S))/C
Billington Airplane game HP Assembly line Assemble white paper Effects of pull systems and line
(2004) airplanes balancing on inventory levels and
throughput time
Cox and Poker chip game BG, TG Supply chain Process poker chip inventory Effects of EOQ/ROP, min/max, and
Walker based on inventory policy JIT inventory policy on sales and
(2008) inventory performance
Holweg and Lean leap logistics BG Supply chain Process automotive steel using Effects of demand visibility, process
Bicheno game Lego building blocks visibility, and time buffers on
(2002) supply/demand synchronization
Effects of supply/demand synchr
onization on order patterns and
inventory levels
Johnson and Match stick game TG Assembly line Run Excel-based simulation of Effects of statistical fluctuations on
Drougas match stick game throughput and capacity utilization
(2002)
Continued
289
 290

Table 1: Continued
Pedagogical Unit of
Study Game Title Stream a Analysis Activity Key Principles Taught

Klotz (2011) Bicycle assembly line HP Assembly line Place checkmarks on Effects of line balancing on
worksheet to simulate throughput and inventory levels
bicycle production
Martin (2007) Match stick game TG Assembly line Process match sticks based on Effect of process variation on
random (die-driven) demand throughput
and Excel-based simulation
Snider and A Lego Inukshuk HP Assembly line Build inukshuks using Lego Implementation of mass
Eliasson game building blocks customization within pull systems
(2009) Identification of conditions
necessitating push and enabling
pull systems
Effect of pull systems on process
performance
Swanson Lean lunch – Work station Prepare lean and traditional Identification of types of waste
(2008) lunches while class observes Costs of waste
Vaughan and Sandwich factory HP Firm Assemble sandwiches using Identification of conditions
Gardner poker chips necessitating push and enabling
(2009) pull systems
Effect of pull systems on process
performance
a
BG, extension of the beer game originally developed at the Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cox & Walker, 2008, p.
5); TG, extension of the match stick game from Goldratt’s The Goal (1992); HP, adapted from or (indirectly) influenced by the Hewlett-Packard stockless
production “traveling road show tape” (Billington, 2004, p. 71).
Teaching Lean Six Sigma within A Supply Chain Context
Table 2: Integrated lesson plan.
Ellis et al.

Instructional Preparation

Simulation Run Learning Objective Topic Definition/Description

First simulation run Fundamentals of Process integration Overall coordination of business processes and activities
supply chain (Narayanan et al., 2011)
management
Supplier/customer relationship Process of defining customized supplier/customer relationship
management strategies and managing each relationship in accordance
with the strategy (Lambert, 2008)
Fundamentals of Forecasting Designing and implementing management methodologies to
operations predict customer demand (Bozarth & Handfield, 2006)
management
Facility location Structured qualitative and quantitative approaches to identify
optimal locations for points of service, storage, or
manufacture (Krajewski et al., 2013)
Production planning Manufacturing firms’ sales and operations plan that centers on
production rates and inventory holdings (Krajewski et al.,
2013)
Project management Systemized, phased approach to defining, organizing, planning,
monitoring, and controlling projects (Krajewski et al., 2013)
Line balancing Methodology to assign work to stations and balance workload
while minimizing the number of stations required for a
desired cycle time (Thomopoulos, 1967)
Continued
291
Table 2: Continued
Instructional Preparation
292

Simulation Run Learning Objective Topic Definition/Description

Second simulation Fundamentals of Operational excellence Strategy that supports the pursuit of excellence through
run lean and six continuous improvement and focuses on people, teamwork,
sigma and waste reduction (Liker, 1997)
Flow manufacturing Philosophy of continually adding value without interruption or
storage such that a product or service is produced at the
smallest increment possible (Ahmadi & Wurgaft, 1994)
Sigma (σ ) levels Incremental improvements in sigma level (e.g., from 3σ to 4σ )
require exponential improvement in defects per million
opportunities (Arnheiter & Maleyeff, 2005)
Heijunka Japanese term meaning “leveling”; level workloads enable
effective inventory management, and process
standardization and stability (Liker & Morgan, 2006)
Just in time System to produce the necessary units in the necessary
quantities at the necessary time (Monden, 2011)
Voice of customer/customer Process of capturing customer needs and preferences to define
focus value from the customer’s perspective (Sanders, 2012)
PDCA PDCA: an iterative four-step management method for
continuous improvement (Dennis, 2007)
Competitive quality Forms of waste Overproduction, waiting, unnecessary transportation, over- or
incorrect-processing, excess inventory, unnecessary
movement, defects, and not engaging employees (Liker,
2004)
Variation and cost Fluctuations around a target increase costs of current
operations, downstream operations, and buffering, and
decrease throughput (Crosby, 1979)
Rolled-throughput yield Probability that a product or service will pass through each
stage of a process without rework or any defects (Graves,
Teaching Lean Six Sigma within A Supply Chain Context

2002)
Continued
Table 2: Continued
Ellis et al.

Instructional Preparation

Simulation Run Learning Objective Topic Definition/Description

Second simulation Activity analysis Go-see management Process management approach where managers directly and
run (continued) routinely engage in and observe process execution to
identify improvement opportunities (Liker, 2004)
Data collection methodologies Time and motion studies (Modarress et al., 2005), “staple
yourself to an order” approach (Shapiro et al., 1992), and
spaghetti diagrams (Bicheno & Holweg, 2004)
Process map Flowcharting tool used to illustrate the detailed physical and
information flows of an existing process (Bozarth &
Handfield, 2006)
Value stream map Graphical tool that employs specialized symbology to depict
material and information flows of value-adding and
nonvalue adding activities that comprise current and future
state processes (Krajewski et al., 2013)
A3 Visual management tool in Toyota’s successful move toward
organizational efficiency, effectiveness, and improvement,
providing a concrete structure to implement PDCA
management (Sobek & Smalley, 2011)
Third simulation run Problem solving DMAIC Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control: six sigma
tools methodology for business process improvement (Bozarth &
Handfield, 2006)
Continued
293
Table 2: Continued
Instructional Preparation
294

Simulation Run Learning Objective Topic Definition/Description

Pareto analysis Analysis using a special form of bar chart that shows frequency
counts from highest to lowest (Bozarth & Handfield, 2006)
Cause and effect (e.g., fish Graphical tool used to categorize the possible causes for a
bone) diagram particular result (Bozarth & Handfield, 2006)
5-why analysis Practice of asking “why” many times to go beyond the
symptoms and uncover the root cause (or causes) of a
problem (Autry et al., 2013)
Error prevention Poka yoke Japanese term meaning “mistake-proofing”; any mechanism to
and remediation avoid human error at work (Shingo, 1986)
Failure mode effects analyses Specific methodology to evaluate a system, design, process, or
service for possible ways in which failures (problems,
errors, risks, concerns) can occur (Stamatis, 2003)
Visual workplace Kanban and pull systems Production control approach that uses containers, cards, or
management visual cues to control the production and movement of
goods through the supply chain (Bozarth & Handfield, 2006)
Supermarkets Shop floor areas that serve as an intermediate store for
materials required by nearby assembly lines (Faccio et al.,
2013)
Workplace layout flow Design considerations include line design (e.g., straight line,
u-shaped cell, etc.), material flows, and employee walk
patterns (Wemmerlov & Johnson, 2000)
5S Visual method to create and sustain an organized workplace
(Dennis, 2007)
Standard work Documented, standard method for most efficiently and safely
doing a job; serves as a basis for continuous improvement
(Dennis, 2007)
Control Process control charts Individuals and moving range charts indicate special cause
Teaching Lean Six Sigma within A Supply Chain Context

variation (Walton, 1986)

Ellis et al. 295

management principles, and incorporates a push strategy; purposefully inefficient,

this simulation is characterized by confusion and chaotic material flows. The value
stream map shown in Figure 1(a) provides a conceptual overview of the material
and information flows associated with the first simulation run. Adopting the first
simulation as the “current state,” key LSS principles are introduced, and student
teams are challenged to develop supply chain designs that yield efficient material
flows and 100% fill rates. Through design iterations, student teams develop “future
states” that are consistent with the value stream depicted in Figure 1(b). In this
way, the simulation facilitates students’ use of LSS principles and tools to improve
supply chain performance within a competitive, time-constrained environment.
Facilitators’ efforts1 required for initial setup vary significantly over the
three simulation runs. The first simulation run, which serves as the base case for
subsequent improvement, requires significant facilitator setup and prescription:
roles and layout must be well-defined and direct and indirect materials must be
properly staged. However, for subsequent simulation runs, students are instructed
to design the roles and layout of the airplane supply chain to achieve operational
efficiencies. Accordingly, the responsibility for setup largely shifts from the facil-
itator to the students for the second and third simulation runs.
Table 3 presents the materials that are required to run each simulation. Three
line items must be printed in advance: material order cards, position templates, and
kanban cards. Material order cards and position templates are required for the first
simulation only. Material order cards direct the actions of the Materials Planning
Manager who calls out expedited RM orders for the focal airplane manufacturer.
As outlined in Table 4, these cards define the timing, material type, and quantity
of each expedited order. Position templates describe the role of each supply chain
participant, and serve as workstation position placeholders that facilitate the supply
chain layout during the first simulation. As shown in Figure 5, kanban cards may be
used in the second and third simulation runs to coordinate material flows between
successive supply chain operations.
Table 5 presents titles and descriptions for the 17 different positions that com-
prise the initial airplane supply chain. Using this information, a position template
(i.e., an 8.5 × 11 inch sheet with position title and position description) can be
created for each supply chain position. Further, Table 5 also describes the materi-
als that must be staged at each workstation. Using a flat classroom with moveable
tables and chairs, we recommend using a layout (e.g., see Figure 2) in which
sequential supply chain activities are performed in nonadjacent workstations. It
is important to note that four positions—Inbound Logistics, Materials Handlers,
Lean Senseis, and Vice President of Supply Chain—do not have fixed-position
workstations. As such, students in these roles are encouraged to move about the
classroom as required.
Prior to the start of class, position templates and initial materials are setup for
each role in accordance with Figure 2. To facilitate the first simulation within a 75-
minute class period, the recommended allocation of time is (i) 15 minutes to assign

1 An instructional video, which describes the administration and execution of the Airplane Supply Chain
Simulation, is available at http://youtu.be/X02cur-D91U.
Figure 1: (a) Current state value stream map.a (b) Future state value stream map.a 296

Tier 2 Paper Tier 2 Large Tier 2 Small

Airplane Simulation –
Supplier Clip Supplier Clip Supplier Current State Value Stream Map Customer

Stack of 20 Container of Container of

red, blue, or 120 large, 120 small, Demand:
green paper silver clips silver clips 60 units

Shouts I unit / 5 seconds

1 unit = red, blue, or green
airplane
Tier 1 Paper Tier 1 Large Tier 1 Small
Supplier Clip Supplier Clip Supplier

Stack of 12 hot Small cup of 40 Small cup of 60

dog folded red, large, silver small, silver
blue, or green paper cups
Material
paper clips
frames Planning
Manager

Calls out 1 order / 15

t seconds for fulfillment to
Ou
out the Raw Materials
Sh
Warehouse

Raw Materials Small Clip Large Clip Finished

I Warehouse
100 colored clips
50 small, silver clips
50 large, silver clips
30 off-color hot dog frames
10 Red hot dog frames
10 Blue hot dog frames
10 Green hot dog frames
Fold Station
Station Station Goods Station
I I I I
Batch Size Requirement Batch Size Requirement 20 small, silver clips Batch Size Requirement Batch Size Requirement Batch Size Requirement
5 Red hot dog frames 20 large, silver clips
(one batch at a time): (one batch at a time): (one batch at a time): (one batch at a time): 5 completed Green (one batch at a time):
5 blue planes 5 Red planes with one
- 5 Red Hot Dog Frames - 5 Red Airplane Frames - 5 Red, Blue, or Green - 5 Blue or Green Airplane planes Check one completed
- 5 Blue Hot Dog Frames - 5 Blue Airplane Frames Airplane Frames with one small clip on each wing Frames with one small clip plane at a time for quality
- 5 Green Hot Dog Frames - 5 Green Airplane Frames small clip on each wing on each wing and a large and fulfill the customer
clip on the tail
-10 small, silver clips order one plane at a time
- 5 Red Airplane Frames
-10 small, large silver clips
with one small clip on
each wing, a large clip on
the tail, AND a large clip
on the nose of the plane

a
Teaching Lean Six Sigma within A Supply Chain Context

Value stream map key

Figure 1: Continued

Airplane Simulation –
Customer
Ellis et al.

Future State Value Stream Map

Demand:
60 units

Shouts I unit / 5 seconds

Small Clip Large Clip 1 unit = red, blue, or green
Paper Supplier airplane
Supplier Supplier

-One-Piece Flow when -One-Piece Flow when -One-Piece Flow when

needed at supermarket needed at supermarket needed at supermarket

Right Wing Small Clip Large Clip

Nose Fold Left Wing Fold
Fold Station Station

Batch Size
Batch Size Requirement Batch Size Requirement Batch Size Requirement Batch Size Requirement
Requirement (one
(one batch at a time): (one batch at a time): (one batch at a time): (one batch at a time):
batch at a time):
- One-Piece Flow when - One-Piece Flow when - One-Piece Flow when - One-Piece Flow when 2 red, 2 blue, 2
2 red, 2 blue, 2 - One-Piece Flow when 2 red, 2 blue,
2 red, 2 blue, 2 needed at supermarket 2 red, 2 blue, 2 needed at supermarket 2 red, 2 blue, 2 needed at supermarket needed at supermarket
green needed at supermarket 2 green green completed
green hot dog green nose folded green left wing completely - One small clip placed frames with - all planes get large clip planes
folded frames frames folded frames folded planes on each wing small clips on tail. Red plane gets
extra large clip on nose of
plane.

1
Value stream map key
Push Arrow

Pull Arrow

Pull Supermarket

Inventory
I
297

Truck Delivery
Figure 2: Proposed current state—five-table layout and material flows.
298

Material Large Clip

Planner Assembler
1 2
Tier 1 Large Tier 2 Paper Finished Goods Customer
Clip Supplier Supplier Warehouse

Tier 2 Small Inbound Small Clip

Clip Supplier Logistics Assembler
3 4
Tier 1 Paper Material Tier 2 Large Raw Material
Supplier Handler(s) Clip Supplier Warehouse

Fold Station Tier 1 Small

Assembler Clip Supplier
5
Sensei(s) VP of Supply
Chain

Material Handlers
Teaching Lean Six Sigma within A Supply Chain Context

Inbound Logistics
Ellis et al. 299

Figure 3: Airplane folds.

Step 2: “Dog Ear” folds performed by

Folding Station Assembler

Step 1: “Hotdog” fold performed

by Paper /Frame Supplier

Step 3: “Wing” folds performed by

Folding Station Assembler

Table 3: Material list.

• Red, green, blue, and white paper (one ream of each)
• Approximately 500 small paper clips (normal color—silver)
• Approximately 500 large paper clips (normal color—silver)
• Approximately 100 multicolored paper clips, any size
• 60 playing cards labeled with red, green, and blue stickers (20 of each
color—these will be used as customer orders), shuffled
• 9 material order cards (any size) that represent individual timed material
orders from suppliers (see Table 4)
• 24 (small paper) cups (4 for Tier 2 Small Clip Supplier, 4 for Tier 1 Small
Clip Supplier, 4 for Tier 2 Large Clip Supplier, 4 for Tier 1 Large Clip
Supplier, 4 for RMs Warehouse, 2 for small clip assembler, 2 for large clip
assembler) to transport paper clips from suppliers to the RMs Warehouse
and to the assembly stations
• 17–8.5 × 11 position templatesa that individually list title and job
instructions for the following positions: Material Planning Manager, tier 1
and 2 paper supplier, tier 1 and 2 small clip supplier, tier 1 and 2 large clip
supplier, RMs Warehouse, fold station, small clip station, large clip station,
finished goods warehouse, customer, Material Handlers, Inbound Logistics,
VP of supply chain, Lean Sensei
• 4–11 × 17 kanban cards that have designated spaces (labeled rectangles)
for two red airplanes, two blue airplanes, and two green airplanes
• Internet-based 5-minute countdown timer (i.e.,
http://www.online-stopwatch.com/countdown-timer) shown on projection
screen
• 6 large plastic (e.g., Ziploc quart-sized) containers for efficient storage of
paperclips (3 for large clips and 3 for small clips)
• Optional: Classroom with mobile tables and chairs
a
Electronic copies of the position templates are available from the authors upon request.
300 Teaching Lean Six Sigma within A Supply Chain Context

Table 4: Material order cards.a

Card Number Time on Countdown Clock Expedited Order

1 4 minutes, 45 seconds 12 blue frames

2 4 minutes, 15 seconds 40 large clips
3 3 minutes, 45 seconds 12 green frames
4 3 minutes, 15 seconds 60 small clips
5 2 minutes, 45 seconds 12 red frames
6 2 minutes, 15 seconds 40 large clips
7 1 minute, 45 seconds 12 blue frames
8 1 minute, 15 seconds 60 small clips
9 45 seconds 12 green frames
a
Electronic copies of material order cards are available from the authors upon request.

roles to students, (ii) 5 minutes to review performance metrics, (iii) 5 minutes to

execute the simulation, (iv) 20 minutes to measure supply chain performance, and
(v) 30 minutes to identify supply chain problems. Each role is assigned to one or
more students in the order listed in Table 5, and points listed in the “Special Notes”
column of Table 5 emphasized. While simulation participants are likely to ask
many questions, it is advisable to refer students to the printed position templates
for direction. Once roles are allocated, the facilitator reviews the metrics that will
be used to assess supply chain performance. To facilitate this discussion, we have
prepared an Excel workbook that consists of two worksheets that are configured in
accordance with Tables 6 and 7. These tables provide the cost bases and formulae
that underlie the calculation of total cost for the airplane supply chain. Students
may use this information to guide decision-making for each simulation run.
The facilitator conducts final preparations in advance of the first simula-
tion run. These preparations include: (i) displaying a 5-minute countdown timer
on a large projection screen, (ii) demonstrating airplane assembly as outlined in
Figures 3 and 4, and (iii) outlining criteria that define acceptable finished airplane
quality, such as symmetric folds and clip locations. Pending the number of Lean
Senseis, each Lean Sensei may be directed to focus on specific material flows,
develop standard work, or conduct time-and-motion studies for particular work-
stations. To reinforce the push methodology, prior to the start, we announce that
each position is paid based on the number of pieces produced. The simulation
begins by starting the countdown timer.
In preparation for subsequent simulation runs, we divide the class into teams
of approximately 20 students and, to induce competition, offer a modest reward
(e.g., pizza for lunch) for the team that fills all orders at the lowest cost for the
final simulation run. Facilitator preparation for the second simulation run includes:
(i) providing the kanban cards that students may use to coordinate material flows
between workstations (as shown in Figure 5), (ii) positioning moveable tables and
chairs in a random configuration (so as not to influence students’ design of the
future state), and (iii) projecting the countdown timer. To emulate on-going supply
chain processes, the following constraints are imposed for the second and third
Ellis et al. 301

Figure 4: Finished red airplane.

Small Clips (both wings)

Large Clip (nose)
Large Clip (tail)

airplane simulation runs: (i) no more than two units of work in process (WIP)
of a particular type may be staged ahead of or within any workstation at startup,
(ii) no more than one batch of RMs of a particular type may be staged at any
workstation at startup, and (iii) each workstation must end with the same amount
of WIP as at the start of the simulation. These constraints also prevent students
from gaming the beginning and end of the simulation while fostering the LSS
principle of continuous level flow.
For the second and third simulations, the schedule consists of 55 minutes
for student setup, 5 minutes to execute the simulation, and 15 minutes to debrief.
At the beginning of each student setup period, each team is required to submit
value stream maps for the current and future states of the airplane supply chain.
The development of the future state value stream maps that define material and
information flows for the second and third simulation runs is guided by debriefing
sessions and classroom instruction (as described in Table 2) that follow previous
simulation runs. Whereas students’ current state value stream maps for the first
simulation should closely resemble Figure 1, the future state value stream maps
developed for the third simulation should be similar to Figure 1b. Upon delivery
of the value stream maps, the students are free to design and physically position
the airplane supply chain workstations. During the setup period, we provide only
limited guidance to student teams, and encourage supply chain design improvement
through trial-and-error to reinforce students’ understanding of the Plan-Do-Check-
Act (PDCA) cycle that is fundamental to LSS. Where guidance is necessary, we
employ a line of inquiry to motivate consideration of important LSS concepts. For
example, a team’s use of visual controls can be motivated by asking, “How can
you successfully fill all orders without verbally communicating with teammates
during the execution of the simulation? How can you coordinate product flows in
such case?” At the end of the setup period, the second and third simulation runs
commence with the start of the countdown timer and the Customer’s announcement
of the first order.
For the third simulation, two special conditions are imposed. First, at the
beginning of the student setup period, an announcement is made that student teams
will receive a bonus (e.g., a $50 cost reduction credit) for each demonstrated LSS
principle used in their supply chain design. Second, to emphasize the importance
 302

Table 5: Setup and verbal instructions (listed in order of introduction).

Position Title Initial Materials Written Instructions on Position Template Special Notes

Material Planning Sequenced material Place orders from suppliers every 30 seconds based upon the None
Manager order cards time stamps on the cards provided
For each order, call out loudly for Inbound Logistics and
announce loudly that your order is an expedite
Direct Inbound Logistics to pick-up the order from the supplier
and deliver the order to the RM Warehouse
Inbound Logistics None Only carry materials between Tier 2 and Tier 1 suppliers or Reinforce the importance
from Tier 1 suppliers to the RM Warehouse using plastic of tracking the number
cups/containers of one-way trips
completed during the
simulation run
Carry no more than a truck load (TL) or you will experience a Pending class size,
blowout assign three
participants to this role
TL quantities (carry no more or less than these amounts):
From Tier 2 to Tier 1: 20 sheets of paper, 120 large clips, 120
small clips
From Tier 1 to RM Warehouse: 12 frames of one color, 40
large clips, 60 small clips
Suppliers and warehouse workers will yell for you when they
need you
Keep track of how many one-way trips you make
Continued
Teaching Lean Six Sigma within A Supply Chain Context
Table 5: Continued
Position Title Initial Materials Written Instructions on Position Template Special Notes
Ellis et al.

Tier 2 Paper Supplier Red, green, and blue Manufacture and ship batches of 20 pieces of paper of the None
paper (100 sheets same color to the Tier 1 Paper Supplier
each, shuffled)
Be ready to ship when the Material Planning Manager places
an order
Contact Inbound Logistics to transport completed batches to
the Tier 1 Paper Supplier
Tier 1 Paper Supplier 12 hotdog folded Call for Inbound Logistics to retrieve materials you need from Demonstrate the
green sheets (i.e., the Tier 2 Paper Supplier “Hotdog Fold” by
frames) folding a sheet in half,
length-wise (see
Figure 3)
Fold each piece of paper into the hot dog fold and set into
batches of 12
Be ready to ship when the Material Planning Manager places
an order
Contact Inbound Logistics to transport completed batches to
the RM Warehouse
Tier 2 Large Clip 3 large plastic Manufacture and ship batches of 120 large silver clips per cup None
Supplier containers filled
with large paper
clips and 4 empty
cups
Be ready to ship when the Material Planning Manager places
an order
Contact Inbound Logistics to transport completed batches to
the Tier 1 Large Clip Supplier
303

Continued
 304
Table 5: Continued
Position Title Initial Materials Written Instructions on Position Template Special Notes

Tier 1 Large Clip 2 cups filled with 120 Call Inbound Logistics to retrieve materials you need from the None
Supplier large clips each Tier 2 Large Clip Supplier
and 2 empty cups
Manufacture and ship batches of 40 large silver clips per cup
Be ready to ship when the Material Planning Manager places
an order
Contact Inbound Logistics to transport completed batches to
the RM Warehouse
Tier 2 Small Clip 3 large plastic Manufacture and ship batches of 120 silver small clips per cup None
Supplier containers filled
with small paper
clips and 4 empty
cups
Be ready to ship when the Material Planning Manager places
an order
Contact Inbound Logistics to transport completed batches to
the Tier 1 Small Clip Supplier
Tier 1 Small Clip 2 cups filled with 120 Call Inbound Logistics to retrieve materials you need from the None
Supplier small clips each Tier 2 Small Clip Supplier
and 2 empty cups
Manufacture and ship batches of 60 small silver clips per cup
Be ready to ship when the Material Planning Manager places
an order
Contact Inbound Logistics to transport completed batches to
RM Warehouse
Continued
Teaching Lean Six Sigma within A Supply Chain Context
 Ellis et al.

Table 5: Continued
Position Title Initial Materials Written Instructions on Position Template Special Notes

RM Warehouse 12 hotdog folded red, Call Inbound Logistics to retrieve materials you need from Tier Reinforce principle that
green, and blue 1 Suppliers all direct materials
sheets (frames) flow into the Airplane
mixed with 30 Manufacturer through
white hotdog the RM Warehouse
folded frames; 100
colored paper clips
mixed with 100
total small and
large clips; 4
empty cups
Group materials in the following batch sizes for delivery to
assembly:
Clips—batches of 10 (silver) for both large and small (put
these into cups/containers)
Frames—batches of 5 (one color at a time, i.e., red, green, or
blue)
Contact Material Handler to transport completed batches to the
appropriate station
Material Handler might also come to the RM Warehouse with a
request for a particular material
Continued
305
Table 5: Continued
306

Position Title Initial Materials Written Instructions on Position Template Special Notes

Material Handler(s) None Only transport materials between the Folding Station, Small Reinforce the importance
Clip Station, Large Clip Station, RM Warehouse, and FG of tracking the number
Warehouse of one-way trips
completed during the
simulation run
You must transport only one batch at a time of the following Pending class size,
(exact) quantities: assign three
participants to this role
10 clips (big or small, silver only)
5 frames or finished planes
Station and warehouse workers will yell for you when they
need you
Keep track of how many one-way trips you make
Fold Station 5 hotdog folded red Contact Material Handler when you need more supplies from Demonstrate the “Dog
paper frames the RM Warehouse Ear” by folding the
corners of the paper
frame into the center
of the “hotdog” fold
Perform the dog ear fold and the wing fold on all planes Demonstrate the “Wing”
folds by aligning the
top with the bottom of
the paper frame and
creasing
Manufacture batches of five planes of one color See Figures 3 and 4
Contact Material Handler to transport completed batches to the
Small Clip Station
Continued
Teaching Lean Six Sigma within A Supply Chain Context
Table 5: Continued
Position Title Initial Materials Written Instructions on Position Template Special Notes
Ellis et al.

Small Clip Station 5 folded blue Contact Material Handler when you need more supplies from See Figure 4 for small
airplanes; 2 cups the RM Warehouse or Folding Station clip placement
filled with 10 small
silver clips each
Add a small clip on the back end of each wing of each plane
Manufacture batches of five planes of one color
Contact Material Handler to transport completed batches to the
Large Clip Station
Large Clip Station 5 folded red with Contact Material Handler when you need more supplies from See Figure 4 for large
wing-clipped the RM clip placement
airplanes; 2 cups
filled with 10 large
silver clips each
Warehouse or Small Clip Station
Add one large clip to the tail of each plane
Add one large clip to the nose of each red plane
Manufacture batches of five planes of one color
Contact Material Handler to transport completed batches to the
Finished Goods Warehouse
Finished Goods (FG) 5 finished green Contact Material Handler to retrieve finished planes from the None
Warehouse airplanes and 1 Large Clip Station
finished red
airplane
Organize and inspect received finished goods
Fill all current and backlogged customer orders by placing a
flawless airplane of the appropriate color on top of each
customer order as finished goods inventory allows
307

Continued
 308

Table 5: Continued
Position Title Initial Materials Written Instructions on Position Template Special Notes

Customer 60 playing cards with Place an order every 5 seconds as the clock counts down Reinforce importance of
one colored sticker placing an order at the
on each card (20 start of the simulation
red, 20 blue, and and every 5 seconds
20 green cards, all thereafter (orders
shuffled) cannot be filled if they
are not placed)
Fill your orders from the Finished Goods Warehouse Reinforce idea that the
Customer is the judge
of product quality
Complain loudly when an order is not able to be filled
Assess airplane quality to identify defects at the end of the
simulation
Lean Sensei(s) None Observe the work being done and take note (silently or on It may be necessary to
paper) of potential kaizen opportunities for the future state suggest ways to
coordinate work of
multiple senseis so
efforts are not
redundant
Serve as key resource for the debriefing session
VP of Supply Chain None Oversees the supply chain as a whole and verbally does what is None
necessary to get all the orders filled
Leads debriefing session following simulation execution
Teaching Lean Six Sigma within A Supply Chain Context
Ellis et al. 309

Table 6: Cost basis.a

Cost Inputs Cost

Labor $200.00/person
Lost sale (back order) $20.00/unit
Frame inventory $50.00/unit
Small clip inventory $5.00/unit
Large clip inventory $10.00/unit
Blue or green FG inventory $65.00/unit
Red plane FG inventory $75.00/unit
Reject $150.00/unit
Inventory carrying cost% 27%
Truckload transport $5.00/shipment
a
Electronic copies of the Excel performance tracking spreadsheet are available from the
authors upon request.

of cross-functional training and standardized work instructions, four students are

selected who hold direct labor responsibilities and require them to switch positions
prior to initiating the simulation.

SIMULATION EXECUTION
The execution of the first simulation may best be described as disorderly. During
this simulation, it is common for students to be unsure of their role and make
mistakes. In general, workstations have significant WIP inventories but often lack
needed RM inventories. Further, the Inbound Logistics and Materials Handler
roles are particularly demanding. They tend to receive simultaneous verbal orders
from many suppliers and workstations that are scattered throughout the classroom.
Throughout the simulation, participants often receive conflicting direction from
upstream and downstream operations as well as from the Lean Senseis who try to
implement process improvements on-the-fly. Accordingly, the primary role of the
facilitator during the first simulation run is to ensure that participants’ behaviors
are consistent with defined roles.
Following the first simulation run, supply chain performance is measured
and the observed value for each metric recorded in an Excel spreadsheet that is
configured in accordance with Table 7. The discussion of supply chain performance
generally leads to the consensus opinion that the first simulation performed very
poorly; many orders are left unfilled and total cost and lead times tend to be
very high. Subsequently, a debriefing session is held to facilitate a discussion of
the drivers of the airplane supply chain’s poor performance. While students are
quick to propose solutions to improve supply chain performance, we facilitate a
structured discussion, using Liker’s (2004) eight forms of waste as a guide, to first
identify and define specific problems in the airplane supply chain. Students are then
directed to identify the root cause of these problems before developing potential
solutions. This is an important learning lesson that underscores the salience of
 310

Figure 5: Proposed future state—sequential layout and material flows.

Kanban Cards Kanban Cards Kanban Cards Kanban Cards

Red Red Red Red

Red Red Red Red

Customer Blue Large Clip Blue Small Clip Blue Fold Blue Paper/Frame
Stations Stations Stations Supplier
Blue Blue Blue Blue

Green Green Green Green

Green Green Green Green

Large Clip Small Clip

Supplier Supplier
Teaching Lean Six Sigma within A Supply Chain Context
 Ellis et al.

Table 7: Simulation performance dashboard with observed data.a,b

Current State Future State Future State
Performance Performance Performance
Metrics (Simulation Run 1) (Simulation Run 2) (Simulation Run 3)
Order fulfillment
Completed orders 17 32 60
Throughput rate (sec) 17.65 9.38 5.00
300 sec/17 planes 300 sec/32 planes 300 sec/60 planes
Fill rate 28.3% 53.3% 100%
17/60 32/60 60/60
Lost sales cost (LSC) $860.00 $560.00 $0.00
$20/backlog × 43 $20/backlog × 43 $20/backlog × 43
backlogs backlogs backlogs
Total labor cost (TLC) $2,800.00 $2,600.00 $2,400.00
14 heads × 13 heads × 12 heads ×
$200/person $200/person $200/person
Total inventory carrying cost (TICC) $1,915.65 $499.50 $175.50
Small clip carrying cost $234.90 $28.35 $0.00
174 clips × $5/clip 21 clips × $5/clip 0 clips × $5/clip ×
× 27% × 27% 27%
Large clip carrying cost $534.60 $35.10 $0.00
198 clips × 13 clips × $10/clip 0 clips × $10/clip
$10/clip × 27% × 27% × 27%
Continued
311
 312

Table 7: Continued
Current State Future State Future State
Performance Performance Performance
Metrics (Simulation Run 1) (Simulation Run 2) (Simulation Run 3)

Frame carrying cost $1,093.50 $418.50 $135.00

81 frames × 31 frames × 10 frames ×
$50/frame × 27% $50/frame × 27% $50/frame × 27%
Blue and green plane carrying cost $52.65 $17.55 $0.00
3 planes × 1 plane × $65/plane 0 planes ×
$65/plane × 27% × 27% $65/plane × 27%
Red plane carrying cost $0.00 $0.00 $40.50
0 planes × 0 planes × 2 planes ×
$75/plane × 27% $75/plane × 27% $75/plane × 27%
Total reject cost (TRC) $750.00 $1,350.00 $0.00
5 rejects × 9 rejects × 0 rejects ×
$150/reject $150/reject $150/reject
Total transportation cost (TTC) $250.00 $0.00 $0.00
50 TLs × $5/TL 0 TLs × $5/TL 3 0 TLs × $5/TL 3
Total cost $6,575.65 $5,009.50 $2,575.50
LSC + TLC + LSC + TLC + LSC + TLC + TIC
TICC + TRC + TICC + TRC + + TRC + TTC
TTC TTC
a
Observed data is from three successive simulations with full-time MBA students of a Southeast university.
b
Electronic copies of the Excel performance tracking spreadsheet are available from the authors upon request.
c
Future state assumes suppliers manufacture components on customer premises in adjacent workstations.
Teaching Lean Six Sigma within A Supply Chain Context
Ellis et al. 313

Table 8: Structural equation model analyses—standardized coefficients.

Dependent Variable a

Model 1 Model 2
Perceived Learningb Perceived Learningc
(R2 = .657) (R2 = .585)

Control variables
Undergraduate .127** .128*
business major
Section 1 .079 .061
Section 2 −.124* −.126*
Professional −.107* −.151**
experience
Prior lean/six sigma −.156** −.164**
knowledge
Motivation .532*** .586***
Independent variables
Participation .385***
Organizational .234***
identification
a*
, denotes p ࣘ .05; **, denotes p ࣘ .01; ***, denotes p ࣘ .001.
b
Structural equation model fit: χ 2 = 1863.822, df = 1007, p = .000, χ 2 /df = 1.851; CFI =
.909; IFI = .909; RMSEA = .066, 90% CI [.062, .071].
c
Structural equation model fit: χ 2 = 1795.058, df = 964, p = .000, χ 2 /df = 1.862; CFI =
.905; IFI = .905; RMSEA = .067, 90% CI [.062, .072].

the initial stages of the Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control (i.e., DMAIC)

problem-solving approach. Further, during the debriefing session, we ensure that
students discuss the relationship between FIFO inventories and lead time, take
time (i.e., the cadence of customer demand) versus actual cycle time, supply chain
layout, batch sizes, nonvalue added work, bottlenecks, and total cost reduction.
The second simulation run proceeds more smoothly than the first as stu-
dents tend to (i) eliminate the RMs warehouse and the roles of Materials Planning
Manager and RMs Warehouse Manager, (ii) reallocate available human resources
to labor intensive assembly processes such as folding, and (iii) colocate suppli-
ers and position workstations in logical sequential order. Though teams tend not
to implement visual controls for the second simulation run, the workstation lay-
out is often similar to that depicted in Figure 5. Despite achieving substantial
improvement, student teams are typically unable to fill all customer orders, in-
cur high costs, and produce many rejects (see Table 7). Experience suggests that
difficulties with team-based collaboration during the design phase substantially
inhibit performance. Communications, controlled by dominant members of the
team, often aim at persuading teammates to adopt a particular design approach.
Since dominant members tend to expend little effort actively listening to others,
collaboration within the team suffers as most members are unable to significantly
affect the supply chain design. Further, once a supply chain design is adopted,
314 Teaching Lean Six Sigma within A Supply Chain Context

student teams often subdivide into small, specialized groups to drive implementa-
tion. However, these specialized groups, which are pressed for time, tend to adopt
“silo” approaches to implementation and often fail to develop the interfaces that
link small group efforts.
Technical factors also hinder the performance of the second simulation run.
In particular, student teams focus on design and implementation, but engage in very
little trial-and-error learning. Hence, operational details remain largely undefined
as student teams fail to leverage the PDCA improvement cycle. A second technical
consideration concerns instruction: students are not yet sufficiently trained in root
cause analyses and visual controls. Therefore, improvements often fail to address
the root cause of a problem and flows remain disjointed.
Following the third simulation run, we again review performance as outlined
in Table 7 and illustrate the improvements in order fulfillment and cost that result
from the effective application of LSS principles within supply chains. In general,
student teams can successfully fill all orders with zero rejects using a supply
chain that is comprised of 12 direct and indirect laborers. Increased performance
is largely rooted in improved collaboration, as team members solicit input from
others, actively listen to others’ ideas, and try to understand others’ points of view.
This shift in collaborative behavior promotes adoption of the PDCA improvement
cycle as team members experiment with others’ ideas and advocate the adoption of
best practices. Through PDCA, trial-and-error learning facilitates the development
of operational details that garner success.
Technical instruction focused on root cause analyses and visual management
techniques also facilitates performance improvement for the third simulation run.
Root cause analysis training promotes an appreciation for the notion that everyone
makes mistakes. Hence, the students recognize the importance of (i) identifying
the points in the process where mistakes turn into defects and (ii) problem-solving
around these process steps. Similarly, visual management training promotes stu-
dents’ adoption of workplace organization and use of kanban cards to coordinate
upstream replenishment. Moreover, the announcement of bonus opportunities,
which are conditioned on the use of LSS principles, motivates student teams to
leverage classroom learnings in their supply chain designs.

Learning Efficacy
Survey response data from 194 MBA students enrolled in three sections of a
Supply Chain Operations course was used to assess the extent that the Airplane
Supply Chain Simulation promotes positive learning outcomes. Immediately fol-
lowing the final simulation run, a questionnaire was administered that measures:
(i) perceived learning—students’ increased knowledge, increased capabilities, and
satisfaction (Arbaugh & Rau, 2007); (ii) participation—the extent to which stu-
dents engage in social interaction by showing interest in others’ ideas, offering
suggestions, and attending to other team members during learning exercises (Goel
et al., 2010); (iii) organizational identification—a psychological state in which
students’ goals align with those of the supply chain team such that students feel
responsible for the performance of the team (Mael & Ashforth, 1992); and (iv)
control variables—section (dichotomous variables), undergraduate business major
Ellis et al. 315

(dichotomous variable where the value of one indicates business major), months
of professional experience, prior lean and six sigma knowledge, and motivation
to learn LSS concepts (cf., Cabrera et al., 2001). Perceived learning, the depen-
dent variable, was modeled as a second-order factor consisting of six first-order
dimensions: (i) principles knowledge—students’ increased understanding of core
LSS tenets; (ii) methodologies knowledge—students’ increased understanding of
LSS problem-solving tools; (iii) design capabilities—students’ increased ability
to develop workstations and cells using LSS principles; (iv) cross-functional team
capabilities—students’ increased ability to coordinate work with a group of spe-
cialists; (v) satisfaction—the extent to which students’ learning experiences met
their expectations; and (vi) problem-solving capability—students’ increased abil-
ity to solve real-world problems, think through arguments, and critically evaluate
information.
The survey response data were used to test the central theses that students’
participation in the Airplane Supply Chain Simulation and students’ organizational
identification with their supply chain team increase students’ perceived learning.
Table 8 presents the results of two structural equation models (IBM SPSS AMOS v.
21), which show that participation (Model 1, β = .385, p ࣘ .001) and organizational
identification (Model 2, β = .234, p ࣘ .001) are positively related to perceived
learning. These findings suggest that students who participate and feel personally
responsible for their team’s supply chain performance tend to experience improved
learning outcomes.

CONCLUSION
Our observations suggest that the utility of the simulation is largely due to its
iterative nature. The chaotic nature of the first simulation run motivates students
to learn how to improve supply chain performance using LSS. Further, the ini-
tial simulation experience provides a common context that facilitates meaningful
in-class examples and exercises aimed at teaching LSS concepts. The second and
third iterations provide students with the opportunity to apply LSS principles. Fol-
lowing these simulation runs, discussions of supply chain performance provide
student teams with immediate feedback regarding the efficacy of their approach
and insights for subsequent performance improvement. Accordingly, the empirical
results show that the Airplane Supply Chain Simulation facilitates several novel
learning outcomes for students including an increased ability to design lean work-
stations and manage cross-functional teams, and an enhanced understanding of
core LSS principles and problem-solving tools.
Observations during simulation planning and execution activities also
suggest that student involvement in the Airplane Supply Chain Simulation offers
avenues for behavioral growth that complement advances in technical understand-
ing. Time limitations and the induced chaos associated with the first simulation
run force student teams to quickly self-organize under conditions of uncertainty.
During design periods, students must mediate conflict as team members offer
competing solutions to advance supply chain performance. Given time constraints,
student teams are forced to adopt social mechanisms that enable the organization
of subgroups, coordination of diverse activities, and prioritization of solutions
316 Teaching Lean Six Sigma within A Supply Chain Context

in advance of the second and third simulation run. Further, the execution of the
second and third simulation facilitates intense competition amongst student teams
as students vie to outperform peers. Accordingly, results-oriented students must
rely on social influence and persuasion skills to syncretize the efforts of their team.
As Lambert et al. (1998) suggest, the development of such behavioral capabilities
may prove similarly important to the realization of the “total integrated supply
chain” as the advancement of the technical understanding of LSS.
The richness of the Airplane Supply Chain Simulation enables several op-
portunities for its extended use. For example, this study centers on the utility of
the Airplane Supply Chain Simulation in teaching LSS concepts to MBA students.
However, our experience suggests that this simulation is similarly effective with
undergraduate students and working professionals with a wide range of experience
and backgrounds. Moreover, the airplane supply chain may provide a fruitful con-
text to teach other supply chain management topics, such as supply management,
contracting, forecasting, and factory layouts. In this way, the airplane supply chain
may serve as a platform for continued pedagogical innovation within the supply
chain management field.

REFERENCES
Ahmadi, R. H., & Wurgaft, H. (1994). Design for synchronized flow manufactur-
ing. Management Science, 40(11), 1469–1483.
Arbaugh, J. B., & Rau, B. L. (2007). A study of disciplinary, structural, and
behavioral effects on course outcomes in online MBA courses. Decision
Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 65–95.
Arnheiter, E. D., & Maleyeff, J. (2005). The integration of lean management and
six sigma. The TQM Magazine, 17(1), 5–18.
Ashenbaum, B. (2010). The twenty-minute just-in-time exercise. Decision Sci-
ences Journal of Innovative Education, 8(1), 269–274.
Autry, C. W., Goldsby, T. J., Bell, J. E., & Hill, A. V. (2013). Managing the global
supply chain (Collection). New Jersey: FT Press.
Bicheno, J., & Holweg, M. (2004). The new lean toolbox: Towards fast, flexible
flow. England: PICSIE Books.
Billington, P. J. (2004). A classroom exercise to illustrate lean manufacturing pull
concepts. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 2, 71–76.
Bozarth, C. C., & Handfield, R. B. (2006). Introduction to operations and supply
chain management. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Cabrera, A. F., Colbeck, C. L., & Terenzini, P. T. (2001). Developing performance
indicators for assessing classroom teaching practices and student learning:
The case of engineering. Research in Higher Education, 42(3), 327–352.
Cox II, J. F., & Walker II, E. D. (2008). The poker chip game: A multi-product,
multi-customer, multi-echelon, stochastic supply chain network useful for
teaching the impacts of pull versus push inventory policies on link and chain
performance. INFORMS Transactions on Education, 6(3) 3–19.
Ellis et al. 317

Crosby, P. (1979). Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Dennis, P. (2007). Lean production simplified: A plain-language guide to the
world’s most powerful production system. New York: Productivity Press.
Faccio, M., Gamberi, M., & Persona, A. (2013). Kanban number optimisation in
a supermarket warehouse feeding a mixed-model assembly system. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Research, 51(10), 2997–3017.
Goel, L., Johnson, N., Junglas, I., & Ives, B. (2010). Situated learning: Con-
ceptualization and measurement. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative
Education, 8(1), 215–240.
Goldratt, E. M. (1992). The goal (2nd ed.). Massachusetts: North River Press.
Goldsby, T., & Martichenko, R. (2005). Lean six sigma logistics: Strategic devel-
opment to operational success. Florida: J. Ross Publishing, Inc.
Graves, S. (2002). Six sigma rolled throughput yield. Quality Engineering, 14(2),
257–266.
Holweg, M., & Bicheno, J. (2002). Supply chain simulation—A tool for education,
enhancement and endeavor. International Journal of Production Economics,
78, 163–175.
Johnson, A. C., & Drougas, A. M. (2002). Using Goldratt’s game to introduce
simulation in the introductory operations management course. INFORMS
Transactions on Education, 3(1), 20–33.
Klotz, D. (2011). The bicycle assembly game. Decision Sciences Journal of Inno-
vative Education, 9(3), 371–377.
Krajewski, L. J., Ritzman, L. P., & Malhotra, M. K. (2013). Operations manage-
ment: Processes and supply chains with MyOMLab. New Jersey: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Lambert, D. M. (Ed.). (2008). Supply chain management: Processes, partnerships,
performance. Florida: Supply Chain Management Institute.
Lambert, D. M., Cooper, M. C., & Pagh, J. D. (1998). Supply chain management:
Implementation issues and research opportunities. The International Journal
of Logistics Management, 9(2), 1–19.
Liker, J. K. (Ed.). (1997). Becoming lean: Inside stories of US manufacturers. New
York: Productivity Press.
Liker, J. (2004). The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world greatest
manufacturer. New York: CWL Publishing Enterprises.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of
the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organi-
zational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123.
Martin, C. H. (2007). A simulation based on Goldratt’s matchstick/die game.
Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(2), 423–429.
318 Teaching Lean Six Sigma within A Supply Chain Context

Modarress, B., Ansari, A., & Lockwood, D. L. (2005). Kaizen costing for lean
manufacturing: A case study. International Journal of Production Research,
43(9), 1751–1760.
Monden, Y. (2011). Toyota production system: An integrated approach to just-in-
time. New York: CRC Press.
Morgan, J. M., & Liker, J. K. (2006). The Toyota product development system.
New York: Productivity Press.
Narayanan, S., Jayaraman, V., Luo, Y., & Swaminathan, J. M. (2011). The an-
tecedents of process integration in business process outsourcing and its effect
on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 29(1), 3–16.
Sanders, N.D. (2012). Supply chain management: A global perspective. New Jer-
sey: John Wiley & Sons.
Shapiro, B. P., Rangan, V.K., & Sviokla, J. J. (1992). Staple yourself to an order.
Harvard Business Review, 70(4), 113–122.
Shingo, S. (1986). Zero quality control: Source inspection and the poka-yoke
system. Oregon: Productivity Press.
Snider, B. R., & Eliasson, J. B. (2009). Push versus pull and mass customization:
A Lego Inukshuk demonstration. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative
Education, 7(2), 411–416.
Sobek II, D. K., & Smalley, A. (2011). Understanding A3 thinking: A critical
component of Toyota’s PDCA management system. New York: CRC Press.
Stamatis, D. H. (2003). Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to
execution. Wisconsin: ASQ Quality Press.
Swanson, L. (2008). The lean lunch. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative
Education, 6(1), 153–157.
Thomopoulos, N. T. (1967). Line balancing-sequencing for mixed-model assem-
bly. Management Science, 14(2), 59–75.
Vaughan, T. S., & Gardner, J. P. (2009). The sandwich factory: An in-class demon-
stration of pull concepts. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education,
7(1), 259–263.
Walton, M. (1986). The Deming management method. New York: Pedigree.
Wemmerlov, U., & Johnson, D. J. (2000). Empirical findings on manufacturing
cell design. International Journal of Production Research, 38(3), 481–507.

Scott C. Ellis is an Assistant Professor of Supply Chain Management at the Uni-

versity of Kentucky’s Gatton College of Business and Economics. Scott’s research
interests center on the study of purchasing and supply management processes and
functions, with particular emphasis on the application of behavioral and strategic
theories to the study of risk, innovation transfer, and collaboration within buy-
ersupplier relationships. In this line of research, he has published works within
the Journal of Operations Management, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
International Journal of Innovation Management, and Industrial Marketing Man-
agement. Further, Scott has 18 years of managerial experience in the automotive
Ellis et al. 319

industry and has supervised more than 60 MBA student projects that use lean six
sigma principles to improve supply chain performance.

Thomas J. Goldsby is Professor of Logistics at The Ohio State University. Dr.

Goldsby is Co-Editor-in-Chief of Transportation Journal and serves as Associate
Director of the Center for Operational Excellence (COE), a Research Fellow of
the National Center for the Middle Market, and a research associate of the Global
Supply Chain Forum, all housed at Ohio State’s Fisher College of Business. His
research interests include logistics strategy, supply chain integration, and the theory
and practice of lean and agile supply chain strategies.

Ana M. Bailey is a Lean Deployment Executive for LeanCor Supply Chain Group,
delivering a unique combination of third party logistics services, hands-on con-
sulting, and training and education. As a Lean Deployment Executive, Ana is
responsible for the deployment of operational excellence practices within Lean-
Cor’s network of customers and universities. Her primary responsibilities are the
development and management of LeanCor’s body of knowledge and the facili-
tation of training programs and simulations in Lean, Six Sigma, Supply Chain
Management, and Leadership. As a certified Lean Six Sigma Black Belt, Ana is a
member of the American Society for Quality, actively participating on the board
for both her local, Charleston, South Carolina chapter and the global Lean Enter-
prise Division. She is also a lead instructor for the Lean Supply Chain Professional
Certificate at the Georgia Tech Supply Chain and Logistics Institute.

Jae-Young Oh is a doctoral candidate in supply chain management at the Gatton

College of Business & Economics at the University of Kentucky. He holds B.A and
M.B.A degrees from Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea. His research interests
focus on strategic and behavioral issues in operations and supply chain man-
agement, including strategic sourcing, buyer-supplier relationships, supply chain
integration, and global supply chain management. His research appears in such
publications as Service Business, Information Research, Journal of the Korean
Society of Quality Management, e-Business Studies, Health Service Management
Review, and Journal of Korea Service Management Society.
Copyright of Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education is the property of Wiley-
Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.