You are on page 1of 14
June 2009 Leading U.S. Supply Chain Programs, 2009 by David Aquino and Bob Kraus AMR

June 2009

Leading U.S. Supply Chain Programs, 2009

by David Aquino and Bob Kraus

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 from industry, the findings show innovative teaching approaches and relevant research from all of the schools in our study.

Supply Chain Technologies and Services

© Copyright 2009 by AMR Research, Inc.

AMR Research® is a registered trademark of AMR Research, Inc.

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

AMR Research offers no specific guarantee regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information presented, but the professional staff of AMR Research makes every reasonable effort to present the most reliable information available to it and to meet or exceed any applicable industry standards.

AMR Research is not a registered investment advisor, and it is not the intent of this document to recommend specific companies for investment, acquisition, or other financial considerations.

Supply Chain TeChnologieS and ServiCeS

Supply Chain TeChnologieS and ServiCeS June 2009 Leading U.S. Supply Chain Programs, 2009 by David Aquino

June 2009

Leading U.S. Supply Chain Programs, 2009

by David Aquino and Bob Kraus

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.

What does it mean to run a great university supply chain program in the United States? AMR Research has just completed its first dual industry and academic study of U.S.-based university programs focused on supply chain management. 126 companies responded to our industry survey, and 19 universities provided significant program detail for our analysis.

Our assessment showed many strong programs, with innovative teaching approaches and relevant research being conducted. Unfortunately, most universities are only partially meeting the most pressing needs from industry, with supply chain programs on average teach- ing only 5 of 11 academic areas needed, inconsistently applying supply chain technology, and not ensuring sufficient applied knowledge transfer.

AMR Research’s goal in researching supply chain uni- versity programs is to meld industry perspectives with objective elements of existing programs in order create a comprehensive view of a given university’s capability to deliver the quality and quantity of needed students. It is clear that with the right clarity and partnership between industry and academia, the sky’s the limit for building comprehensive, high-quality supply chain programs.

What industry wants

AMR Research’s growing body of research on talent development and organizational design highlights the increasing number of capabilities that a supply chain management professional needs early in her career. In “Supply Chain Talent: The State of the Discipline,” we

Supply Chain Technologies and Services

|

June 2009

outlined 11 key components, or what we call talent attribute stations, of 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 change management, performance measurement and ana- lytics, technology enablement, and governance

Unfortunately, supply chain programs are not prepar-

ing students well enough in these stations. Industry has

a part in this as well, as they have given a mea culpa

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

Through our survey, industry has stated its most pressing need: the additional capabilities required for most advanced supply chain organizations demand a

different academic experience that educates general- ists. 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. The best programs create

a more fully formed supply chain professional that can make a quick transition from recruit to productive member of the new organization.

Beyond competence in the 11 academic stations, industry expects students to have a broad understand- ing of supply chain concepts. Additionally, problem solving and judgment, analytical capabilities, relevant work experience, and an ability to effectively work in teams are viewed as high priority. Each of these priori-

©2009 AMR Research, Inc.

1

ties reinforces the importance of training supply chain professionals to better manage increasingly global and dispersed supply chain organizations.

In comparing industry’s view of university performance in delivering against these expectations (see Figure 1), we see four of the five largest gaps pointing to develop- ing a student’s practical ability to effectively manage a global operation now flooded with available informa- tion without becoming paralyzed with fear.

Worse, in spite of the overwhelming requirement from industry to deliver better prepared and more expe- rienced graduates that have familiarity of the work content, time constraints, and communication require- ments, only 25% of supply chain programs mandate a cooperative or internship program in order to graduate. While we will highlight several impressive examples of innovative teaching methods at schools like University of Michigan and Western Michigan University, we believe a simple adjustment to curriculum requirements is a common-sense enhancement that is easy to achieve.

Figure 1:

Attributes that recruits most need help with

Ability to integrate information/see the big picture

Relevant real-world experience

Broad understanding of supply chain concepts

Leadership skills for global business

Problem solving/judgement

Direct experience using supply chain technology

Ability to manage virtual/matrixed teams

Understanding risk management

Analytics capability

Balancing IT and business skills

Ability to work in teams

51% 41% 33% 28% 26% 21% 18% 18% 16% 13% 8%
51%
41%
33%
28%
26%
21%
18%
18%
16%
13%
8%

60%

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

Source: AMR Research, 2009

university evaluation criteria

In studying how best to represent relative strengths and weaknesses driven from industry expectations and per- formance of existing programs, we organized 11 criteria into 3 major groups (see Table 1).

The first broadly focuses upon perceived industry value, or whether companies feel that the university is deliver- ing as promised. The second speaks to depth, which broadly evaluates commitment through total numbers of students, programs, professors. The third is scope, which allows us to consider if the university under- stands what needs to be taught and how research and other innovations make their way back to the student population.

All three elements were normalized on a five-point scale in order to reduce either outliers or ballot stuffing.

1. Industry value

The major elements constituting perceived industry value concern where companies are recruiting, if a given program is viewed as the best, and the measure- ment of average salary information across all programs offered at an institution. The combination of mentions, best mentions, and average salary make up a composite view of perceived industry value.

Highlights Penn State University and Michigan State University had the strongest recruiting mentions and best university mentions, while Arizona State University and Georgia Institute of Technology had high numbers of recruiting mentions as well. MIT and University of Michigan had the highest average base salaries across programs at $116,000 and $100,000, respectively. The University of Tennessee rounded out the top five in this category because of strength in company recruiting mentions and an average base salary across programs of $85,000.

2. Depth of program

The depth of the program allows quantification of a given university’s commitment to the discipline of supply chain management. Industry has spoken clearly about not only needing improved supply chain quality but also sheer number of graduates. For a university to rate well, we considered the total number of under- graduate, graduate, and doctoral students across the formally defined supply chain degree programs, as well as how many total programs were offered across under- graduate, graduate, doctoral, and executive education. Additionally, we considered how many total full-time professors are assigned to teaching and research.

Table 1:
Table 1:

University evaluation criteria

Major area

Criteria

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 offered

Scope of Program

• Number of supply chain stations taught

• Number of supply chain courses offered

• Mean number of supply chain courses required

• Academic and research innovation

* Average of Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Ph.D. base salaries.

Source: AMR Research, 2009

Highlights

Penn State has a huge number of students, with more than 800 involved in the program. It also has 29 full-time professors focused on supply chain management.

Michigan State, Ohio State, Arizona State, and the University of Tennessee each have more than 400 total students within their programs.

The median number of full-time professors was 12. Penn State, Georgia Tech, Ohio State, and Arizona State each have over 20 full-time professors.

3. Scope of program

Scope of program tries to quantify the breadth or span of the program, including how many of the 11 talent attribute stations are taught within the program. We also assessed how many supply chain courses are offered overall, the number of supply chain courses required to graduate, and an analyst rating of the depth of aca- demic or research innovation informed through survey responses and independent evaluation.

Highlights

Michigan State offers over 39 supply chain courses and requires an average of 8 to graduate.

Both Penn State and Michigan State have the maxi- mum number of programs (five) across all levels, including large executive education programs that each graduate 1,000 students annually.

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

Academic and research innovation

We took a closer look at the type of research that pro- fessors are conducting in order to understand if univer- sities are market driven. We hold the view that relevant, powerful research will find its way into the classroom. For example, the top-tier universities we tracked have evolved their research to solve critical questions sur- rounding risk management, sustainable new product development and launch, and effective collaboration in a global environment. As we believe that universities should be rewarded for the strength of their research and the usefulness of their corporate/academic partners, we included an analyst-based rating within program scope to account for this.

Demand-driven academic research highlights include the following:

Arizona State has focused research on integrated supply chain management.

Ohio State University is working on understanding the role of effective partnerships in supply chain management.

University of Michigan is conducting research on supply chain redesign and transformation.

University of Tennessee is conducting research on building stronger operating partnerships to support an integrated supply chain.

Other academic research areas include the following:

Risk management—Syracuse University, Michigan State, Penn State, Rutgers, Western Michigan

Sustainability—Michigan State, Rutgers, Syracuse, University of 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.

Industry has impressed upon us that top-performing universities need to have an expansive span of control, a wide breadth of program offerings, and the ability to provide delivery methods that drive applied knowledge. Industry wants recruits that can more quickly transition to the challenges of 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 legacy teaching methods. Here are few compelling examples:

Lehigh University—Undergraduates are required to take an Integrated Production Development Course and are put on a team with Engineering, Arts, and Sciences students to support a corporate project.

University of Michigan—Guaranteed 14-week paid summer team project with industry partners and focused on strategic supply chain analysis.

University of Wisconsin—12 supply chain execu- tives grade curriculum and talent development.

University of Maryland—Supports a wide variety of production-level supply chain applications like those from Oracle, SAP, and i2.

Western Michigan—Uses an ERP simulation for a production planning course.

Which universities have the best supply chain programs?

After tallying the normalized five-point scores (the exception being academic and research innovation, for

which we used a three-point score) across 11 metrics, Penn State University and Michigan State University had the highest total scores, with Arizona State, Ohio State, MIT, University of Tennessee, and Georgia Tech not far behind.

The top five programs that we evaluated taught an impressive 10 of 11 stations in our talent attribute model, had powerful collaborative partnerships (such as Penn State with 45 corporate partners, including 4 from AMR Research’s Supply Chain Top 25 ranking), offered rich simulation and applied learning opportuni- ties, and continue to aggressively drive relevant research through their institutes.

While both Michigan State and Penn State were bal- anced across each of the three dimensions, the quality of student experience and industry value shone through at MIT with the highest average salary across programs. Georgia Tech was one of the highest ranked schools evaluated in depth because of a large number of gradu- ate students, as well as the number of total programs offered across all levels.

There are many bright spots in the next tier of pro- grams, including the University of Wisconsin’s strength of corporate collaborators who grade the university’s performance in talent development, and Syracuse University’s strong heritage as the oldest supply chain management program and one who rewards corporate innovators through the prestigious Harry E. Salzberg Medallion. Rutgers University is another growing pro- gram, with an undergraduate program being added this summer to build upon a strong group of professors.

Figure 2:

University program strengths

Penn Penn Georgi Georgi a a Stat Stat e e Tech Tech Ohi Ohi o
Penn Penn
Georgi Georgi a a
Stat Stat e e
Tech Tech
Ohi Ohi o o
Michigan Michigan
e Arizona Arizona
Stat Stat e
State State
State State
University University of of
Tennessee Tennessee
SyracuseSyracuse
RutgersRutgers
University University of of
University University of of
Maryland Maryland
Michigan Michigan
University University of of
MIMI TT
Wisconsin Wisconsin
LehighLehigh
Western Western
Texas Texas
Michigan Michigan
A&M A&M
University University
University University of of
of of Florida Florida
North North Carolina Carolina
Oklahoma Oklahoma
A&T A&T
Iowa Iowa
State State
Depth of Program

Size of bubble = Scope

Industry Value

 

Industry

Depth of

Scope of

 

University

Value

Program

Program

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

Table 2a:
Table 2a:

University program strength—industry value

 

number of

number

average sal- ary across all programs

 

recruit

of best

university

mentions

mentions

Total

Penn State

5

5

4

14

Michigan State University

4

4

4

12

MIT

3

3

5

11

University of Tennessee

4

4

3

11

Georgia Tech

4

4

3

11

Arizona State University

4

4

2

10

Ohio State University

3

4

2

9

Texas A&M University

3

3

3

9

University of Michigan

3

2

4

9

Rutgers University

2

3

3

8

Syracuse University

2

3

2

7

University of Wisconsin, Madison

3

3

1

7

University of Florida, Gainesville

1

2

4

7

University of Maryland

2

1

3

6

Lehigh University

2

2

1

5

University of Oklahoma

1

1

2

4

Western Michigan University

1

1

1

3

Iowa State University

1

1

1

3

North Carolina A&T State University

1

1

1

3

5 = highest score, 1 = lowest score

Source: AMR Research, 2009

Table 2b:

University program strength—depth of program

   

number

number of

number of

 

number of

of grad

full-time

programs

university

undergrads

students

professors

(total)

Total

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 State University

1

1

2

1

5

Iowa State University

2

 

1

1

4

5 = highest score, 1 = lowest score

Source: AMR Research, 2009

Table 2c:

University program strength—scope of program

     

Mean

   

number of

number

number

required

academic

of stations

of courses

supply chain

and research

university

taught

offered

courses

innovation*

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 State University

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.

Source: AMR Research, 2009

graduating to the next level

We had a rare opportunity to grade the universities on the key industry priorities through our latest study (see Figure 3). While we want to reward universities for speeding 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.” There are still concerns surrounding incorporating risk manage- ment into courses as well as leadership/management techniques for global or matrixed teams.

Figure 3:

Best supply chain programs—overall grades

Analytics capability

Broad understanding of supply chain concepts

Ability to work in teams

Problem solving/judgement

Balancing IT and business skills

Ability to integrate information/see the big picture

Relevant real-world experience

Direct experience using supply chain technology

Leadership skills for global business

Understanding risk management

Ability to manage virtual/matrixed teams

n = 126

3.37 B+ 3.34 3.28 3.22 B 2.99 2.95 2.84 B- 2.75 2.63 2.54 C+ 2.53
3.37
B+
3.34
3.28
3.22
B
2.99
2.95
2.84
B-
2.75
2.63
2.54
C+
2.53

3.50

Source: AMR Research, 2009

Industry feels strongly about improving the educa- tional experience to ensure that graduates will have applied knowledge, direct experience, and familiarity with cross-functional, time-constraint events. They also clamor for faster change management within the aca- demic structure, and are willing to work collaboratively in order to facilitate positive growth for the discipline.

The academic initiatives currently underway are making progress toward codifying core curriculum, building the necessary governance model, defining what success looks like, and capturing and distributing content delivery models. The goal remains that more students find out about the strength of supply chain management as a career choice and graduate with the skills needed to be productive members of the organization immediately.

We anticipate a great amount of feedback from all constituent groups, and look forward to the debate and progress moving supply chain education forward.

research and advice That Matter 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

or questions to: AMR Research, Inc. 125 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 Tel: +1 (617) 542-6600