The basic undergraduate POM course: faculty opinions of desired course content and the adequacy of existing textbooks.

Damewood, Earl Z. ; Abramson, Joseph ; Bolling, W. Blaker 等

ABSTRACT

Professors teaching the basic undergraduate POM course were surveyed to determine what topics they covered (and to what degree), what additional topics they felt should be covered, the adequacy of the textbooks being used, who was required to take the POM course, and other related issues. A great discrepancy was found regarding who was required to take the course. For example, 85.9% of the schools responding required it of their Management Majors but only 18.2% required it of MIS, CIS, or Information System Majors. Of twenty-one subjects/topics asked about, over 90% of those responding indicated Intensive or Moderate coverage of Inventory Control and Quality Concepts. Over half reported such coverage for QC/SPC Methods, Project Management, JIT Concepts, Forecasting, Capacity Planning, MRP, Layout Strategies, Location Strategies, Decision Making, Productivity Measures, and Order Scheduling/Loading. Less than 50% reported such coverage of Linear Programming, Queuing Models, Transportation Problems, Learning Curves, Simulation, Assignment Problems, Global Programming, or Integer Programming. Most professors were reasonably happy with their textbooks, with 75.7% describing their current textbooks as either "About Right," "Very Good," or "Excellent." But, there appeared to be two distinct market segments, one wanting more quantitative material and one wanting more qualitative material.

INTRODUCTION

Although the study of the activities involved in the transformation processes that are used in creating services or products is not new, Operations Management as a field is relatively young (Heizer and Render, 2001). As is typical of a new area, the field has undergone many changes and now includes a blend of topics from statistics, industrial engineering, management science, management, strategy, marketing, accounting and others. As these changes have taken place, textbooks have evolved as well. Whether or not the current textbooks and academic thinking reflect cutting edge topics in operations management or lag behind actual practices in leading companies is, of course, of concern. The purpose of the survey conducted here was to assess the current status of and trends in the teaching of Operations Management (or Production/Operations Management, interchangeably referred to as OM, POM or P/OM) in schools and colleges of business in the U.S. at the undergraduate level.

LITERATURE REVIEW

A survey of the literature revealed a number of conflicting concerns with POM education. For example, during the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980s the areas covered by operations management in most organizations, where inputs are transformed into services or products as outputs, were all too often focused on finance and/or marketing efforts. This resulted in a slower increase in productivity within the manufacturing and service sectors of the U.S. economy, concerns about quality, and the loss of competitiveness in world markets. It was suggested that one reason might be that the educational preparation of students was inadequate and there was a gap between what was being taught and what practicing managers in POM should know to remain competitive internationally (Bandyopadhyay, 1994). Some (Nieto, et al, 1999 and others) maintained that current POM textbooks have lagged behind state-of-the-art practices in leading companies. On the other hand, Nieto, et al also contested that some current POM textbooks covered "cutting edge" topics. Some criticism has been leveled against leading MBA programs relating to graduates knowing quantitative tools but being inadequate in management abilities concerning people. This has led, in some schools, to curriculum revamping. In executive education many companies have demanded the achievement of specific, real-world goals with a combination of academics and applications (Bongiorno, 1993). Bandyopadhya (1994) noted that it would appear that the graduates from many AACSB accredited schools were not prepared to deal with the POM area in industry. He also found that the vast majority of U.S. colleges and universities were not offering any major study in the field. He noted significant deficiencies in both POM course coverage and teaching methods in traditional business management programs.

Some business management degree programs continued to offer the subject only as a single course within the core curriculum (Coleman and Smith, 1994). An unpublished study by one of the authors of this paper (Bolling, 1992) found that most schools offered a sequence of courses such as statistics, quantitative methods, operations management and then strategic management (business policy). A few offered only a single semester course to cover the quantitative methods and operations management topics rather than the typical and more common two courses. The statistics and quantitative methods courses were sometimes offered outside the business curriculum to satisfy AACSB requirements limiting the percentage of courses taken in business. Coleman and Smith (1994) maintained that students often failed to see the value of the course(s) and/or failed to understand how the topics were positioned in terms of their management education. They also suggested a better orientation towards the management functions of planning, organizing, leading and controlling as well as a framework with a longer-term and broader strategic viewpoint versus a tactical framework, which generally has a short-term orientation and an emphasis on quantitative techniques. However, they also noted the limited class time available.

Doane (1994) reviewed textbooks in introductory statistics and production and operations management relating to the coverage of total quality management topics and found a growing emphasis on TQM topics in most POM textbooks but little in the statistics textbooks, although some improvement in the statistics books was noted. He reported that the best selling POM textbooks had strong quality coverage and all texts in his sample were much better in this area than the statistics textbooks. He did note, however, that instructors well trained in research methods might have little or no exposure to actual practice. In general, he maintained that instructor training could be improved if the accrediting bodies became convinced of the importance of quality topics in business education.

Ducharme and Lewis (1987) noted a frequent disparity between what was taught in business colleges and what practicing POM and inventory managers used in their daily activities. They sent questionnaires to professors of operations management at 500 business colleges across the country and found that almost half (45.3%) of the operations courses were devoted to areas practicing managers deemed important. However, they also noted that with only one POM course required in most schools, many topics were omitted.

Hammond and Hartman (1996) explored undergraduate production/operations management (POM) students' preparation and the expectations of firms in the field and whether or not students were being prepared to function in the high-tech industries of today and tomorrow. They noted the recent AACSB accreditation guidelines that broadened the curriculum with greater emphasis on more non-business courses. This was a response to the business community's desire for broadly trained graduates with the abilities to think and to communicate. They also noted that the competitive edge for students was related to applying their knowledge within a computer-oriented business environment. Their survey indicated computer based POM software was not as popular among professors as with practitioners. The practitioners were critical of courses that required students to work computationally simple problems and then to memorize the material and take closed-book examinations. They pointed out the need to link the teaching of POM material with the needs and practices of the business community.

Harrison and Hanebury (1992) also noted concern for the subject matter taught being somewhat out of date but at the same time were uncertain as to how new techniques might be integrated with more traditional methods. As a point of interest they asserted that the most concrete manner to expose students to current practices would be plant tours of several different world-class manufacturing and nonmanufacturing operations. However, they noted the difficulties of being able to expose students to these given time availability and scheduling problems.

Johnson and Pyke (2000) focused on top graduate schools in engineering and business in their study of the teaching supply chain management. This topic has had a huge impact on industry and academia. They noted that functional integration between disciplines might be the key to making the curriculum more closely correspond with business practices.

In a 1995 a survey, done for the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS), sent to university teachers representing a wide range of schools (Jordan, et al, 1996) noted a decline in the role of OR/MS. Although this area is not POM, it is closely related and the decline in its educational role was partly attributed to the changes made in the AACSB accreditation standards for business school curricula in April 1991. After this date, schools were free to define their own individual missions with curricula organized around that mission. Specific requirements for OR/MS no longer had to be included in any way. Their survey documented both the decline in interest in this area as well as a perceived need for quantitative competence in MBA graduates; a competence that was often hampered by a poor math background (or a fear of mathematics) among the students. The case method of instruction was cited as a promising fix but they noted a dearth of POM cases in current teaching materials and a need for the development of good case materials. Another portion of their study involved telephone interviews with deans or MBA program administrators. They found the current role of OR/MS was relatively minor in the core curriculum with the exception of competence in statistics.

A very limited study by Karuppan and Karuppan (1999) suggested that making introductory POM course materials available on the Web could have a positive impact for both the students and the instructor. Anticipated cost reductions related to paper savings associated with using the Web did not occur.

A very interesting paper concerned the evolution of operations management textbook contents and an analysis of the most recent POM textbooks (Nieto, et al, 1999). In it the authors noted that operations management as a subject did not arise until the end of the 1950s and the most relevant topics changed dramatically over time. They believed that the discipline's evolution was reflected in the textbooks' contents as new techniques, theories and advances developed. Their study involved 84 textbooks published between 1980 and 1998 that were grouped by use of ANOVA on the basis of qualitative/quantitative and long-/short-term dimensions. They found that all the textbooks gave a similar weight to quantitative vs. qualitative contents regardless of the decade of publication. However, they noted a recent tendency towards the association of long-term issues with qualitative approaches while short-term approaches were associated with quantitative contents. They also noted that recent textbooks tended to include the quantitative contents as appendices that could indicate a shift from operational research content to strategic-oriented content. [Note: We have also noted a shift of this quantitative material from chapters to either appendices or to chapter supplements.]

Tillery, Rutledge and Inman (1993) selected ten textbooks from over 30 basic POM texts available for use at the time to ascertain if educational institutions were providing either quality-related training for those who would be directly responsible for quality control or a proactive quality mind-set to those who would be in management. They felt that quality had to be viewed as more than an array of techniques often related to statistics and that students had to be provided with an integrated view of quality and its broad role within the organization. Their study noted that the traditional model was still dominant in POM textbooks but there was a more expansive coverage given recently to quality, providing a more balanced view of its importance in operational and strategic issues. They found both inconsistencies in the treatment of quality across the texts and a transition towards a more expansive and strategic paradigm. However, they also found that the texts needed to be updated in their coverage of operational tools and techniques and that the external focus towards quality seemed weak. They did note awareness on the part of the textbook authors that quality did not mean automatic cost increases but all the texts were lacking in the cost issue related to court action liability.

Vollmann, Cordon and Heikkila addressed the issue of teaching supply chain management to business executives. They noted the need for texts to emphasize the development of synergy along the whole demand chain starting with meeting the needs of specific target markets rather than focusing on internal optimization, as was traditionally done (Vollmann, Cordon, and Heikkila 2000).

PURPOSE

The primary objectives of the research being reported here was to determine the topics currently being covered in the basic undergraduate POM course and, in the view of those teaching the course, other topics that should be covered and the adequacy of the textbooks currently being used. Other issues addressed by the research include who is required to take the POM course, at what level the course is taught, what prerequisites are required for the course, and which linear programming subjects/techniques are being taught.

PROCEDURE

A questionnaire was developed (see Appendix) by reviewing the literature for previous surveys made in this subject area and by including additional questions to meet the purposes of this study. The questionnaires were mailed to 744 deans of colleges and schools of business in the United States during January 2001. (Some of the questionnaires were received by departments of business in smaller institutions.) The deans were asked to route the questionnaire for completion by the professor with primary responsibility for coordinating the teaching of undergraduate operations management in that school.

BASIC RESULTS/DEMOGRAPHICS

The following represent the demographics and results of the survy:

1. Of the 744 questionnaires mailed only 3 were returned due to improper addresses. 237 forms were completed and returned. Of those returned, 225 were complete enough to be used in the analysis. Thus the useable form response rate was 227/741 or 30.6%.

2. Of those responding, 81% were from colleges or schools of business while the balance were from smaller colleges having departments of business.

3. Almost seventy-seven percent (76.9%) of the responses were from schools having both an undergraduate and graduate program in business, 1.3% had only a graduate program in business, and 21.8% had only an undergraduate program in business.

4. Reported school accreditation was as follows:

 Number Percent

AACSB 126 56.0
ACBSP 15 6.7
IACBE 4 1.8
AACSB & ACBSP 2 .9
AACSB (In Process) 26 11.6
CBSP (In Process) 1 .4
None/Other/Regional 51 22.7
Totals 225 100.1

5. Almost ninety percent (89.8%) of the respondents indicated they offered an undergraduate course in POM, 3.1% indicated that they planned to add a course in POM, and 7.1% indicated that they had no plans to add a course in POM.

FINDINGS

The respondents who did not currently offer an undergraduate course in POM were asked not to complete Questions 6 through 17. This reduced the number of respondents included in the following findings to 206.

1. The respondents were asked which majors in their colleges were required to take operations management (POM). The tabulation is shown below.

Major Percent Indicating POM Required

Accounting 68.9
Economics 46.1
Finance 69.4
Management 85.9
Marketing 69.4
Other Majors 43.2

"Other Majors" included 18.2% indicating POM was required for MIS, CIS or Information Systems majors, 7.1% indicating "all business majors", and 5.7% indicating it was required for international business majors.

2. The respondents indicated the following course titles for their POM courses.

Operations Management 40.4%
Production/Operations Management 30.2%
Production Management 5.3%
Other Course Titles 18.7%
Not Indicated 5.3%

3. Of those responding, 5.3% indicated that POM was not required by any majors but was taught as an elective course.

4. The respondents indicated that POM was taught at the following levels.

Sophomore 2.9%
Junior 77.2%
Senior 34.0%

Since this totals more than 100%, some respondents indicated more than one level.

5. When asked about prerequisites for POM in their institutions, 35.9% reported statistics and calculus were prerequisites, 54.9% said only statistics was a prerequisite, 1.5% said only calculus was a prerequisite, and 30.1% named other prerequisites in various combinations with the prerequisites named here, or instead of the prerequisites named here. Among those other prerequisites named were algebra, finite mathematics and principles of management.

6. Of those responding, 12.6% replied that their schools offered a major in POM, 2.4% reported that they offered a minor in POM, while 16% offered a concentration in POM. Collectively, then, about 31% of the schools offered either a major, minor or concentration in POM.

7. Question No. 12 (See questionnaire in the Appendix) asked the POM professors how much coverage would be desirable for each topic typically taught in an operations management course. A summary of the responses is shown in Tables 1 and 2 below.

8. Question No. 13 (see Appendix) asks respondents to list important topics not shown in the topical list in Question No. 12. The bulk of these hand-written inputs is summarized in Table 3 below.

9. Question 14 asked respondents to indicate which linear programming subjects/techniques they cover when teaching L.P. The responses are summarized below.

39.3% would teach Graphical Solutions

9.1% would teach the Simplex Method (Hand Solutions)

28.2% would teach the Simplex Method (Computer Solutions)

6.8% would teach Sensitivity Analysis (Hand Computations/Interpretations)

25.2% would teach Sensitivity Analysis (Computer Solutions/ Interpretations)

10. When asked how their current textbook measured-up (Question 15), the following responses were obtained.

36.9% Very Good or Excellent

8.8% About Right

9.7% Needs qualitative conceptual improvement of some topics.

6.3% Needs more in-depth coverage of quantitative methods for some topics.

The respondents could also list comments of their own for this question. They are summarized below.

Comment Number

Better balance of quantitative and qualitative. 13
Greater emphasis on services. 8
More on supply chain management. 6
Use more cases. 4
Current texts are fine "as is". 3
Texts are bloated with too much material. 3
Texts are too expensive. 2

11. The respondents were asked to list the text currently being used in their POM course, The responses are summarized in Table 4 below.

12. The respondents were asked the general direction they would like to see in future texts (Question 16). Results were as follows.

29.1% More conceptual or qualitative treatments of topics.
22.8% More in-depth quantitative treatments of topics.
37.4% All other comments.

13. The respondents were asked to respond to this statement in Question No. 17: "Some studies indicate that a shift from a quantitative emphasis to a qualitative/conceptual emphasis may have occurred in operations management textbooks over the last several years". The results are shown below.

80.6% Agree 15.0% Disagree

When asked "Is such a trend desirable?" the responses were:

49.5% Yes 37.9% No

CONCLUSIONS

Our research would indicate two fairly distinct market segments for operations management textbooks: those who want more quantitative material and those desiring more qualitative material. These segments were fairly balanced as indicated in the responses dealing with current and future textbooks (Numbers 10, 12 and 13 under "Findings" above). In addition, most of the respondents were pleased with the current offerings. The trend towards more qualitative/conceptual emphasis was noted by over 80 percent of the respondents but whether or not this was a desirable trend resulted in a split (49.5 percent versus 37.9 percent) which also indicated the two segments.

There was a very clear trend to titling the textbooks as "Operations Management" to better reflect the broader applicability of some of the material and so complete the transition from early use in the factory to produce "things" to many other situations including the service and/or not-for-profit industries.

The authors were a little surprised about the apparent decline in teaching linear programming. If it might be assumed that such instruction would start with graphical solutions before delving into the simplex and/or computer solutions, then only about 40 percent were teaching linear programming, a technique that may be second to basic statistics in terms of frequency of use in manufacturing and service applications.

An area that appears to be in need of coverage in future textbooks would be supply chain management. This also relates to the growing emphasis on a long-term view of quality starting with the final consumer and working back through the entire supply chain.

A very practical concern of the authors is the limited time available to teach the material. In a one or two semester course it would be difficult to cover more than a portion of the material in the current textbooks. As one of the authors put it, "All we can do is introduce some of the material and make the students 'slightly dangerous' and hope that they do not sell their textbooks!"

RECOMMENDATIONS

The review of the literature indicated some concern that material being taught in operations management may not be what the college graduate in the workplace needs. In addition, there were suggestions that textbooks may lag behind current practices in many companies. Related to this were some suggestions that the instructors and/or their classes visit state-of-the-art companies to witness current practices. Therefore, we believe that studies should be conducted by contacting such organizations concerning their practices, their needs, their satisfaction with their recent college graduates, and their willingness to host faculty and/or class visits. A particular emphasis should be put on determining which operations management methods are being used in practice today and identifying those POM methods and topics which should receive more emphasis/coverage in POM textbooks and the classroom.

Publishers may want to address the two market segments identified here: (1) those professors desiring more quantitative material in the texts, and (2) those desiring more qualitative or conceptual treatment of topics. Different textbooks, designed for and targeted to one or the other of these segments, may be needed.

One current trend in POM textbooks noted by the authors is to put quantitative chapters or modules at the back of the textbook often treating them as supplements to the text. We believe that this practice tends to de-emphasize the importance of these modules to students and professors alike. We recommend that these topics be treated as normal chapters in the textbooks allowing professors to emphasize or treat those chapters they believe to be of primary importance. This may be primarily appropriate for the quantitative market segment.

APPENDIX
UNDERGRADUATE
OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT COURSE SURVEY

The purpose of this survey is to assess the current status of and
determine trends in the teaching of Operations Management (or
Production/Operations Management) in schools and colleges of
business. Your time in completing and returning this survey will
be greatly appreciated. We will be happy to share the results
with you if you desire.

Please check the appropriate response(s) to each question.

1. My college or university has a:

-- College (or School) of Business -- Department of Business

2. My college or university has the following programs in Business:

-- Undergraduate Program Only -- Graduate Program Only -- Both
Undergraduate & Graduate

3. Our Business program(s) is:

-- Not Accredited -- Accredited by AACSB -- Accredited by: --

-- In process of accreditation by -- Other: --

4. Does your college/school/department offer an UNDERGRADUATE
COURSE in Operations Management/POM?

-- Yes -- NO, But anticipate adding one -- NO, With no plans to
implement one

5. If you answered "YES" to Question 4 above, please continue with
Question 6, otherwise please stop and go to Question 18.

6. Course Title: --

7. Operations Management is a REQUIRED COURSE for the following majors:

-- Accounting -- Economics -- Finance -- Management -- Marketing

-- Other (Please Identify) --

-- Not required for any undergraduate major in business but it may be
taken as an elective.

8. Please indicate the level at which your Operations Management
Course is taught.

-- Sophomore -- Junior -- Senior

9. What, if any, are the prerequisites for the Operations Management
course?

-- Calculus -- Statistics -- Quantitative Methods

Other (Please list) --

10. Does your college/school/department offer a major, minor or
concentration in Operations Management/POM?

-- Yes -- NO IF "YES", Please circle one: major minor concentration

11. The textbook used in your Undergraduate Operations Management/POM
course is:

Title: --

Author/s: --

Publisher: --

12. For each of the following subjects/topics, please indicate the
level of coverage you think is desirable in an Operations Management
course.

I -- Intensive or In-Depth Coverage with Problem Solving (more than 2
class periods)

M -- Moderate Coverage with Some Problem Solving (1--2 class periods)

L -- Light Coverage. Conceptual Understanding Only. (less than 1
class period)

O -- Shouldn't Be Covered (For whatever reason.)

-- Linear Programming

-- Integer Programming

-- Transportation Problems

-- Assignment Problems

-- Goal Programming

-- Capacity Planning

-- Layout Strategies

-- Queuing Models

-- Simulation

-- Quality Concepts/TQM

-- QC/SPC Methods/Charts

-- Forecasting

-- MRP

-- Location Strategies

-- Decision Making

-- Learning Curves

-- Inventory Control

-- JIT Concepts

-- Project Management

-- Order Scheduling/Loading

-- Productivity Measurement

13. Please list subjects/topics NOT LISTED IN QUESTION 12 that, in
your opinion, are desirable topics that should be included in an
Operations Management Course. Also list the degree of desirable
coverage in front of each topic using the CODES USED IN QUESTION 12.
(Attach an additional sheet if necessary.)

-- TOPIC: --
-- TOPIC: --
-- TOPIC: --
-- TOPIC: --

14. If you teach linear programming in your course, please check all
the related subjects/techniques that you teach. (Skip this question
if you do not teach LP in your course.)

-- Graphical Solutions

-- The Simplex Method (Hand Solutions)

-- The Simplex Method (Computer Solutions)

-- Sensitivity Analysis (Hand Computations/ Interpretations)

-- Sensitivity Analysis (Computer Solutions/Interpretations)

Other --

Other --

15. In your opinion, how does the text you're using measure-up?
Please check only one.

-- About Right

-- Very Good or Excellent Text

-- Needs qualitative or conceptual improvement of some topics

-- Needs more in-depth coverage of quantitative methods for some topics

-- Other --

16. What is the general direction you would like to see in future
texts? Please check only one.

-- More conceptual or qualitative treatments of topics

-- More in-depth quantitative treatments of topics
-- Other preferred direction: --

17. Some studies indicate that a shift from a quantitative emphasis
to a qualitative/conceptual emphasis may have occurred in
Operations Management textbooks over the last several years.
Do you agree with this statement? -- Yes -- No
Is such a trend desirable? -- Yes -- No

18. If you would like a copy of the final paper or results from this
research please complete the information below.

Name: --

Address: --

REFERENCES

Bongiorno, L. (October 25, 1993). Corporate America's New Lesson Plan. Business Week.

Brandyopadhyay, J. K. (First Quarter 1994). Redesigning the POM major to prepare manufacturing managers. Production and Inventory Management Journal.

Coleman, B. J. & S. J. Smith. (August 1994). A proposed typology for the production and operations management core course. Journal of Management Education, 18(3).

Doane, D. P. (May/June 1994). Assessing textbook coverage of quality topics in business education. Journal of Education for Business, 69(3).

Ducharme, R. E. & D. A. Lewis. (First Quarter, 1987). The academic/practitioner gap in production and inventory management. Production and Inventory Management.

Hammond, D. H. & S. J. Hartman. (May/June 1996). The match between undergraduate academic instruction and actual field practices. Journal of Education for Business, 71(5).

Harrison, B. & J. M. Hanebury. (Fourth Quarter, 1992). Integrating the new perspective on total quality control and production-operations management courses. Production and Inventory Management Journal.

Heizer, J.& B. Render. (Spring 2001). Operations Management (Sixth Edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Johnson, M. E. & D. F. Pyke. (Spring 2000). Introduction to the special issue on teaching supply chain management. Production and Operations Management.

Jordan, E., L. Lasdon, M. Lenard, J. Moore, S. Powell & T. Willemain. (February 1996) Report of the Operating Subcommittee of the INFORMS Business School Education Task Force. Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences.

Karuppan, C. M. & M. Karuppan (September 1999). Empirically based guidelines for developing teaching materials on the web. Business Communication Quarterly.

Nieto, M., D. Arias, B. Minguela & A. Rodriguez. (August 1999). The evolution of operations management contents: An analysis of the most relevant textbooks. Industrial Management & Data Systems.

Tillery, K. R., A. L. Rutledge & R. A. Inman. (1993). Quality management and POM textbooks: A review and assessment. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,. 10(1).

Vollmann, T. E., C. Cordon & J. Heikkila. (Spring 2000). Teaching supply chain management to business executives. Production and Operations Management.

Earl Z. Damewood, Marshall University

Joseph Abramson, Marshall University

W. Blaker Bolling, Marshall University

Table 1: Summary of Coverage Opinions

Percent of Respondents

 Intensive Moderate Light Do Not
Subject/Topic Coverage Coverage Coverage Cover

Quality Concepts 60.2 30.6 5.8 0.0
Inventory Control 53.4 37.9 5.3 0.5
QC/SPC Methods 44.7 35.4 12.1 2.9
Forecasting 38.8 39.3 11.2 6.8
JIT Concepts 35.0 44.2 17.0 0.0
Project Management 35.0 45.1 11.7 4.9
MRP 32.0 38.8 19.9 3.9
Decision Making 21.8 38.3 22.8 10.7
Capacity Planning 19.4 56.3 18.4 1.5
Productivity Measures 18.0 39.8 35.4 1.5
Order Sched./Loading 15.0 37.9 34.0 6.3
Layout Strategies 14.6 51.5 25.7 3.4
Linear Programming 10.7 26.7 28.6 27.7
Location Strategies 10.7 53.9 26.7 3.9
Queuing Models 6.3 28.2 31.6 27.7
Transportation Problem 5.3 29.1 34.5 24.8
Simulation 4.4 19.9 35.9 31.1
Learning Curves 3.4 21.8 49.5 18.0
Assignment Problem 2.4 18.9 27.7 44.7
Goal Programming 1.9 4.9 19.4 64.6
Integer Programming 0.0 3.9 20.4 68.0

Table 2: Intensive or Moderate Coverage Indicated

(Sum of Intensive % and Moderate % Responses Ranked High-to-Low)

Rank Subject/Topic Sum Percent

1 Inventory Control 91.3
2 Quality Concepts 90.8
3 QC/SPC Methods 80.1
4 Project Management 80.1
5 JIT Concepts 79.2
6 Forecasting 78.1
7 Capacity Planning 75.7
8 MRP 70.8
9 Layout Strategies 66.1
10 Location Strategies 64.6
11 Decision Making 60.1
12 Productivity Measures 57.8
13 Order Sched./Loading 52.9
14 Linear Programming 37.4
15 Queuing Models 34.5
16 Transportation Problem 34.4
17 Learning Curves 25.2
18 Simulation 24.3
19 Assignment Problem 21.3
20 Goal Programming 6.8
21 Integer Programming 3.9

Table 3: "Penned-In" Topical Responses

 Number of Percent of
 Respondents Respondents
Topic Mentioning Mentioning

Supply Chain Management 48 21.3
Operations Strategy 23 10.2
Process Planning 20 8.9
Services: Operation, 18 8.0
 Management & Scheduling
Theory of Constraints 17 7.6
Aggregate Planning 14 6.2
Product Planning and Design 13 5.8
Enterprise Resource Planning 12 5.3
Global POM Issues 11 4.9
E-Commerce 8 3.6

Table 4: Textbooks Currently Being Used

Nominal Title of
Textbook Publisher Authors Percent

Production and Irwin/McGraw-Hill Stevenson 22.2
 Operations Management
Operations Management Prentice-Hall Heizer & Render 16.0
Operations Management Irwin/McGraw-Hill Chase, Aquilano 12.4
 for Competitive & Jacobs
 Advantage
Operations Management Prentice-Hal Russell & Taylor 9.8
Operations Management: Prentice-Hall Krajewski & 6.7
 Strategy and Analysis Ritzman
Fundamentals of Irwin/McGraw-Hill Davis, Aquilano 3.6
 Operations Management & Chase
Operations Management Southwestern Gaither & 3.1
 Frazier
Other 20.0
Not Indicated 6.2