Operations Management Teaching in the United Kingdom
Des Doran
Brunel University, United Kingdom
Structured abstract
Purpose - to determine the nature and scope of Operations Management teaching in the United Kingdom and to provide educators with an overview of pedagogy, subject content, the use of technology in teaching and assessment strategies for both undergraduate and postgraduate programmes.
Design/methodology/approach – Research questions were designed to explore the nature and scope of Operations Management teaching at United Kingdom (UK) universities. An electronic survey tool was developed and sent to all university teachers identified as delivering an Operations Management module on undergraduate or postgraduate programmes and listed on the Universities UK (UUK) website. The empirical findings are based on surveys returned by 60 university Operations Management lecturers.
Findings – The findings indicate that there is a high degree of content commonality between Undergraduate and Postgraduate Operations Management modules and that Supply Chain Management and Lean Production are ranked highly by respondents whilst Project Management, Job design and Global Operations Management were regarded as less important content items. With regard to assessment strategies, Undergraduate modules are characterized by a mixture of group coursework and formal examination whilst Postgraduate modules are almost exclusively assessed via individual coursework. The use and application of technology in delivering content seems limited to content management systems (such as Blackboard), Video/DVD materials and PowerPoint delivery software. There was little evidence of the use of textbook related online resources, voting systems and mobile phone live texting.
Research limitations/implications – Whilst the study is comprehensive in terms of coverage, there are areas which were not explored which would add value to future research in this area. Such areas include content and design of learning outcomes, the impact that research has upon module content and the mode of module delivery.
Practical implications -The paper provides educators with insights from their peers on issues relating to module content, assessment strategies, the use of technology in teaching, and differences in module delivery relating to Undergraduate and Postgraduate programmes.
Originality/value -This is the first study of its type in the United Kingdom which explores the delivery of Operations Management teaching at UK Universities and as such provides useful and informative insights to those involved in the delivery and development of Operations or Operations related modules.
Key words – Operations Management, Teaching, Technology
Introduction
In 1998, Goffin set out to address two questions relating to the subject of Operations Management – (1) How is operations management taught in European business schools?, and (2) What are the trends and issues in teaching this subject? His research focussed upon 10 European Business Schools and found that there were key differences in course content, teaching methods, assessment strategies, integration and perceptions of Operations Management modules. This study seeks to provide a more substantive view of Operations Management teaching in the UK by surveying all Universities that deliver programmes at both Undergraduate and Postgraduate levels. Such an approach provides the opportunity for Operations Management lecturers to gain insights from their peers on issues relating to module content, assessment strategies, the use of technology in teaching and differences in module delivery relating to both Undergraduate and Postgraduate programmes.
The historical development of Operations Management (OM) was explored by Buffa (1982), who noted that the fifties was a period of looseness for the discipline and was generally synonymous with industrial management, whilst the sixties saw the beginning of the Management Science/Operations Research phase which served to provide a clear context for the study of Operations Management issues. From the eighties the discipline was widely regarded as a key functional field of management and has continued to develop the concepts, tools and techniques required to improve the competitiveness of organizations competing on a global basis. The development of Operations Management as a core module on both Undergraduate and Postgraduate business degrees has mirrored the development of the discipline, and has evolved to reflect changes in the transformation of goods, the increased use of technology, the greater use of external contractors, increased global competition and the almost universal application of lean production techniques and practices (Neely, 1993; Pilkington & Meredith, 2009). In addition, researchers have focused on the need to make OM more relevant to the “new economy” (Hayes, 2002), to recognize the interface between OM and Human Resources Management (Boudreau et al, 2003) and to consider the need to ensure sustainable operations management practices and procedures (Kleindorfer, Singhal & Wassenhove, 2005).
Reflecting the dynamic nature of the Operations Management domain, academics and practitioners have researched the challenges that such changes impose upon those teaching the subject. Much of the research in Europe has tended to focus upon aligning OM teaching to the needs of industry (Hill, 1986, 1987; Nicholson, 1997), manufacturing policy (Voss, 1984 and Hill, 1987), teaching Operations Management on Executive programmes (Goffin, 1998), the role of simulations and technology (Smith, 1989; Richardson, 2000; van der Zee & Slomp, 2009), POM teaching in Europe (Machuca & Luque, 2003), the importance of supply chain management (Kaminsky et al, 2000; Kopczak & Fransoo, 2000) and the growing importance of service industries in OM teaching (Armistead et al, 1986; Johnston, 1999).
Research in the United States and has tended to focus upon proposals for improving operations management teaching (Lovejoy, 1998; Spearman & Hopp, 1998; Miller & Arnold, 1998), the development of introductory Production/Operations Management (POM) programmes (Leschke, 1998), the pedagogical challenges facing POMS teachers (Starr, 1997) and the role of technology in teaching POM (Roth et al, 1997)). The focus on technology in operations has been twofold – (1) how has technology changed operations and (2) how has technology changed the way in which operations management is taught and delivered? (Seal & Przasnyski, 2001; Chwif & Sturlini, 2003; Shtub, 2001). Focusing upon the latter, Garrison & Kanuka (2004) discuss the transformative aspects of ‘blended learning’ (integrating e-learning techniques, including online delivery of materials through web pages, discussion boards and/or email with traditional teaching methods including lectures, in-person discussions, seminars, or tutorials) in higher education and conclude that such an approach can enhance both the effectiveness and efficiency of meaningful learning experiences. This theme has also been explored by Kennedy et al (2008) who studied the use of technology for incoming first-year University students and found that whilst students are “tech savvy”, the pattern of access and use of a range of other technologies demonstrated considerable variation. The research concluded that the majority of students want to use the web to search for information for their studies, to access university services and to use a portal as a gateway to learning material and that they increasingly bring to the University a set of general expectations relating to access, convenience and connectedness. In a similar vein, Enyon (2008) compared the use of technology in one ‘old’ university and one ‘new’ university in England and found that whilst there may be great potential for the use of technology in teaching the adoption is not straightforward and potential benefits may be marginal or difficult to achieve because of poor capacity planning and a lack of advance strategic thinking/preparedness for the extra burden that new technologies often create. The need for strategic thinking when planning the effective introduction of teaching technologies is a theme examined by Stensaker et al (2007) who concluded that it is vital to link human resource management with technology initiatives in order to maximize the potential benefits associated with teaching technologies and that failure to do so is likely to result in poor take up by academics and frustration amongst students who come to a University with a high expectation level regarding the application and use of technology in teaching, learning and pastoral support.
Methodology
Research questions
The paper seeks to address the following research questions
RQ1What constitutes Operations Management teaching and assessment within UK Universities? This is examined via multi-faceted questions relating to module content and assessment
RQ2What role does technology play in terms of the delivery and teaching of Operations Management? As teachers we are constantly exposed to innovative ways of delivering content and are encouraged to explore the role of technology in our teaching. This research question has been included in order to explore the role that technology plays in terms of the delivery of Operations Management teaching
RQ3What, if any, differences exist between undergraduate and postgraduate Operations Management Modules? This question accommodates the opportunity to explore whether there is commonality of approach or whether there are differences between undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in terms of subject content, use of technology in teaching and assessment strategies.
Research design
To address the above research questions, an electronic survey was designed using a survey software tool. This online survey format was chosen due to its time efficiency, convenient access and ease of use by the survey respondents in diverse locations. The survey was developed and data was collected in two phases:
Phase one - an exploratory study including an initial survey was sent to ten 10 randomly selected Universities to test the structure and content of the questionnaire and to incorporate suggestions and recommendations for improvement. All ten respondents provided detailed feedback which was used to improve and extend the survey instrument.
Phase two –all Universities listed on the Universities UK (UUK) website that included Operations Management (or variants) modules on their undergraduate or postgraduate programmes were searched and personalized e-mails (providing a direct link to the online questionnaire) were sent to the staff responsible for teaching these modules. This intensive process resulted in a total of 60 respondents out of the 110 staff members contacted, yielding a response rate of 54.5%.
Results
60 surveys were completed and returned during the period July to September 2010. Of this total, 19 per cent of respondents taught OM at undergraduate level only and 30 per cent taught at postgraduate level only; the remaining 51 per cent of respondents indicated that they taught on both undergraduate and postgraduate OM modules. To avoid questionnaire complexity, respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire by referring to undergraduate or postgraduate only.
42 per cent of respondents chose to address the delivery of undergraduate modules and the remaining 58 per cent of respondents elected to focus on the delivery of OM on postgraduate modules delivered on MBA and MSc programmes.
To address the above research questions the findings will be commence with an examination of results relating to the content of OM modules taught in UK Universities which will be followed by an examination of the role of technology in terms of teaching and delivery. The final section will explore assessment strategies, including the use of case studies, examinations and coursework.
Module Content
For many years the standard textbook used for OM modules on both undergraduate and postgraduate programmes has been ‘Operations Management’ by Nigel Slack, Stuart Chambers and Bob Johnston. Their textbook is regarded as the primary source of OM material and is still the bestselling OM textbook in the UK. Indeed, 70 per cent of survey respondents stated that they used this book as the recommended textbook on their modules. In order to determine the content of OM modules the authors reviewed the content of the Slack, Chambers & Johnston text and other popular OM textbooks listed on Amazon.co.uk. This review provided an overview of textbook content which was used for questions relating to module content (Table I).
Table I – Module Content
Content areaThe role of Operations Management
Operations Strategy
Process design
Job design and work organisation
Capacity management and control
Inventory management
Lean operations and JIT
Supply Chain Management
Project planning and management
Business process improvement techniques and tools
Global Operations Management
Source: Authors
Respondents were asked firstly to state which of these content areas were included in their modules (Table II and Figure I) and what importance they attached to each of the content areas using a standard Likert scale with a range from “very important” through to “of little importance” or “of no importance” (Table III).
Table II – Use and ranking of content areas
Content area / Postgraduate / Undergraduate / All / Ranking (All)The role of Operations Management / 97% (1) / 88% (3) / 93% / 1
Operations Strategy / 91% (3) / 84% (5) / 88% / 3
Process design / 81% (6) / 96% (1) / 88% / 3
Job design and work organisation / 47% (9) / 56% (8) / 51% / 7
Capacity management and control / 88% (4) / 80% (6) / 84% / 4
Inventory management / 84% (5) / 68% (7) / 77% / 5
Lean operations and JIT / 94 % (2) / 92% (2) / 93% / 1
Supply Chain Management / 94 % (2) / 88% (4) / 91% / 2
Project planning and management / 53% (8) / 48% (9) / 51% / 7
Business process improvement techniques and tools / 60 % (7) / 84% (5) / 70% / 6
Global Operations Management / 44% (10) / 24% (10) / 35% / 8
Ranking of content areas shown in parentheses
Figure I – Use of Content areas
Table III- Importance of content areas
very important / Of some importance / Of little importance or no importance
The role of Operations Management / PG : 92%
UG : 76%
ALL : 84% / PG : 6%
UG : 12%
ALL : 9% / PG : 3%
UG : 12%
ALL : 7%
Operations Strategy / PG : 85%
UG : 72%
ALL : 79% / PG : 9%
UG : 24%
ALL : 16% / PG : 6%
UG : 4%
ALL : 5%
Process design / PG : 78%
UG : 84%
ALL : 81 % / PG : 13%
UG : 8%
ALL : 10% / PG : 9%
UG : 8%
ALL : 9%
Job design and work organisation / PG : 34%
UG : 60%
ALL : 46% / PG : 28%
UG : 16%
ALL : 22% / PG : 38%
UG : 24 %
ALL : 32%
Capacity management and control / PG : 66%
UG : 72%
ALL : 68% / PG : 31%
UG : 12%
ALL : 23% / PG : 3%
UG : 16%
ALL : 9%
Inventory Management / PG : 68%
UG : 60%
ALL : 65% / PG : 19%
UG : 16%
ALL : 17% / PG : 13%
UG : 24%
ALL : 18%
Lean operations and JIT / PG : 84%
UG : 84%
ALL : 84% / PG : 13%
UG : 8%
ALL : 11% / PG : 3%
UG : 8%
ALL : 5%
Supply Chain Management / PG : 84%
UG : 84%
ALL : 84% / PG : 13%
UG : 8%
ALL : 11% / PG : 3%
UG : 8%
ALL : 5%
Project planning and Management / PG : 50 %
UG : 40%
ALL : 46% / PG : 13%
UG : 20%
ALL : 15% / PG : 37 %
UG : 40%
ALL : 39%
Business Process Improvement Techniques and Tools / PG : 59%
UG : 76%
ALL : 67% / PG : 22%
UG : 12%
ALL : 17% / PG : 19%
UG : 12%
ALL : 16%
Global Operations Management / PG : 41%
UG : 36%
ALL : 39% / PG : 18%
UG : 16%
ALL : 17% / PG : 41 %
UG : 48 %
ALL : 44%
Respondents were also given the opportunity to add any content areas that were not included on the list. There were a total of 21 responses and these responses were classified as Quality, Service and Technology. By far the most popular of these responses related to Quality (12 responses) and included Quality and Sustainability and Quality Management. Where Service was mentioned (9 responses) this included reference to Service Quality, Service Measurement, Service Operations, Servitization and Service Design. Responses citing Technology (7 responses) included Process Technology, Technology Transfer and Information Systems.
Assessment Strategy
Section two of the questionnaire sought to explore the nature, scope and extent of assessment strategies used on OM modules in order to gain insights into what is regarded as an appropriate means of assessing OM students.Respondents were asked to describe their method of student assessment from a number of options (Table IV), provide the word count for the primary form of individual assessment (Table V) and to describe the characteristics of formal examinations (Table VI). Overall, responses to assessment questions indicate that at both Postgraduate and Undergraduate levels a mixture of individual coursework and formal examination is the most popular assessment strategy followed by 100% individual coursework. Very few respondents use 100% formal examination as the primary means of assessment although there appears to be a greater prevalence for such a strategy on Undergraduate programmes. Where examination was used the majority of responses at both Postgraduate and Undergraduate levels include six questions of which three are compulsory. The standard length of examination is two hours. Where case studies are used in examinations 18.5% of Postgraduate responses and 16% of Undergraduate responses stated that they provide case studies in advance of the examination.
Table IV - Method of student assessment
Postgraduate / Undergraduate / All100% individual coursework / 38% / 24% / 32%
100% group coursework / 0 % / 0% / 0%
A mixture of coursework and formal examination / 47% / 48% / 47%
100% formal examination / 9% / 24% / 16%
Other / 6% / 4% / 5%
“Other” responses included the use of multiple assignments, tutorial assessment, a combination of coursework, group case presentation and multi-choice test, and 100% online assessment.
Table V - Word count breakdown for the primary form of individual assessment
Postgraduate / Undergraduate / All1500-3000 words / 28% / 44% / 35%
3000-4000 words / 41% / 8% / 26%
>4000 words / 9% / 0% / 5%
Other / 22% / 48% / 34%
“Other” responses included group assignments with 4000 word limit, the use of multiple moodle tests and formal examination with no word count.
Table VI – Characteristics of Formal Examination
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / OtherNo. of questions / PG 0.0%
UG 0.0% / PG 14.3%
UG 13.6% / PG 19.0%
UG 18.2% / PG 9.5%
UG 4.5% / PG 9.5%
UG 18.2% / PG 38.1%
UG 36.4% / PG 9.5%
UG 9.1%
No. of compulsory questions / PG 12.5%
UG 17.6% / PG 0.0%
UG 5.9% / PG 31.3%
UG 29.4% / PG 18.0%
UG 11.8% / PG 0.0%
UG 0.0% / PG 6.3%
UG 5.9% / PG 31.3%
UG 9.4%
Length of examination (hours) / PG 4.3%
UG 0.0% / PG 60.9%
UG 60.9% / PG 34.8%
UG 30.4% / -
- / -
- / -
- / PG 0.0%
UG10.0%
“Other” responses ranged from 70 to 20 multiple choice questions, a choice of four questions from 12, a mixture of compulsory and multiple choice questions and a mixture of multiple choice questions, short answer questions and long answer questions.Respondents were also asked whether the formal examination involved the use of case studies provided in advance of the examination. 18.5% of Postgraduates and 16% of Undergraduate responses stated that case studies were provided in advance.
Technology Use
Our third research question addressed the use of teaching technology for supporting/enhancing the delivery of OM modules. Respondents were asked rank technology used for delivering OM modules using a standard 7 point Likert scale from “Very important” through to “Do not use”. The options ranged from the more common software teaching support tools (PowerPoint and Blackboard) through to the more technically cutting edge tools (Voting systems and Mobile phone live texting). The results are presented in Table VII and Figure II.
Table VII: Perceived importance/use of various teaching technologies
PowerPoint presentations / Blackboard / Textbook related online resources / Video/DVD materials / Online business simulations / Voting systems / Mobile phone live textingVery important
/Important / PG: 88%
UG: 92%
ALL: 89% / PG: 63%
UG: 80%
ALL: 70% / PG: 50%
UG: 48%
ALL: 49% / PG: 56%
UG: 52%
ALL: 54% / PG: 16%
UG: 16%
ALL: 16% / PG: 3%
UG: 8%
ALL: 5% / PG: 3%
UG: 0%
ALL: 2%
Of some importance / PG: 6%
UG: 8%
ALL: 7% / PG: 19%
UG: 8%
ALL: 14% / PG: 28%
UG: 40%
ALL: 33% / PG: 34%
UG: 28%
ALL: 32% / PG: 28%
UG: 12%
ALL: 21% / PG: 6%
UG: 12%
ALL: 9% / PG: 3%
UG: 8%
ALL: 5%
Not important/
do not use / PG: 6%
UG: 0%
ALL: 4% / PG: 19%
UG: 12%
ALL: 16% / PG: 22%
UG: 12%
ALL: 18% / PG: 9%
UG: 20%
ALL: 14% / PG: 56%
UG: 72%
ALL: 63% / PG: 91%
UG: 80%
ALL: 86% / PG: 94%
UG: 92%
ALL: 93%
Figure II - Percentage of respondents who do not give any importance to or do not use teaching technology tools