Supply Chain Frontiers Issue #25. Read all articles in this issue
To get a sense of how far the supply chain profession has come in recent years, look no further than its educational programs. When MIT-CTL’s Master of Engineering in Logistics (MLOG) program was launched 10 years ago it set a new standard for supply chain education, and since then has inspired the creation of dozens of similar programs worldwide. Frontiers asked Chris Caplice, MIT-CTL Executive Director, to review the development of MLOG and the implications for the profession.
In the 10 years since MIT-CTL introduced MLOG how has the program helped the supply chain profession, and what are its most important achievements?
MLOG’s biggest achievement is the 231 professionals who have graduated from the program and now manage supply chains in various capacities across a broad spectrum of industries. The long list of companies includes multi-nationals such as Amazon, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dell, IBM, Pepsi, Sony, SAP, and Shell, and many of these graduates are now leaders in their respective organizations.
The program has helped the profession by highlighting the need for renaissance supply chain leaders who have three core strengths. The first is analytical, problem-solving capabilities. The second strength is understanding how solutions must tie into technology – the IT side of the equation. The third and most important strength is the capability to lead people across the supply chain. I emphasize the latter one because in supply chain, like most business functions, it’s the people who matter the most. Supply chain professionals in any role need to know how to work with people from different geographies, time zones, cultures and personalities. Being able to interact successfully with both the marketing team and the supply chain planning team is a challenge that supply chain leaders must meet.
I think a second notable achievement is that programs similar to, if not directly based on, MLOG are starting to pop up all over the world. Just this year, for example, Dokuz Eylul University in Izmir Turkey has established the Master of Science in Logistics Engineering program modeled directly on the MLOG program.
How has the program’s content and student intake evolved, and can you say how its evolutionary path reflects that of the profession as a whole?
We are constantly adjusting the curriculum to keep it up to date. The program has always been heavy on problem solving and technology, but leadership education has become much stronger over the last four years. Dr. Shalom Saar has been instrumental in designing and teaching a series of workshops that help students understand their own leadership strengths and weaknesses in a course called Know Thyself. Following that is a course called Know Thy Team that explores how to lead and work in various team situations. This leadership track has been one of the most popular and impactful aspects of the MLOG curriculum over the last few years.
As far as the type of students who are admitted, we are always on the lookout for good candidates but we have never strayed too far from our core objectives: to recruit early to mid-career students who are professionals, and to achieve a 50/50 split between US and non-US recruits. The type of student we are looking for really hasn’t changed that much over the last decade.
Looking at supply chain education today, how can educators improve their product, and how can industry play a part in making sure that the programs meet their needs?
I believe that educators need to focus on educating rather than training. For example, training students to use a specific type of software or classify a shipment will not teach them the change management skills they need to manage a modern supply chain. While these tasks are important, a student cannot afford to be tied to any one system or technology in today’s competitive environment. The students need to understand the fundamentals of problem solving, technology, and leadership, so that even when the situation changes, they will be able to make intelligent and informed decisions. Fundamentals do not change.
Also, educators in professional programs need to be cautious about making programs too theoretical. It’s very tempting to teach how to find the optimal safety stock levels for multi-echelon inventory, but what most supply chain professionals really need are basic rules of thumb. On the other hand, there has to be some science in these programs. What’s needed is a balance between the two, but I think that some programs lean too much toward one side or the other.
I believe that in many cases, industry is doing more to help educate professionals in supply chain than the educators are! Take the need for a new breed of professional. Companies are pushing hard for renaissance-type managers, because they recognize that supply chain has become a bridging function between trading partners, divisions and regions; supply chain is the glue that holds organization together. But industry can still help by presenting more examples of the challenges managers face and by getting more involved with educators and graduate programs.
What important challenges do you see for supply chain educators over the next 10 years, and what skills/qualifications will be in demand?
The profession is changing so the challenge is how to stay ahead of the curve. Frequently it is the practitioners who are forging ahead. Look at what Jim Kellso is doing at Intel, where career paths for supply chain professionals are being redefined. Jim is going to touch on that in his presentation at MIT-CTL’s Crossroads conference on March 27, 2008 at MIT. That initiative did not come from the universities; it came from companies. The profession is evolving and its owners are not necessarily the academics. To get tenure in academia you have to specialize and become the expert in a niche area. In other words, you have to be in a silo. In practice, however, supply chain professionals more and more must be generalists; able to work with all functional areas of a firm, as well as its customers and vendors. There is a natural conflict there.
But probably the most important challenge for educators is how to produce well-rounded individuals who not only have the analytical ability to solve a complex problem, but also the ability to communicate with co-workers.
I think there will be more informal, continuing education, as part of a wider portfolio of educational offerings. This is not a new message, but one that has become more urgent given the pace of change in the profession.