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

RQ1 What constitutes Operations Management teaching and assessment within UK Universities? This is examined via multi-faceted questions relating to module content and assessment

RQ2 What 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

RQ3 What, 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

Important orvery 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 All

100% 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%UG 10.0%

“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 texting

Very 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

The results suggest that the most popular forms of teaching technologies are PowerPoint and Blackboard, although Blackboard appears to be less popular on Postgraduate programmes. Interestingly, the use of textbook related online resources was ranked as Very Important/Important by only 49% of respondents whilst only 54% of respondents ranked video/DVD materials as Very Important/Important; surprisingly 20% of respondents indicated that Video/DVD material was Not Important/do not use. Perhaps less surprising is the low use of online business simulations, voting systems and mobile phone live texting.

Discussion

There has been very little written about the teaching Operations Management in the UK and what has been written is dated and does not reflect current thinking in the field. This study sheds some light on current thinking in the field of Operations Management, particularly in terms of subject content, assessment strategies and the role of technology as a tool to enhance the teaching of this important subject. The findings may provide some educators with confirmation that what they are delivering on their respective modules mirrors the practices adopted by other University lecturers. Others may view the findings as at odds with their own preference for content, assessment strategy and use of technology. However, the findings reported above do not attempt to suggest that there is a right way of delivering OM. Indeed the findings are a first attempt at establishing what is happening in the field of Operations Management and in so doing sets the scene for a wider debate on how we as educators do what we do and how we may improve our effectiveness. The first research question sought to explore the content of Operations Management modules. Whilst the role of operations management is clearly the foundation for delivering the rest of the topics outlined in a typical OM module it is interesting to note that Operations Strategy, Supply Chain Management and Lean Production featured as highly ranked content areas whilst Job design and Work organisation, Global Operations and Project Management were all regarded as peripheral content areas. The second element of research question one explored assessment and found that there is a degree of commonality in terms of assessment modes although the use of 100% individual coursework is used more widely on postgraduate programmes whilst the use of formal examinations is used more extensively on undergraduate programmes. This may be due to the time/resources available for both educators and students on such programmes (particularly part-time programmes).

The results of this survey suggest that we as educators have not particularly embraced the technologies that are available and seem reluctant to move beyond the use of PowerPoint and Blackboard in support of the delivery and assessment of Operations Management. Clearly this is not the case in all Universities and there were some examples of the sophisticated use and application of cutting edge technologies. Whilst the benefits of ‘blended learning’ (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004) and the need to develop a connected approach to the introduction of new technologies for supporting educators have been well documented (Kennedy et al, 2008) the reality of technology in teaching is that there is a reluctance to embrace such technology.

When Buffa (1982) explored the historical development he stated that 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 organisations. This is still the case nearly thirty years later. What constitutes Operations Management teaching today is a focus upon supply chain management and lean production techniques backed by an increasing service emphasis and a focus upon delivering quality services and products.

in the UK It is also interesting to note the key differences that exist in the content delivered on Postgraduate and Undergraduate programmes.

Table VIII – Summary of Content, assessment and use of technology

Postgraduate Undergraduate

Key content areas 1. The role of Operations Management

2. Lean Operations & JIT

3. Supply Chain Management

4. Capacity Management & Control

5. Inventory Management

1. Process Design

2. Lean Operations & JIT

3. The role of Operations Management

4. Supply Chain Management

5. Operations Strategy

Primary form of Assessment 1. A mixture of coursework (3000-4000 words) and formal examination (2 hour duration, 3 compulsory questions)

1. A mixture of coursework (primarily Group coursework) and formal examination (2 hour duration, 6 questions, 3 compulsory)

Role of technology 1. PowerPoint Presentations

2. Blackboard

3. Video/DVD Materials

1. PowerPoint Presentations

2. Blackboard

3. Video/DVD Materials

References

Armistead, C., Johnston, R & Voss, C. (1986). International Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 21-29.Buffa, E. (1982). Research in Operations Management, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-7.Chwif, L & Sturlini, R. (2003). Simulation models as an aid for the teaching and learning process in Operations Management, Proceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference.Enyon, R. (2008). The use of the world wide web in learning and teaching in higher education: reality and rhetoric, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol. 45, Issue 1, pp. 15-23Garrison, D & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, pp. 95-105.Goffin, K. (1998).Operations Management Teaching on European MBA Programmes, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 424-451,Hayes, R. (2002). Challenges posed to Operations Management by the “New Economy”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 21-32.Hill, T. (1986). Teaching manufacturing strategy. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 6(3), 10–20Hill, T. (1987) Teaching and Research Directions in Production/Operations Management: The Manufacturing Sector, International Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 7, No. 4. Johnston, R. (1999). Service operations management: return to roots, International Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19, No 2, pp. 104-124.Kaminsky, P., Simchi-Levi, D., Simchi-Levi, E. (2000). Designing and managing the supply chain. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, p. 321.Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Churchward, A & Gray, K. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australsaian Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 24, Issue 1, pp. 108-122.Kleindorfer, P., Singhal, K & Wassenhove, L. (2005). Sustainable Operations Management, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 14, No. 4, Winter, pp. 482-492.Kopczak, L & Fransoo, J. (2000). Teaching Supply Chain Management Through Global Projects with Global Project Teams, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 9, No.1, Spring, pp. 91-104.Leschke, J. (1998). A new paradigm for teaching introductory production/operations management, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 7, No. 2, Summer, pp. 146-159.Lovejoy, W. (1998). Integrated Operations: A proposal for Operations Management Teaching and Research, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 7, No. 2, Summer, pp. 106-124.

Machuca, J & Luque, A. (2003). An empirical study of POM teaching in Spanish universities (I): content of POM courses, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23, No.1, pp. 15-43Miller, J and Arnold, P. (1998). POM Teaching and Research in the 21 st Century, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 99-105.Neely, A. (1993). Production/Operations Management: Research Process and Content during the 1980s, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 13, No.1, pp. 5-18.Nicholson, A. (1997).Bringing management reality into the classroom – the development of interactive learning, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 438-451.Pilkington, A & Meredith, J. (2009). The evolution of the intellectual structure of operations management – 1980-2006: A citation/co-citation analysis, Journal of Operations Management, 27, pp. 185-202.Richardson, O. (2000). Developing and Using a Case Study on the World Wide Web, Journal of Educational Media, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 107-114.Roth, A., Gray A., Singhal, J & Singhal, K. (1997). International Technology and Operations Management: Resource Toolkit for Research and Teaching, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 6, Issue 2, pp. 167 – 187Seal, K & Przasnyski, Z. (2001). Using the World Wide Web for teaching improvement, Computers & Education, 36, pp. 33-40.Shtub, A. (2001). A framework for teaching and training in the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) era, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 39, No.3, pp. 567-576.Slack, N., Chambers, S & Johnston, R. (2007). Operations Management, 5th Edition, FT Prentice Hall.Smith, D. (1989). The Use of Microcomputer based Simulation Models in the Teaching of Operations Management, International Journal of Operations Management, 10, 5, pp. 5-14.Spearman, M & Hopp, W. (1998). Teaching Operations Management from a Science of Manufacturing, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 7, No. 2, Summer, pp. 132-145.Starr, M. (1997). Pedagogical Challenge: Teaching International Production and Operations Management Courses, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 6, No.2, Summer, pp. 114-121.Stensaker, B., Maassen, P., Borgan, M., Oftebro, M & Karseth, B. (2007). Use, updating and integration of ICT in higher education: Linking purpose, people and pedagogy, Higher Education, Vol. 54, pp. 417-433.Van der Zee, D & Slomp, J (2009). Simulation as a tool for gaming and training in operations management – a case study, Journal of Simulation, 3, pp. 17-28.Voss, C. (1984). Production/Operations Management – A Key Discipline and Area for Research, Omega International Journal of Management Science, Vol.1, pp. 309-319.