Are you planning to integrate process modeling in your supply chain curricula? I am currently teaching a new course about supply chain process re-engineering at Copenhagen Business School. As part of a group work, the task of the students is to model processes between supply chain partners using the standard Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN). Initially, I thought about letting the students model the processes using PowerPoint or Visio, but then I realized that this isn’t the most appropriate way for such a group task. Then, I found a web-based process modeling platform that turns out to be ideal for my course. It is part of the BPM Academic Initiative of Signavio. I use the BPMN teaching packages in my course and offer my students the possibility of practical training with Signavio’s Process Editor. I have opened up a collaborative workspace and invited my students by sending an invitation link. No installation is required, it is free of charge.
There still seems to be much confusion about the terms “logistics” and “supply chain management”. Much like accounting, SCM takes a cross-functional perspective within an organization (this includes purchasing, R&D, marketing, sales, IT, and – logistics), but goes beyond the first and second tiers on both the supplier and customer sides. Therefore, supply chain managers are typically concerned with managing the relationships with channel partners. SCM relates to questions like: How can the bullwhip effect be avoided? How can production be ensured if a supplier’s supplier’s plant burns down? How can CO2 emissions of a product be measured, including the emissions of a supplier’s supplier’s plant, an LSP’s trucks, and disposal by consumers? What alternative types of governance are available to coordinate with a second-tier supplier or a retailer, if a direct contract with them is impossible (or you don’t even know who they are)? A logistics manager might ask some of these questions, too, but isn’t she mainly concerned with managing the flow and storage of goods and services?
In my recent post, I wrote that the CSCMP’s Educators’ Conference is a forum to catch the latest news from our field. This year, among these news was the announcement of the new Editors-in-Chief for the Journal of Business Logistics. In this guest post, Carl Marcus Wallenburg, one of the European Editors of the journal, provides additional information.
At this year’s CSCMP’s Educators’ Conference the new incoming Editors-in-Chief of the Journal of Business Logistics (JBL) were announced. Starting January 2016, Walter Zinn and Thomas Goldsby, both Professors at The Ohio State University (OSU), will be in charge of this premier supply chain journal. Before that the two will work closely with the current editors Matthew Waller (University of Arkansas) and Stan Fawcett (Weber State University) to facilitate a smooth transition to the new editorial team. I will continue to support the journal and new editors in my function as European Editor. One cornerstone of our European activities is the European Research Seminar (ERS) which I co-chair together with Britta Gammelgaard from Copenhagen Business School, who also serves as European Editor. Next year’s ERS will be held in Copenhagen on April 23 and 24, 2015.
Carl Marcus Wallenburg is a chaired professor at WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, where he serves as Director of the Kühne-Institute for Logistics Management.
“Everything has to be measurable!” seems to be the new academic doctrine. In the current issue of BizEd Magazine, Sharon Shinn delivers a detailed description of the problems associated with measuring scholarly impact. She concludes: “Tenure-track faculty continue to absorb responsibilities that take time away from conducting research, but the number of A-journal publications is still the primary metric that is considered in faculty evaluations. And that’s a problem still looking for an answer.” If A-journal publications are the primary metric, this could, for example, also prevent us from writing a good book (writing it can take several years!), even though it might be read all over the world. A key reason why people argue for exactly the kinds of rankings Shinn critiques is that they avoid the need for argument between competing factions with different views. Metrics are really useful in support of decisions. But the problems start when they are made.