2016 Iwan Vanany Ahmad Syamil Teaching Supply Chain Management Using An Innovative Practical Game

International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management
Volume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2016
Teaching Supply Chain Management

Using an Innovative Practical Game
Iwan Vanany, Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology (ITS), Surabaya, Indonesia
Ahmad Syamil, Bina Nusantara (Binus) University, Jakarta, Indonesia
ABSTRACT
This paper presents a new practical game which helps undergraduate students to understand how the
concept of supply chain management (SCM) works. The game uses a simple supply chain structure
incorporating three entities of the supply chain: supplier, plant, and customer. The game employs
a set of toy building blocks such as LEGO® blocks and has the rules of the game, responsibility
of each player, product descriptions and bill of materials. This competitive game is used supply
chain cost as the measuring to determine the winner team of the game and the Bloom’s taxonomy
as guidelines to develop the assessment testing based on the learning objectives of courses. This
proposed board game has been tested by many undergraduate students who are taking SCM and
Logistics Management courses. The results show that the students who played the game reached
the higher scores of assessment testing than students who didn’t play the game. Furthermore, most
students have also positive view about this game.
Keywords
Board Game, Logistics Management, Supply Chain Cost, Supply Chain Games, Supply Chain Management,
Teaching Method
INTRODUCTION
The development of a teaching method for supply chain management (SCM) courses is an issue that
has been raised in the academic SCM community. This issue has been discussed in several academic
meetings such as the INFORMS meeting in 1995 and the14th Annual North American Research
and Teaching Symposium on Purchasing and Supply Chain Management in 2003. Moreover, it has
become a special issue in several academic journals, such as Production and Operation Management
(POMS) Journal in 2000, INFORMS Transactions on Education in 2006, Operations and Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal (OSCM) in 2009. Many lecturers in business and engineering
schools using the supply chain (SC) games (e.g., Beer Games and Supply Chain Simulator) to support
their teaching and learning for SCM courses.
Some SC games can be played on computer, or with a board and physical components (Zeng
and Johnson, 2009). The Beer Distribution Game (Beer Game) is arguably the most famous teaching
method of the SC game. It simulates material and information flows by computer among four entities
in a serial supply chain: factory, distributor, wholesaler, and retailer. Lee et al (1997) believe that
the main benefit of the Beer Game is to help students understand the existence and characteristics of
the ‘bullwhip effect’. Other SC games are predominantly computer based and usually need relevant
knowledge and from pre-requisite courses (Zeng and Johnson, 2009). However, for undergraduate
students who have never been explored the SCM subject find difficultly correlating SCM knowledge
with its practical usage as it tends to be complex and uncertain. Therefore, it is still necessary to
develop new SC games for the undergraduate level.
DOI: 10.4018/IJISSCM.2016100105
Copyright © 2016, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
82
The game presented in this paper was played in some classes in SCM and a logistics management
course at Industrial Engineering departments in one of Indonesia’s public universities which was
certified by AUN and ABET accreditation. The motivation behind the development of this game
was to provide ‘real work’ as a player in supply chain entities for undergraduate students who did
not have experience of handling SCM practices. The LEGO® toy building blocks as well as paper
forms such as purchase and delivery orders, and others forms, are used to play the game. The Bloom’s
taxonomy a popular learning and assessing taxonomy is also used to create the learning objectives
of the game and its assessment testing.
In section 2, literature review is presented. Sections 3 is the game design to explore the game’s
descriptions, player’s responsibilities, products descriptions, and bill of materials, the rubric for
measuring team performance, the rules of the game, and the learning objectives. In section 4, the
game’s usage in class and its validity are presented to show the scores of learning assessment for all
students (both those who played the game and those who did not play the game), the perceptions and
comments of students who played the games, and interview results for the winning and losing teams.
Finally, the discussions and conclusions are presented in section 5.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The use of games as experiential educational tools to support learning in some university courses
including supply chain management and logistics management is becoming accepted by lecturers.
Kolb (1984) believes that an experiential learning approach could be used to support transition from
conceptual theories to practice and reflection. Ruben (1999) pointed out that games as experience-
based learning have the potential to ‘make up’ for traditional learning. Courses using board games
can be beneficial to lecturers both giving immediate student feedback as well as allowing students
the freedom to explore the concepts of the SCM theory (Gee (2003); Squire (2003); and Echeverria
(2011)).
Many discussions for improving SCM courses, to revise the contents and to develop teaching
methods and tools have been conducted. Much research has been carried out to evaluate and design
innovative ways for teaching SCM. Table 1 shows 24 articles related to teaching method for SCM
based on the purpose and focus. The focus is either on (A) the curriculum (content) or (B) teaching
method. A curriculum is the content of a course, whereas teaching methods are the methods and
equipment (hardware and or software) needed to achieve the teaching objectives. The teaching methods
are divided into two categories (1) simulations and (2) practical games. Simulation game are a method
of teaching that use the software to understand the concepts of the theories. Practical games use
experiential work particularly with equipment in a laboratory which students can conduct themselves.
Most papers related to teaching SCM investigate the teaching methods and tools. It implies that
teaching methods and tools are still interesting for researchers. Simulation games, particularly the
Beer Game, are often used as teaching tools. However, there are a few articles about developing a
practical game as a teaching tool. Table 1 suggests that research in the area of supply chain pedagogy
is an interesting field. Games have been considered as a popular alternative way of the more traditional
lecturing model. Many games designed by educators are computer-based which makes it less interactive
and possibly less fun for students. Furthermore, Zeng and Johnson (2009) suggested that several
games are inappropriate for the first-time learners in a SCM course. For undergraduate students with
no hands on experience in SCM, it is important to play a game that provides a more realistic situation
The Beer Game simulation is a popular SC game that was developed by MIT Sloan School of
Management in 1960s. Academics use the game to convey supply chain concepts (Sparling, 2002)
83
Table 1. Summary of previous research on teaching SCM
No Authors Year The purpose of research Topic area
Kaminsky and Simchi- to develop a new computerized beer games as a tool for teaching the B (Beer game
1 1998
Levi value of integrating SCM simulation)
to propose a simulation game designed to teach service-oriented SCM

2 Anderson and Morrice 2000 B (Simulation game)
principle. It tests whether managers use them effectively as well
to discuss an experiments and experiences with the use of SCM software B (Software
3 Campbell, et al. 2000
called CAPS logistics software application)
Chen and to develop a new game of stationary beer game that models the material B (Beer game
4 2000
Samroengraja and information flows in a production-distribution channel simulation)
B (Beer game
5 Jacobs 2000 to investigate the implementation of Beer distribution games in internet
simulation)
to propose a framework for teaching SCM which are supported by A (curriculum

6 Johnson and Pyke 2000
material and pedagogy framework)
7 Kopczak and Fransoo 2000 to develop teaching SCM through a global project. A(model)
to develop a Siemens brief case game supply chain simulator to provide

8 Mehring 2000 B (Simulation game)
a practical setting for experimental learning exercise about supply chain
9 Vollman, et al 2000 to investigate four issues of teaching SCM to business executives A (Teaching)
to develop a strategy for teaching SCM. It modifies Beer Game B (Beer game
10 Sparling 2002
simulation and provides a tool with an advanced simulation. simulation)
A (curriculum
11 Chandra and Kumar 2006 to develop models and methods for supply chain design curriculum
development)
to describe the well-known Shapley Value concept as a cooperative

12 Reyes 2006 game theory can be as supply chain management strategy teaching tools B (game theory)
that can be used to solve transhipment problems.
to investigate how to use web-based learning system to assist the

13 Liu, et al 2006 B (web based learning)
teaching of SCM
to investigate process of designing and measuring competencies of A (Learning

14 Sauber, et al 2008
learning SCM. competencies)
to develop a new customer-centred SCM undergraduate curriculum

15 Gonzales, et al 2008 using Quality Function Deployment (QFD), Benchmark and other A(QFD)
innovative techniques
to present a game that can be used as a tool to educate students and

16 Dhumal, et al 2008 B (Simulation games)
managers on the issues in supply chain and inventory management
to design the curriculum of supply chain management for undergraduate

17 Satir 2008 A(curriculum)
and MBA level
to develop a simulation for supply chain and virtual enterprises that are B (Beer game
18 D’Atri, et al 2009
based on the rules of the Beer Game simulation)
to develop a discovery-based laboratory as supplement operations

19 Zeng and Johnson 2009 management course when the fundamentals of SCM sections are B (practical game)
delivered.
20 Battini et al 2009 to develop a new simulation logistics game in operation management B (simulation games)
to present a new simulation game and analyze its impact on operation

21 Pasin and Girou 2011 B (simulation games)
management education
to evaluate the effects of leaning experience of online beer distribution A (evaluation of

22 Jeong and Hong 2011
simulation game effectiveness game)
to improvise the Beer Game model to a Petri Net model for risk analysis B (Beer game and
23 Sarkar and Chaki 2012
and decision making Petri Net
24 Gumus and Love 2013 to present supply chain sourcing game for negotiation exercise A (exercise)
A: Contents (curriculum); B: Methods and tools
84
and Lee et al (1997) believe that the main benefit of the Beer Game is to help students understand the
existence and characteristics of the ‘bullwhip effect’. However, many experts criticize the Beer Game
simulation. Kaminsky and Simchi-Levi (1998) point out that the Beer Game has a few limitations such
as students are generally so occupied with the mechanics of the game that it cannot reflect a realistic
supply chain scenario. Kimbrough et al (2002) pointed out a lack of motivation for improvement
during the course of the game since players are not encouraged to share information with each other.
Chen and Samroengraja (2000) suggest that players do not know the demand process and pattern of
distributions. Zeng and Johnson (2009) also found that simulation games are ineffective in helping
undergraduate students improve their understanding of the course.
Therefore, there is still a gap of research to create games that improve upon the limitations of
the Beer Game. In the proposed game, it is necessary to consider the involvement of students in the
game as if they in their ’real role’ as a supply chain player. Hopefully, students who play it can also
be encouraged to share information with the players in the supply chain. An intensive “face to face”
communication for the mutual sharing of information among the players on the team can be done.
The manufacturing player can inform the needs of its parts/components to the supplier player and
vice versa with the possible problems they might encounter.
THE GAME DESIGN
Game Description
This game uses a simple structure of supply chain, which includes suppliers, plant or manufacturer,
and customers (see Figure 1). Suppliers (2 players) have the responsibility to fulfil the part/component
orders from plants or manufacturers. A plant or manufacturer has two positions: A Supply Chain
(SC) manager and two assemblers. Lastly, the customers who triggers the orders which should be
fulfilled by plant or manufacturer. During the game, customers order a specific number of products A
and B from plants and manufacturers based on the game scenario of the order. A SC manager orders
the necessary parts of toy building blocks to suppliers in order to fulfil the consumer’s demands.
Assemblers for the required parts are based on the bill of materials of products A and B to meet the
orders from customers for each demand period. Suppliers must fill parts ordered by the SC managers
according to the types of parts. The parts delivery must be quickly without error, i.e., sending wrong
parts. This game is recommended to be played simultaneously by multiple teams (3 to 6 teams) to
stimulate all teams so that they deliver parts and race faster to win the competition.
The game is designed to encourage each team to achieve the lowest total supply chain cost. The
team who successfully obtains the lowest supply chain cost is the winner. Each entity in a team has
responsibility which simplifies the real situation in a supply chain. The SC managers must manage
well in order to replenish the orders on time. The total number of customer orders is fifteen that they
arrive randomly. The SC managers should develop a strategy to meet the demand while managing
their suppliers at the same time. The strategy includes how many components should be ordered from
suppliers and when the order should be placed. The maximum number of components that can be
fulfilled by the supplier is 100 blocks of building block toys.
Building blocks such as LEGO® blocks are used because they are easy to be assembled and be
incorporated into many types of products. The building blocks represent components and the final
assembly products represent the final products. Some paper forms are provided to support activities
for each player such as purchase order forms for SCM managers, delivery forms for suppliers and
SCM managers, and performance forms for customers.
85
Figure 1. Players composition for each team in the practical games
Player’s Responsibility
One team consists of six players in the three entities mentioned earlier; two players as suppliers,
one player as customer, and three players as plant entities, i.e., one SC manager and two assemblers.
Players’ responsibilities are described in Table 2.
Product Descriptions and Bill of Materials

This game has two finished products, A and B (see Figure 2a). The products have similar components
or parts (number 1 to 7 below). The parts are toy building block which are illustrated in Figure 2b.
The finished products have their own bill of materials. Product A consists of three main sections:
front, middle, and rear. The front section is composed of parts 2, 3, and 5. The middle section is built
from parts 3 and 7; and the rear section is created from parts 5 and 6. Product B consists of three
main sections as well: front, middle, and rear. The front section is built from parts 3 and 6; the middle
section is created from part 7; and the rear section is composed of parts 2 and 6. Figure 3 shows the
bill of materials for product A and Figure 4 describes the bill of materials for product B
Table 2. Responsibility for each player in practical games
No Entity Players in Specific Position Responsibility

Supplier must fulfil the order from plant or manufacturer on
1 Supplier Suppliers (2 persons)
time.
The SC manager arranges a strategy how to meet the demand
from his customer while maintaining supply chain efficiency
SC manager (1 persons) in terms of inventory cost and procurement cost. The manager
Plant or also must monitor the inventory position so that he/she is able
2
manufacturer to decide when and size of order to suppliers
The assemblers have responsibility to assemble parts
Assemblers (2 person)
accurately and deliver the finish products on time.
Customer creates random orders and write down the
3 Customer Customer (1 person)
performance of the plant for each transaction
86
Figure 2. The finished products (a) and assembly parts (b)
Figure 3. Bill of material of product A
87
Figure 4. Bill of material of product B
Measuring Team Performance

Team performance (in the game) is measured by the total supply chain costs which is the sum of the
opportunity cost, the purchasing cost, the backorder cost, and the holding cost. The type of costs is
adopted from the SCOR [Supply Chain Operations Reference] concept which represents the simulated
supply chain performance. Opportunity cost is a penalty charged to the plant if the plant could not
fulfil the customer order by the end of the game. The charge is $25 per unfulfilled order. Backorder
cost is $ 15 per order as a penalty if the plant cannot fulfil the order by the customer’s due date. The
other costs are the purchasing cost of $10 per purchase order and the carrying cost of $0.5 per unit
component/part per period. The formulation of the total cost is as follows:
Total supply chain costs = Opportunity cost+ backorder cost+ purchasing cost + holding cost
Opportunity cost = $25 x number of late order fulfilment
Backorder cost = $15 x number of backorder
Purchasing cost = $10 x number of purchase order
Holding cost = $0.5 x number of parts in the end of periods
The Rules of the Game

The game is started by the customer placing the first order from the plant. The order time, quantity,
and due date have been designed randomly to represent uncertainties in time and quantity. The
uncertainty encourages players to develop their own strategy to fulfil all the customer orders on time
and to specification. There are 15 customer orders, which take about an hour to run. The orders are
listed on Table 3.
After receiving the customer’s order, the SC manager must order the components needed for each
type of products (i.e., products A and B). The orders are sent to the suppliers by using a standardized
purchase order form which also states due date. The amount of customer orders and bill of materials
for each product is important information which is used by the SC manager to decide the number of
parts that will be ordered from the supplier. The SC manager sets due dates to its supplier in order
to assure completion on time. The maximum order that is allowed in this game is 100 units of parts
per purchase order. The backorder cost will be charged if the SCM players deliver final products late.
88
Table 3. The scenario of customer order
Due Date (in

No. Product Type and Amount Inter arrival time of order (minute)
minute)
1 A-3 units, B-5 units 0 4
5 A-10 units, B--12units 2 7
The Learning Objectives and the Conceptual aspects of Validity

The Learning Objectives
The practical game was designed for undergraduate students to facilitate understanding of the basics
of supply chain concepts. The game is focused to achieve two learning objectives namely (1) supply
chain structure (who are the players in supply chain, types of supply chain flow, and structure of supply
chain), (2) task and responsibilities (purchasing manager and supply chain manager), (3) supply chain
costs of performance (types of costs in the supply chain, calculate the supply chain cost, and reasons
the supply chain results), and (4) the goal of purchasing and process in purchasing.
The game is designed to help students to easily “see” and understand the supply chain structure,
task and responsibilities of each player in the supply chain, supply chain cost performance, and
purchasing goals and processes. As players in the game, students must understand the role of game,
activities/processes and the responsibility that should be adopted. At the end of the game, students
should collect the data about supply chain cost performance (opportunity, back order, purchasing,
holding costs) and calculate the total supply chain costs. The winning team is the one that has the
cheapest cost in the supply chain.
The Conceptual Aspects of Validity

The conceptual aspects of validity for the game depend on the quality of students playing the game and
understanding the learning goals. The goals of student learning should be designed with attention to
their cognitive levels to reflect the degree of complexity of the goals of learning. (Lakhal and Sevigny
2015). For this purpose, we use Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom et al, 1956) as guidelines to create the
game and to the design the assessment testing using open questions. Bloom’s taxonomy is widely
used by business schools (Brewer and Brewer, 2010) because it has the capability to systematically
link the conceptual aspects of the game and the cognitive levels. It has two cognitive levels, Low
89
Figure 5. The linking between conceptual aspects of games and Bloom’s taxonomy
(knowledge, comprehension and application) and high (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation). The link
between conceptual aspects and assessment testing in Bloom’s taxonomy is described in Figure 5.
Airasian and Russel (2008) pointed out that the rubric is an effective assessment tool to help
teachers focus on what is valued in the subject, in terms of the topics, and activities including
exams. They also believe that the rubric also provides the basis for standardization of assessment
and determines steps it takes to reach the top level of performance. In the rubric, the varying level
of performance from poor to excellent for each questions are described (see table 4). We declared
that the students have a good understanding of each question when the level of performance is at the
‘good’ or ‘excellent’ level.
The Game in Class and its Validity

Students played the game after being given certain topics of supply chain management and logistics
management. The game requires 4-6 teams and 90 minute sessions. The instructors first explain the
game, players’ responsibilities, and rules of the game and how to measure the game’s performance.
90
Table 4. Rubric for assessments questions
Level of results assessments

Assessment
Questions Needs
Poor Good Excellent
improvement
Who are the players know only 2 know 3 main know 3 main know more than three
in supply chain? and players of supply players (suppliers, players and right players of supply chain
please describe the chain and fail manufacturing, describe the such as distributors,
structure of existing to describe and customer) of relationships among retailers, transporters (3PL)
players relationships supply chain but main players in and right the relationships
among players in fail to describe supply chain among players
supply chain relationships among
players
What are the types know only 1 main know 3 main know 3 main know more than 3 main
of flow in supply type of flow in types of flow types of flow types of flow such recycle
chain structure? and supply chain and such as physical, such as physical, flow, return flow to
Describe the arrow of fail to describe the information, and information, and supplier and return flow
each flow in supply arrow of flow cash flow but fail to cash flow and right from customers and right
chain describe the arrow to describe the to describe the arrow of
of each flows arrow of each flows each flows
What are task and understand only understand 2 understand 3 understand more than
responsibility of 1 tasks and 1 main tasks and main tasks and 3 main tasks and
purchasing and SC responsibilities of responsibilities of responsibilities of responsibilities of
manager? purchasing or SC purchasing and SC purchasing and SC purchasing and SC
manager manager manager manager
What are processes understand only 2 understand 3 main understand 4 understand more 4 main
in supply chain and main processes processes but fail main processes processes and right to
describe linking in the linking of (purchase, produce, describe the linking of
processes in supply processes storage, shipping) processes
chain? but right to describe
the linking
What are types costs understand only understand 3 types understand 3 types understand 3 types costs
in supply chain? 1 type costs in costs in supply costs in supply in supply chain, right to
Calculate supply supply chain chain but fail to chain and right to calculate supply chain
chain cost, Reasons calculate the supply calculate the supply costs and understand the
the supply chain cost chain costs chain costs factors affected the costs
results (why your are higher an lowers
costs higher or less
than other groups)
After that, the instructors guided the teams to play the pre-game before they played the game for 75
more minutes.
The game was played in some classes in supply chain management and logistics management
courses at one of Indonesia’s public universities which has been certified with AUN and ABET
accreditation. Production and Planning Control (PPC) course is the pre-requisite courses of SCM.
PPC and Facility Planning courses are the pre-requisite courses of logistics management courses
that must be completed by students. SCM course is an elective course selected by senior students
in semester seven and eight while the logistics management course is compulsory in semester six.
Two types of validation have been carried out to test the effectiveness of the game. In the first
validation, several data sets were collected from six classes (three classes without the game and three
classes with the games) in three periods. In details, there were five classes (two classes without the
game and three classes with the game) for most of students who were taking the mandatory courses
for logistics management in the semester six and two classes (one class without the game and one
class with the game) for students taking the elective courses for supply chain in semester seven or
91
eight. Three periods of courses lectures were used to validate the practical games so that there is
diversity of class years and the capabilities of students who played the games. The standard deviation
as a statistical tool is used to determine whether there is a significantly difference for the scores of
learning assessment in the 3 periods of data collection.
In classes with games, 192 students in 32 groups answered assessments test/questions. As second
validation was collected from three classes in three different periods between period 1 and period 3
by students who played the game and answered the assessment/test questions. In the first part of the
validation process, all students (both who played the game and who did not play the game) answered
some questions to understand the difference between the two groups in the learning achievements.
Some learning objectives for each learning criteria were used as a basis to develop questionnaires using
true or false answers. In table 5, for example cell 1 (learning objective- the supply chain structure and
the without practical game-period 1) 48 students answered true of the 66 students who did not play
games (48/66 = 72.73%). The standad deviation of values of the learning objectives in the ‘without
practical game’ group and the ‘with practical game’ group in each period are relatively small. These
indicate that there are no significant differences between the three periods for each learning objective.
Overall, the results of the learning asessement for game in two groups is valid.
In Table 5, all learning objectives have a positive score for the improvement of learning with
the practical game. It indicates that those students who played the game and came to the SCM class
understood SCM better than students who did not play the game and only came to the SCM class.
Students who played the game gave more correct answers than the students who did not play the
game. The improvement value of learning with the practical game was also significant in 3 periods
(for period 1 is 14:54%, for the period 2 is 13.64%, and period 3 is 16.67%). The results indicate that
the game is relatively effective to improve learning about supply chain management in those courses.
Based on the scores of students’ assessment test in groups 1 and 2, the average scores of the
objective of learning for the flow type in supply chain (LO2) is relatively lower than others. It means
Table 5. Results scores of learning assessment for game in two groups (without and with practical games in period 1, 2 and 3
(percentage of true answers)
Improving of learning
Results scores of students assessment tests
with practical game
Without practical game With practical game
Learning
Objectives Period Period Period Period Period Period
criteria
1 2 3 Average/ 1 2 3 Period Period Period
Average/SD
SD (N= 1 2 3
(N=66) (N=66) (N=60) (N=66) (N=66)
60)
the supply
chain 70.76% 83.79%
72.73% 71.21% 68.33% 87.88% 81.82% 81.67% 15.15% 10.61% 13.34%
structure (2.23%) (3.54%)
Students (LO1)
understand
the type of
the structure, 66.16%
flow along 78.18% (-1)
flow type 66.67% 65.15% 66.67% (-1) 77.27% 77.27% 80.00% 10.60% 12.12% 13.33%
the supply (1.58%)
and The (0.88%)
chain (LO2)
responsibility
of players the
in SC responsibility 80.66% 93.73%
of players in 81.82% 81.82% 78.33% (+1) 95.45% 92.42% 93.33% (+1) 13.63% 10.60% 15.00%
supply chain (2.01%) (1.55%)
(LO3)
Students supply chain 66.16%
86.51%
understand processes 69.70% 62.12% 66.67% (-1) 86.36% 84.85% 88.33% 16.66% 22.73% 21.66%
(1.75%)
the (LO4) (3.82%)
performance the supply
and processes chain 75.41% 91.67%
in supply 75.76% 78.79% 71.67% 92.42% 90.91% 91.67% 16.66% 12.12% 20.00%
performance (3.57%) (0.76%)
chain (costs) (LO5)
Average 73.34% 71.82% 70.33% 71.83% 87.88% 85.45% 87.00% 86.78% 14.54% 13.64% 16.67%
92
that both the students who played the game and the students who did not play the game do not much
to understand two of these the learning objectives. However, the value of learning ojective two for
the students who played the game is relatively good with an average of 78.18%
The second part of the validation process was conducted to get the perception and comments
of students who played the games. We used both close-ended and open-ended questions. We used
a three-point Likert scale, i.e., (1) agree, (2) neutral and (3) disagree. Figure 6 depicts the detailed
results of students who played the game in class in periods 2 and 3. The result suggests that most
of students who played the game were interested (period 1 = 60 students, period 2 = 62 students,
and period 3 = 57 students). They were interested because they played game like one of the actors
in the supply chain, interacted with other players and competed with other teams. Based on open
questioners, the students said that the game helped them understand how to interact with other players
in the supply chain. Most of the students also pointed out that the rule of the game were easy to be
understand (period 1 = 52 students, period 2 = 54 students, and period 3 = 51 students) and easy to
play (period 1 = 59 students, period 2 = 61 students, and period 3 = 49 students). They pointed out
that it is easy to assemble the product A and B, as they were constructed from familiar toy blocks.
The game is supported by simple game descriptions, rules and job description of each player. The
simple forms to record the results of supply chain game were also delivered.
Each group is also required to calculate their total supply chain costs. As mentioned previously, the
total costs consist of four components, namely (1) opportunity cost, (2) backorder cost, (3) purchasing
cost, and (4) holding cost. Table 6 shows the result of each group performance based on their supply
chain total costs. The result indicates that total supply chain cost has a large variation among groups.
Some performance indicators have also significant difference particularly in the opportunity cost.
The type of strategy selected by each group influences the total supply chain cost.
The SC manager in each team is the key player in this game who could determine the winning
team. The manager should understand the cost priority to minimize the total supply chain costs. Order
fulfilment to avoid a reduction for opportunity costs should be the main priority. This condition occurs
because of the difference between the opportunity costs ($ 25), back order costs ($ 15), and holding
costs ($ 0.5). The order trends also need to be considered to determine the number of components
that need to be purchased. There are two order trends: (1) a decrease and (2) an increase. If the order
is decreasing, the SC manager should buy more components at the beginning of the game and reduce
the purchased components at the end of the game, and vice versa.)
Figure 6. The results of perceptions of students who played proposed game
93
Table 6. The results of performance indicators each group for game in class in period 1, 2 and 3
Indicators in total supply chain management costs

Group in each
Back order Purchasing Total costs
period Opportunity costs Holding costs
costs costs
Period 1
1 0 120 80 81.5 281.50 (+3)
2 0 0* 70 112.5 182.50 (+1)
3 0 110 80 73.5 263.50 (+2)
4 0 80 80 351 511.00
5 1,175 690 30 122 2,017 (-1)
6 50 160 70 244 524.00
7 500 355 70 164 1,089 (-3)
8 425 240 60 148 873.00
9 775 405 70 162 1,412.00 (-2)
10 0 215 70 263 548.00
11 75 185 70 238.5 568.50
12 250 315 80 84 729.00
Period 2
1 150 345 70 192 757.00
2 1,125 600 40 151 1,916.00 (-1)
3 0 180 70 257 506.50
4 25 180 70 228 502.50
5 0 90 60 322 471.50
6 125 210 70 240 645.00
7 0 120 70 338 527.50
8 0 30 70 110 210.00 (+1)
9 550 300 80 353 1,282.50 (-3)
10 750 360 70 158 1,337.50 (-2)
11 0 90 80 225 395.00 (+3)
12 0 135 60 163 357.50 (+2)
Period 3
1 0 90 70 220 380.00 (+2)
2 30 160 70 234 494.00
3 550 300 80 345 1275.00 (-2)
4 0 80 60 302 442.00 (+3)
5 0 175 70 278 523.00
6 0 30 60 110 200.00 (+1)
7 700 360 70 256 1386.00 (-1)
8 225 220 70 255 770.00 (-3)
Note: + = best rank and - = worst rank
94
Table 7 describes the results of descriptive statistics based on supply chain costs for the game
in periods 1, 2 and 3. There is a big variation in the total supply chain among teams. The range of
supply chain cost for period 1 is between $182.50 and $2017 with a standard deviation of $533.79,
for period 2 the range is between $210 and $1,916 with a standard deviation of $506.14, whereas for
period 3 the range is between $200 and $ 1,386 with a standard deviation of 430.40. The variability
comes from each cost component particularly in opportunity costs and backorder costs. This
implies that this game enables SC manager to develop their own purchasing strategy. The manager’s
performance depends on supplier’s performance. If the SC manager has ineffective strategy, then
either higher opportunity and backorder costs or higher purchasing and inventory holding costs will
result. Moreover, inaccurate order fulfilment from suppliers may also contribute to the higher costs
at the manufacture or plant level described above.
Based on the minimum total supply chain costs, three of twelve teams were considered winners
of the game in period 1 and 2 and three of eight teams in period 3. In period 1, they were teams 2, 3,
and 1 as the first, second, and third places, respectively. In contrast, there are also three teams who
have the highest total supply chain costs and therefore were at the bottom of the team rankings. Teams
5, 9, and 7 were the lowest, second lowest, and third lowest teams, respectively.We have interviewed
all the winnings and losing teams to obtain substantial information about why some teams were able
to win and why some lost.
The winning teams:
Table 7. The results of statistics descriptive based on supply chain costs for game in class in period 1, 2 and 3
supply chain costs ($) Total cost

Period 1
Opportunity back order cost purchasing cost holding cost ($)
mean 271 240 69 170 750

std. dev 381.66 184.17 13.79 86.50 533.79
min 0 0 30 74 183
max 1,175 690 80 351 2,017
Range 1,175 690 50 278 1,835
Period 2
mean 227 220 68 228 742
std. dev. 375.45 158.53 10.55 78.40 506.14
min 0 30 40 110 210
max 1,125 600 80 353 1,916
Range 1,125 570 40 243 1,706
Period 3
mean 188 177 69 250 684
std. dev. 283.07 112.98 6.41 69.00 430.40
min 0 30 60 110 200
max 700 360 80 345 1,386
Range 700 330 20 235 1,186
95
Compared to the players in the losing teams, the players on the winning teams understood the
game better and divided duties and responsibilities better. The winning teams also did the job better
and more quickly. Team members who played as suppliers fulfilled the component orders from SC
managers quickly and accurately with few errors and no backorder costs. The winning SC managers
had a better understanding of some of learning objectives in logistics management and supply chain
management courses than those with the losing SC managers. They understood the types of costs that
influenced the total supply chain costs greatly (LO5-the supply chain performance and the critical
process in supply chain (L04- supply chain processes). They also prioritized efforts to fulfil orders
from customers and to avoid backorders. The assemblers also worked well so that the assembly lead
time was short and mistakes were not made during assembly.
Because the customer orders were high at the beginning of the game, the winning SC managers
fulfilled the customer orders on time by procuring all components of product A and B in the optimal
quantity, i.e., 70- 100 units per order. Once the game was almost over, the customer orders declined
and the SC managers reacted positively by reducing their order quantity to minimize the inventory
holding cost. The purchasing strategy chosen by the SC managers might have been different if the
customer order had increased at the end of the game.
The losing teams
The players on the losing teams were notable for performing the operations neither quickly nor
correctly. Their decisions caused long lead times and unfilled customer orders. Lack of coordination
was common between SC managers and suppliers. This caused errors in both the type and the number
of components required. The errors also created conflicts between the players, which, in turn, created
longer lead times and orders not filled by their deadline.
Although the SC managers of the losing teams wanted to fulfil their customer orders on time,
they used ineffective strategies of procuring components A and B in only small quantities in the
beginning of the game. Moreover, they placed the orders to their suppliers without considering safety
stock. In addition, their suppliers did not perform well which resulted in many order inaccuracies
which increased the backorder cost. Assemblers of the losing team had high idle time because their
suppliers could not deliver the components on time.
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION
This game was developed to help students to understand SCM courses. It is an attractive game for
SCM teaching. Several learning exercises and validation processes have been conducted in both
Supply Chain and Logistics Management classes for undergraduate students involving a total of 192
students. The game is an effective learning method to achieve learning objectives for supply chain
management courses, particularly in teaching supply chain concepts. The students who played the
game were able to reach higher learning objectives than the students who did not play the game.
Furthermore, most students have a positive view about this game. They think that the game not only
sharpened their SCM knowledge, but also challenged them to compete. Finally, the students enjoyed
the game and could understand and play the game easily.
We received several insights from the game. First, the ability of players to perform operations
quickly and accurately will affect other players. Secondly, the SC managers are the key players in the
game because of the decision to buy the correct number and types of components greatly affected the
ability to fulfil the order on time. The ability of assemblers to assemble final products quickly - and
correctly - also affected the performance of the entire supply chain. Finally, coordination among supply
chain actors (suppliers, manufacturers (both SC manager and assembler)) also played an important
role in accelerating the product delivery process. In addition to meeting the learning objectives, the
game also provided innovative practical and real lessons for undergraduate students.
96
Despite the success of these efforts, there are several opportunities for improving and extending
the current game to incorporate more realistic situations. There are several scenarios which can be
developed in this game. For example, adding difficulty levels may be useful to encourage students
to learn more about supply chain strategy. This could be achieved by incorporating more than one
supplier to give more challenges, particularly for SC managers to achieve the lowest total supply chain
cost. Therefore, assessment of each supplier must be done to set the priority for order placement.
In another example, a set of different scenarios related to inventory management, such as material
classification, and plant layout could be created to make the game more challenging. This game could
be enhanced further by incorporating inventory optimization, such as by determining the safety stock
level and applying the economic order quantity method.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to thank I Nyoman Pujawan, Professor in Industrial Engineering Department, Institut
Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember-INDONESIA, for good will his students in supply chain management
course played game and answered the test assessments/questions. We also wish to thank reviewers
for their valuable suggestions and comments.
97
REFERENCES
Airasian, P. W., & Russell, M. K. (2008). Classroom Assessment: Concepts and Applications (6th ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Anderson, E.G., Jr., & Morrice, D.J. (2000). A simulation game for teaching services-oriented supply chain
management: Does information sharing help managers with service capacity decisions? Production and
Operations Management, 9(1), 40-55.
Battini, D., Faccio, M., Persona, A., & Sgarbossa, F. (2009). Logistic Game: Learning by doing and knowledge-
sharing. Production Planning and Control, 20(8), 724–736. doi:10.1080/09537280903119056
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives: Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. London, WI: Longmans, Green & Co. Ltd.
Brewer, P. D., & Brewer, K. L. (2010). Knowledge management, human resource management, and higher education:
A theoretical model. Journal of Education for Business, 85(6), 330–335. doi:10.1080/08832321003604938
Campbell, A., Goentzel, J., & Savelsbergh, M. (2000). Experiences with the use of supply chain management
software in education. Production and Operations Management, 9(1), 66–80. doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2000.
tb00324.x
Chandra, C., & Kumar, S. (2006). Supply chain design curriculum: Models and methods development.
International Journal of Information and Operations Management Education, 1(3), 249–280. doi:10.1504/
IJIOME.2006.009718
Chen, F., & Samroengraja, R. (2000). The stationary beer game. Production and Operations Management, 9(1),
19–30. doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2000.tb00320.x
D’Atri, A., Spagnoletti, P., Banzato, A., Bonelli, C., D’Atri, E., Traversi, V., & Zenobi, P. (2009). Supply Chain
and Virtual Enterprises: the Beer Game evolution.Proceedings of ALPIS.
Dhumal, P., Sundararaghavan, P. S., & Nandkeolyar, U. (2008). “Cola-Game”: An innovative approach to teaching
inventory management in a supply chain. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6(2), 265–285.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4609.2008.00173.x
Echeverría, A., García-Campo, C., Nussbaum, M., Gil, F., Villalta, M., Améstica, M., & Echeverría, S. (2011).
A framework for the design and integration of collaborative classroom games. Computers & Education, 57(1),
1127–1136. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.010
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy? Computers in Entertainment,
1(1), 20–20. doi:10.1145/950566.950595
Gonzalez, M. E., Quesada, G., Gourdin, K., & Hartley, M. (2008). Designing a supply chain management
academic curriculum using QFD and benchmarking. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(1), 36–60.
doi:10.1108/09684880810848404
Gumus, M., & Love, E. C. (2013). Supply Chain Sourcing Game: A Negotiation Exercise. Decision Sciences
Journal of Innovative Education, 11(1), 3–12. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4609.2012.00368.x
Jacobs, F. R. (2000). Playing the beer distribution game over the Internet. Production and Operations Management,
9(1), 31–39. doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2000.tb00321.x
Jeong, K.-Y., & Hong, J.-D. (2011). Learning from online beer distribution simulation game. International Journal
of Information and Operations Management Education, 4(2), 179–192. doi:10.1504/IJIOME.2011.042668
Johnson, M. E., & Pyke, D. F. (2000). A framework for teaching supply chain management. Production and
Operations Management, 9(1), 2–18. doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2000.tb00319.x
Kaminsky, P., & Simchi-Levi, D. (1998). A new computerized beer game: A tool for teaching the value of
integrated supply chain management. Global supply chain and technology management, 1(1), 216-225.
Kimbrough, S., Wu, D., & Zhong, F. (2002). Computers play the beer game: Can artificial agents manage supply
chains? Decision Support Systems, 33(3), 323–333. doi:10.1016/S0167-9236(02)00019-2
98
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kopczak, L. R., & Fransoo, J. C. (2000). Teaching supply chain management through global projects with global
project teams. Production and Operations Management, 9(1), 91–104. doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2000.tb00326.x
Lakhal, S., & Sévigny, S. (2015). The AACSB Assurance of Learning process: An assessment of current practices
within the perspective of the unified view of validity. The International Journal of Management Education,
13(1), 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2014.09.006
Lee, H., Padmanabhan, V., & Whang, S. (1997). The bullwhip effect in supplychains. Sloan Management
Review, 38(3), 93–102.
Liu, I. F., Meng Chang, C., & Yeali, S. (2006). A Study of the web-based learning system for supply chain
management course teaching. Paper presented atSixth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning
Technologies.
Mehring, J. S. (2000). A practical setting for experiential learning about supply chains: Siemens brief case game
supply chain simulator. Production and Operations Management, 9(1), 56–65. doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2000.
tb00323.x
Niu, M., Sice, P., French, I., & Mosekilde, E. (2009). Exploring the behaviour of a contralised supply chain at
draeger safety UK. International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management, 2(1), 34–54.
doi:10.4018/jisscm.2009010103
Pasin, F., & Giroux, H. (2011). The impact of a simulation game on operations management education. Computers
& Education, 57(1), 1240–1254. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.006
Reyes, P. M. (2006). A game theory approach for solving the transshipment problem: A supply chain
management strategy teaching tool. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 11(4), 288–293.
doi:10.1108/13598540610671734
Ruben, B. D. (1999). Simulations, games, and experience-based learning: The quest for a new paradigm for
teaching and learning. Simulation & Gaming, 30(4), 498–505. doi:10.1177/104687819903000409
Sarkar, B. B., & Chaki, N. (2012). A distributed retail Beer Game for decision support system. Procedia: Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 65(0), 278–284. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.123
Satir, A. (2008). Curriculum design in supply chain management. International Journal of Information and
Operations Management Education, 2(3), 291–301. doi:10.1504/IJIOME.2008.019651
Sauber, M. H., McSurely, H. B., & Tummala, V. M. R. (2008). Developing supply chain management program:
A competency model. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(4), 375–391. doi:10.1108/09684880810906517
Sparling, D. (2002). Simulations and supply chains: Strategies for teaching supply chain management. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal., 7(5), 334–342. doi:10.1108/13598540210447782
Squire, K. (2003). Video games in education. International Journal of Intelligent Games & Simulation, 2(1),
49–62.
Vollmann, T. E., Cordon, C., & Heikkila, J. (2000). Teaching supply chain management to business executives.
Production and Operations Management, 9(1), 81–90. doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2000.tb00325.x
Waage, F. (2013). A Supply network’s optimal information system and material flows. International Journal of
Information Systems and Supply Chain Management, 6(3), 86–104. doi:10.4018/ijisscm.2013070104
Yuan, L., Yang, C., & Li, T. (2015). Advertising and pricing decisions in a manufacturer-retailer channel with
demand and cost disruptions. International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management,
8(3), 44–66. doi:10.4018/IJISSCM.2015070103
Zeng, A., & Johnson, S. (2009). Integrating a discovery‐based laboratory to teach supply chain management
fundamentals in an undergraduate management course. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
46(1), 71–82. doi:10.1080/14703290802646305
99

2016 Iwan Vanany Ahmad Syamil Teaching Supply Chain Management Using An Innovative Practical Game

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016 Iwan Vanany Ahmad Syamil Teaching Supply Chain Management Using An Innovative Practical Game

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management

Volume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2016

Teaching Supply Chain Management

Table 1. Summary of previous research on teaching SCM

No Authors Year The purpose of research Topic area

to propose a simulation game designed to teach service-oriented SCM

to propose a framework for teaching SCM which are supported by A (curriculum

to develop a Siemens brief case game supply chain simulator to provide

to describe the well-known Shapley Value concept as a cooperative

to investigate how to use web-based learning system to assist the

to investigate process of designing and measuring competencies of A (Learning

to develop a new customer-centred SCM undergraduate curriculum

to present a game that can be used as a tool to educate students and

to design the curriculum of supply chain management for undergraduate

to develop a discovery-based laboratory as supplement operations

to present a new simulation game and analyze its impact on operation

to evaluate the effects of leaning experience of online beer distribution A (evaluation of

A: Contents (curriculum); B: Methods and tools

THE GAME DESIGN

Figure 1. Players composition for each team in the practical games

Product Descriptions and Bill of Materials

Table 2. Responsibility for each player in practical games

No Entity Players in Specific Position Responsibility

Figure 2. The finished products (a) and assembly parts (b)

Figure 3. Bill of material of product A

Figure 4. Bill of material of product B

Measuring Team Performance

The Rules of the Game

Table 3. The scenario of customer order

Due Date (in

The Learning Objectives and the Conceptual aspects of Validity

The Conceptual Aspects of Validity

The Game in Class and its Validity

Table 4. Rubric for assessments questions

Level of results assessments

Figure 6. The results of perceptions of students who played proposed game

Indicators in total supply chain management costs

The winning teams:

supply chain costs ($) Total cost

mean 271 240 69 170 750

The losing teams

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION

You might also like