The University of Mississippi
Rev: July 14, 2017
Fall Semester 2007
Tu 9:00 a.m. - 11:30 p.m. Conner 11
BUS 670
SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
Professor:
Office:
Voice/Fax:
Email:
Tony Ammeter, Ph.D., P.Eng., Assistant Professor of MIS
233 Holman Hall
(662) 915-6748 / (662) 915-7968
[email protected]
Office hours:
Mondays 8:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. or email or call for an appointment
OVERVIEW
This course is designed for doctoral students and provides an in-depth study of the issues associated with
the planning, implementation, and control of material, goods, information, and capital in market
exchanges between suppliers and customers. The readings from the literature will give the student
exposure to diverse theoretical approaches, empirical methods, and quantitative techniques in
contemporary supply chain management research.
COURSE OBJECTIVES

Gain an understanding of the current managerial and research issues associated with supply chain
management.

Develop critical reading skills for evaluation of supply chain management research.

Understand the methods and technologies used to support the development of effective supply chain
management systems.

Be aware of the strategic and operational obstacles to successful management of the supply chain.

Develop the ability to structure and formalize a supply chain management research project.

Be able to generate research topics related to supply chain management.
REQUIRED READINGS

Readings will be distributed via Blackboard or email.
COURSE DELIVERABLES
Deliverable
1. Assigned Paper Presentations (3 times per semester)
2. Paper Discussant Service (3 times per semester)
3. Referee Reports (2 times per semester)
4. Research Paper Topic Proposal and Presentation
5. Research Paper and Presentation
Grade %
30 %
15 %
15 %
10 %
30 %
Total Points: 100 %
Grading Scale: A = 90%-100%; B = 80.0-89.9%; C = 70.0-79.9%; D = 60.0-69.9%; F <= 59.9%
Active Learning
Everyone is expected to be prepared for and actively participate in class discussions of the readings.
“Active learning” has been shown to be one of the most effective learning techniques. Therefore, to help
you to prepare for a successful career as an academic or industry researcher, our class meetings are
planned so that you can get immersed in research activities early on. You will have to prepare and make
presentations, serve as a discussant, write referee reports, do literature searches and reviews, and
identify research problems and solve them.
1. Assigned Paper Presentations
Each student will prepare and make three presentations of the papers we study during the semester. As a
presenter, you should be as familiar with the topic, with the research problem, with the models, and with
the solution to the problem, as if you were presenting your own research. The time limit for a
presentation is 1 hour, including questions and answers.
You will select the aspects of the assigned paper that are important enough to be included and those that
can be omitted from your presentation. While individual presentation styles vary, be sure to always start
your presentation with:
a. the motivation for the article/research,
b. a clear statement of the problem and research question,
c. the structure of the model and assumptions,
d. and the approach to the analysis,
before presenting the main results of the paper.
The presentations will be graded based on the extent to which the presenter has attempted to understand
the problem herself (himself) and has explained the problem, the topic, the models, and the results of
the paper to the audience.
2. Paper Discussant Service
Besides a presenter, each paper will also have one or two discussants. The main task of a discussant is to
provide a critique of the paper presented: the significance of the problem, the suitability of the model
for the problem, the limitations of modeling assumptions and the role that those assumptions play in
obtaining results, the significance of the results, and possible extensions. In addition, discussants should
look for common themes or key issues that link the papers we are studying and enhance our understanding
of the topic. Lastly, discussants are expected to raise challenging questions that would guide class
discussion.
The presenters will be given an opportunity to respond to the discussant’s7 critique.
If you are neither a presenter nor a discussant, you are still expected to read the assigned papers and to
participate in the discussion. You will be graded based on the quality of the comments that you provide.
You may be called upon and asked to lead the discussion.
3. Referee Reports
Two referee reports are required to be turned in during the semester. Referee reports must be
written by each student individually. Further description of the peer-review process and report
guidelines will be distributed in class.
4. Research Paper Topic Proposal and Presentation
The research paper is described in the next section. An initial 5 page proposal detailing your research
paper topic, research issues and relevant literatures, proposed data source, and analysis approach is
due on October 5. You will present your research topic proposal in the class following this due date.
5. Research Paper and Presentation
Because a major goal of this course is to give the student experience in developing a research project,
the student will select one of the topics identified in the course and prepare a research paper
describing the research. The paper you will prepare and hand in will be a highly focused study that can
be completed (at your option) in 6 to 8 months following this class.
The research proposal should identify a problem domain and provide a problem definition. The
motivation, relevant literature review, the theoretical framework (not restricted to the subset covered
in the course), and hypotheses must be incorporated. A plan for conducting the research and research
materials (e.g., surveys, webpages, etc.) and statistical analyses, as well as potential results and
contributions, must be discussed. You may use the format of suitable research articles that you have
read for this course.
This paper is graded on creativity, the adequacy of description of each section, the appropriateness of
methodology, an understanding of the literature and quality of presentation of ideas.
The following is an example of the sections you must include (adapted from Dr. Carol Saunders,
University of Central Florida):
3
Reasonable
Page Length
1-3
Section of Proposal
Problem
Indicate in clear, simple terms the problem motivating the research.
Clearly describe the topic area of the research and level of analysis. To
support the problem statement, include one or two paragraphs
summarizing significant prior research. Do not include more than ten
citations.
1
Importance of Research
Demonstrate that your proposed research is important enough to warrant
doing. You may wish to include some statement by an authority as to the
need for this research, or you can provide support that the research is
significant because of its managerial or practical implications.
3-5
Research Model
Describe the research model upon which the proposed research is based.
You may draw upon previous research here (though to a very limited
extent). You may use a figure if you wish. (The figure does not count in the
page count.)
6-8
Hypotheses or Research Questions
State hypotheses if they are appropriate. If the topic is not amenable to
hypotheses, state research questions or propositions.
2-4
Research Approach or Methodology
This should be as explicit as possible. Describe the methodology or
approach to be employed (e.g., field study with questionnaires, lab
experiment, field experiment, case study, etc.). Population and selection
or sampling procedures should be detailed and estimated sample size
should be provided. If an experiment is to be used, describe the subjects,
apparatus to be used, procedures to be followed, data to be collected, and
instruments to be used in data collection. Indicate how constructs will be
operationalized.
1-2
Discussion, Contribution, Limitations, Conclusions
You will present both your proposal draft and your final proposal to the class.
4
TEACHING METHODS AND EXPECTATIONS FOR CLASS
Course Documents
All course documents (handouts, assignments, special readings, etc.) will be available via Blackboard or
will be emailed to you.
Class Discussion and Standards of Professionalism
As a research scholar, you are expected to have read assigned materials as listed on the course
schedule prior to each class. Our class discussions/seminars are intended to emphasize the primary
concepts from each article and to provide an opportunity to answer any questions that may result from
the readings.
You are expected to be familiar with and adhere to the policies regarding ethical behavior and
academic integrity of this institution, and in class we will discuss conduct becoming a research
academic. Your reputation, honor, and personal integrity are your most valuable and irreplaceable
assets in the academic and business world and in your personal life – do not put yourself in any
situation where they might be compromised.
If you have any doubts about what might constitute unethical behavior, do not hesitate to ask me for
clarification.
School of Business Administration Statement of Academic Integrity
The School of Business Administration upholds honor and academic integrity in all of its teaching,
research, and service activities. All business faculty, staff, and students are charged with the
responsibility to behave with personal and professional integrity and to refrain from dishonorable
conduct.
It is your responsibility to understand the scope and nature of actions that constitute academic
dishonesty and to seek clarification of points that you do not understand. Penalties for academic
dishonesty are severe and include suspension from the University of Mississippi.
Disability Accommodations
It is University policy to provide, on a flexible and individual basis, reasonable accommodations to
students who have disabilities that may affect their ability to participate in course activities or meet
course requirements. Students with disabilities, which have been verified through the Office of Student
Disability Services, are encouraged to contact their instructors to discuss their individual needs for
accommodations.
5
Wk
Date
Course Outline
1
T
Aug
21
Introduction to Research in Organization Science
1. Webster, J., & Watson, R.T. 2002. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a
literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26: xiii-xxiii.
2. Lee, A. S. 1995. Reviewing a Manuscript for Publication. Journal of Operations
Management, Volume 13, Number 1, pp. 87-92, July.
2
T
Aug
28
Introduction to Supply Chain Management Research
3. Ganeshan R., E. Jack, M. J. Magazine, and P. Stephens. 1998. A Taxonomic Review of Supply
Chain Management Research”, in Qualitative Models for Supply Chain Management, 839-879.
4. Borenstein, S. & Saloner, G. 2001. Economics and electronic commerce. Journal of
Economic Perspectives 15(1), 3-12.
5. Lee, Hau L. V. Padmanabhan, and Seungjin Whang, 1997, “Information Distortion in a
Supply Chain: The Bullwhip Effect”, Management Science, 43(4), 546 – 558
3
T
Sep
04
Multi-Echelon Inventory Systems and the Bullwhip Effect
6. Clark, A. J. and H. Scarf, 1960, “Optimal Policies for a Multi-Echelon Inventory Problem”,
Management Science, 6(4), 474 – 490
7. Chen F., Z. Drezner, J. Ryan, and D. Simchi-Levi, 2000, “Quantifying the Bullwhip Effect in a
Simple Supply Chain: The Impact of Forecasting, Lead Times, and Information”, Management
Science, 46(3), 436 – 443.
8. De Kok and S. Graves 2003, “Introduction”, Handbooks in Operations Research and
Management Science, 1-16.
4
T
Sep
11
Electronic Markets (I)
9. Smith, M., Bailey, J., and Brynjolfsson, E. (2000). “Understanding digital markets: review
and assessment.” In Erik Brynjolfsson and Brian Kahin (eds). Understanding the digital
economy. MIT Press.
10. Brynjolfsson, E., Hu, Y., and Smith, M. “Consumer Surplus in the Digital Economy:
Estimateing the Value of Increased Product Variety at Online Booksellers,” Management
Science (49:11), 2003, pp. 1580-1596.
11. Brynjolfsson, E. and Smith, M. “Frictionless Commerce? A Comparison of Internet and
Conventional Retailers,” Management Science (46:4), 2000, pp. 563-585.
5
T
Sep
18
Electronic Markets (II)
12. Hann, I. and Terwiesch, C. 2003. Measuring the frictional costs of online transactions: the
case of a name-your-own-price channel, Management Science 49(11), 1563-1579.
13. Johnson, E. J., Moe, W. W., Fader, P. S., Bellman, S., and G. L. Lohse. 2004. On the
depth and dynamics of online search behavior, Management Science, 50(3), 299-308.
14. Hitt, L. and Frei, F. X. “Do Better Customers Utilize Electronic Distribution Channels? The
Case of PC Banking,” Management Science (48:6), 2002, pp. 732-748
6
T
Sep
25
Theory Building in Supply Chain Management Research
15. Sutton, R. I. and B. M. Staw (1995) “What Theory is Not,” Administrative Sciences
Quarterly, 40.
16. Wacker, J. (1998), A definition of theory: Research guidelines for different theorybuilding research methods in operations research,” Journal of Operations Management, 16,
4, 361-385
17. Amundson S. D. (1998). 'Relationships between theory-driven empirical research in
operations management and other disciplines,” Journal of Operations Management, 16,
pp. 341-359.
Optional reading:
18. Davis, M. S. 1971. That's interesting! Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1: 309-344.
6
7
IT’s Impact on Firm Relationships and Integration (I)
19. Kulp, S. C., Lee, H. L, and E. Ofek 2004. Manufacturer benefits from information
integration with retail customers, Management Science 50(4), 431-444.
20. Ho, V. T., Ang, S., and D. Straub. 2003. When subordinates become IT contractors:
persistent managerial expectations in IT outsourcing, Information Systems Research
14(1).
21. Mukhopadhyay, T. and S. Kekre (2002) “Strategic and Operation Benefits of Electronic
Integration in B2B Procurement Processes,” Management Science, vol. 48, no. 10, October.
T
Oct
02
F
Oct
05
8
T
Oct
09
RESEARCH PAPER TOPIC PROPOSAL PRESENTATIONS (20 min. each)
22. Jarvenpaa, S. 1988. The importance of laboratory experimentation in IS research.
Communications of the ACM, 31: 1502-1504.
23. Mingers, J. 2001. Combining IS research methods: Towards a pluralistic methodology.
Information Systems Research, 12: 240-260.
9
T
Oct
16
IT’s Impact on Firm Relationships and Integration (II)
24. Subramani, M.R. 2004. How do suppliers benefit from IT use in supply chain
relationships? MIS Quarterly 28(1), 45-73
25. Mukhopadhyay, T. and Kekre, S. 1995 Business value of information technology: a study
of electronic data interchange, MIS Quarterly 19(2), 137-156.
26. Bakos, J. Y. and E. Brynjolfsson, (1993) “From Vendors to Partners: Information
technology and incomplete contracts in buyer-supplier relationships,” in Journal of
Organizational Computing.
10
T
Oct
23
Experimental Research in IT and Supply Chain Management (I)
27. Miranda, S. M. and Saunders, C. S. 2003. The social construction of meaning: an alternative
perspective on information sharing, Information Systems Research 14(1), 87-106.
28. Dellarocas, C. 2003. The digitization of word of mouth: promise and challenge of online
feedback mechanisms, Management Science, 49(10), 1407-1424.
29. Bolton, G. E., Katok, E. and Ockenfels, A. 2004. How effective are online reputation
mechanisms? An experimental study" Management Science 50(11) 1587-1602.
11
T
Oct
30
Experimental Research in IT and Supply Chain Management (II)
30. Rice, S. 2004. Online Reputations with Noisy Transactions: An Experimental Study, 2004
Workshop on Information Systems and Economics.
31. Garbarino, E. and O. Lee 2003. Dynamic Pricing in Internet Retail: Effects on Consumer
Trust, Psychology and Marketing 20(6); 495-513.
32. Croson, Rachel T.A., Donohue, Karen Lisa, Katok, Elena and Sterman, John, "Order
Stability in Supply Chains: Coordination Risk and the Role of Coordination Stock"
(October 2004). MIT Sloan Working Paper No. 4513-04.
http://ssrn.com/abstract=607321
RESEARCH PAPER TOPIC PROPOSAL DUE 9:00 A.M.
7
12
T
Nov
06
Coordination of the Dynamic Two-Location Model: Subsidies to the Retailer vs. Subsidies to
the Supplier
33. Cachon, G. P., P. H. Zipkin, 1999, “Competitive and cooperative inventory policies in a twostage supply chain”, Management Science, 45, 936 – 953
34. Gupta, D., and Weerawat, W. 2006. “Supplier-Manufacturer Coordination in Capacitated
Two-Stage Supply Chains”, European Journal of Operational Research, 175, 67-89.
35. Gerard P. Cachon, 2003, “Supply Chain Coordination with Contracts”, Chapter 6, Sections 7
and 8, in HORMS, 229 – 340
13
T
Nov
13
Coordination with Internal Markets and Risk Preferences
36. Kouvelis, P. and M. Lariviere, 2000, “Decentralizing cross-functional decisions: coordination
through internal markets”, Management Science, 46(8), 1049 – 1058
37. Gerard P. Cachon, 2003, “Supply Chain Coordination with Contracts”, Chapter 6, in HORMS,
229 – 340
38. Eeckhoudt L., C. Gollier, and H. Schlesinger, 1995, “The risk-averse (and Prudent)
Newsboy”, Management Science, 41(5), 786 – 794
THANKSGIVING BREAK
NOVEMBER 19-25
14
T
Nov
27
NO CLASS – WORK ON RESEARCH PAPER
T
Dec
04
RESEARCH PAPER DUE 9:00 A.M.
RESEARCH PAPER PRESENTATIONS (30 min. each)
8
Presenter and Discussant Schedule
Week
Presenter
Discussant
1
Class
Class
1. Webster, J., & Watson, R.T. 2002. Analyzing the past to prepare for the
future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26: xiii-xxiii.
1
Class
Class
2. Lee, A. S. 1995. Reviewing a Manuscript for Publication. Journal of
Operations Management, Volume 13, Number 1, pp. 87-92, July.
2
Class
Class
2
Class
Class
2
Tony
Class
3
Vijay
Jody
3
Donghyun
Kaushik
3
Class
Class
4
Class
Class
4
Chris
Donghyun
4
Lakisha
Surma
5
Surma
Lakisha
5
Kaushik
Vijay
5
Class
Class
6
Jody
Chris
6
Vijay
Surma
3. Ganeshan R., E. Jack, M. J. Magazine, and P. Stephens. 1998. A Taxonomic
Review of Supply Chain Management Research”, in Qualitative Models for
Supply Chain Management, 839-879.
4. Borenstein, S. & Saloner, G. 2001. Economics and electronic commerce.
Journal of Economic Perspectives 15(1), 3-12.
5. Lee, Hau L. V. Padmanabhan, and Seungjin Whang, 1997, “Information
Distortion in a Supply Chain: The Bullwhip Effect”, Management Science, 43(4),
546 – 558
6. Clark, A. J. and H. Scarf, 1960, “Optimal Policies for a Multi-Echelon
Inventory Problem”, Management Science, 6(4), 474 – 490
7. Chen F., Z. Drezner, J. Ryan, and D. Simchi-Levi, 2000, “Quantifying the
Bullwhip Effect in a Simple Supply Chain: The Impact of Forecasting, Lead
Times, and Information”, Management Science, 46(3), 436 – 443.
8. De Kok and S. Graves 2003, “Introduction”, Handbooks in Operations
Research and Management Science, 1-16.
9. Smith, M., Bailey, J., and Brynjolfsson, E. (2000). “Understanding digital
markets: review and assessment.” In Erik Brynjolfsson and Brian Kahin (eds).
Understanding the digital economy. MIT Press.
10. Brynjolfsson, E., Hu, Y., and Smith, M. “Consumer Surplus in the Digital
Economy: Estimateing the Value of Increased Product Variety at Online
Booksellers,” Management Science (49:11), 2003, pp. 1580-1596.
11. Brynjolfsson, E. and Smith, M. “Frictionless Commerce? A Comparison of
Internet and Conventional Retailers,” Management Science (46:4), 2000, pp.
563-585.
12. Hann, I. and Terwiesch, C. 2003. Measuring the frictional costs of online
transactions: the case of a name-your-own-price channel, Management Science
49(11), 1563-1579.
13. Johnson, E. J., Moe, W. W., Fader, P. S., Bellman, S., and G. L. Lohse.
2004. On the depth and dynamics of online search behavior, Management
Science, 50(3), 299-308.
14. Hitt, L. and Frei, F. X. “Do Better Customers Utilize Electronic Distribution
Channels? The Case of PC Banking,” Management Science (48:6), 2002, pp. 732748
15. Sutton, R. I. and B. M. Staw (1995) “What Theory is Not,” Administrative
Sciences Quarterly, 40.
16. Wacker, J. (1998), A definition of theory: Research guidelines for different
theorybuilding research methods in operations research,” Journal of Operations
Management, 16, 4, 361-385.
9
6
Class
Class
6
Class
Class
7
Donghyun
Vijay
7
Chris
Kaushik
7
Class
Class
8
Class
Class
8
Class
Class
9
Lakisha
Jody
9
Surma
Chris
9
Class
Class
17. Amundson S. D. (1998). 'Relationships between theory-driven empirical
research in operations management and other disciplines,” Journal of
Operations Management, 16, pp. 341-359.
18. Davis, M. S. 1971. That's interesting! Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1:
309-344.
19. Kulp, S. C., Lee, H. L, and E. Ofek 2004. Manufacturer benefits from
information integration with retail customers, Management Science 50(4), 431444.
20. Ho, V. T., Ang, S., and D. Straub. 2003. When subordinates become IT
contractors: persistent managerial expectations in IT outsourcing, Information
Systems Research 14(1).
21. Mukhopadhyay, T. and S. Kekre (2002) “Strategic and Operation Benefits of
Electronic Integration in B2B Procurement Processes,” Management Science,
vol. 48, no. 10, October.
22. Jarvenpaa, S. 1988. The importance of laboratory experimentation in IS
research. Communications of the ACM, 31: 1502-1504.
23. Mingers, J. 2001. Combining IS research methods: Towards a pluralistic
methodology. Information Systems Research, 12: 240-260.
24. Subramani, M.R. 2004. How do suppliers benefit from IT use in supply chain
relationships? MIS Quarterly 28(1), 45-73
25. Mukhopadhyay, T. and Kekre, S. 1995 Business value of information
technology: a study of electronic data interchange, MIS Quarterly 19(2), 137156.
26. Bakos, J. Y. and E. Brynjolfsson, (1993) “From Vendors to Partners:
Information technology and incomplete contracts in buyer-supplier
relationships,” in Journal of Organizational Computing.
10
Kaushik
Donghyun
10
Jody
Lakisha
10
Class
Class
11
Vijay
Lakisha
27. Miranda, S. M. and Saunders, C. S. 2003. The social construction of
meaning: an alternative perspective on information sharing, Information
Systems Research 14(1), 87-106.
28. Dellarocas, C. 2003. The digitization of word of mouth: promise and
challenge of online feedback mechanisms, Management Science, 49(10), 14071424.
29. Bolton, G. E., Katok, E. and Ockenfels, A. 2004. How effective are online
reputation mechanisms? An experimental study" Management Science 50(11)
1587-1602.
30. Rice, S. 2004. Online Reputations with Noisy Transactions: An Experimental
Study, 2004 Workshop on Information Systems and Economics.
11
Donghyun
Surma
31. Garbarino, E. and O. Lee 2003. Dynamic Pricing in Internet Retail: Effects
on Consumer Trust, Psychology and Marketing 20(6); 495-513.
11
Class
Class
12
Chris
Jody
12
Kaushik
Vijay
32. Croson, Rachel T.A., Donohue, Karen Lisa, Katok, Elena and Sterman, John,
"Order Stability in Supply Chains: Coordination Risk and the Role of
Coordination Stock" (October 2004). MIT Sloan Working Paper No. 4513-04.
http://ssrn.com/abstract=607321
33. Cachon, G. P., P. H. Zipkin, 1999, “Competitive and cooperative inventory
policies in a two-stage supply chain”, Management Science, 45, 936 – 953
34. Gupta, D., and Weerawat, W. 2006. “Supplier-Manufacturer Coordination
in Capacitated Two-Stage Supply Chains”, European Journal of Operational
Research, 175, 67-89.
10
12
Class
Class
13
Surma
Kaushik
13
Lakisha
Chris
13
Jody
Donghyun
35. Gerard P. Cachon, 2003, “Supply Chain Coordination with Contracts”,
Chapter 6, Sections 7 and 8, in HORMS, 229 – 340
36. Kouvelis, P. and M. Lariviere, 2000, “Decentralizing cross-functional
decisions: coordination through internal markets”, Management Science, 46(8),
1049 – 1058
37. Gerard P. Cachon, 2003, “Supply Chain Coordination with Contracts”,
Chapter 6, in HORMS, 229 – 340
38. Eeckhoudt L., C. Gollier, and H. Schlesinger, 1995, “The risk-averse (and
Prudent) Newsboy”, Management Science, 41(5), 786 – 794
11