Using an Online Factory Simulator in OM Courses: Experiences in the CSU System Samuel C. Wood Responsive Learning Technologies CSU-POM 2005 Annual Meeting.

Using an Online Factory Simulator in OM Courses:

Experiences in the CSU System

Samuel C. Wood Responsive Learning Technologies

CSU-POM 2005 Annual Meeting

Outline

• Overview

• Tracing One Team at Cal State Northridge

• Aggregate Data from the Same Game

• Student Feedback from SFSU

Assignment Summary

Student teams manage a simulated factory by buying and selling equipment and changing operating parameters. Each student team manages their own factory which runs 24 hours a day / 7 days a week. The factory is accessed from a web site. The objective is to maximize cash position. At any time during the assignment, students can check their cash position compared to all the other teams’.

Students get:

• A 5-page note describing the simulator

• One or two assignments providing additional details.

Students are graded on:

• A memo after each assignment describing what the team did, why, and what they should have done.

The Factory

Plot Utilization; Buy machines

Plot completed job count, lead time, revenue

per job

Plot raw materials; set order point and quantity

Plot job arrivals and jobs waiting for

materials; set contractPlot queue lengths

Pedagogical Objectives

Provide a context for lessons in class

• Every student has managed a queuing network

• Every student has managed a stock replenishment system

Motivate learning

• Ranking data provides constant assessment of student performance

• Competition fuels interest in course subject material

Develop a set of target skills

• Capacity and lead time management, forecasting, inventory control, etc.

• Diagnosis and management of complex networks with queuing, capacity constraints, and stock replenishment

• Relate operational performance to financial performance

Recent History: Number of students using LT in the previous five academic years

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03

5 schools in2 countries

7 schools in2 countries

16 schools in4 countries

25 schools in7 countries

28 schools in10 countries

Number ofStudents

Littlefield Technologies in the CSU System

San Francisco State University:• MBA OM Course in Spring 2004: 40 students• Undergrad OM Course in Fall 2004: 130 students• Both courses this term

California State University at Northridge:• OM Course in Fall 2004: 18 students• Undergrad OM course Jan 2005: 30 students

Example from January 2005:An undergrad OM Course

at Cal State Northridge

• Second of two assignments – 1 week long• Reduce queueing to meet most lucrative contract• Capacity must be added• Reorder point must be increased• Second-order effect: EOQ• Manage end-of-life inventory

Team “greenhoppers”

Greenhoppers: Initial Analysis

Day 64: Spend 5 minutes checking utilizations, queues, and inventory

Day 85: 20 minutes of

downloading and analysis

Days 90 and 91: Login a couple times over 90 minutes. More downloading and analysis, equipment purchases, contract change, inventory parameter changes but not enough to avoid stockouts

Day 50: Game begins

Greenhoppers: A Learning Event!

Days 91 to 125: Another half-dozen logins, each around 10 minutes, checking the factory, adding one more machine, and fiddling with inventory parameters

Days 125 – 126: After 15 minutes of checking other plots, a huge stockout is detected. Inventory data is downloaded and soon afterwards reorder point is changed 6 times over 5 minutes, eventually settling on an appropriate safety stock. Over the next hour they check back a couple times to view the damage, but do not make further interventions, which is correct

Greenhoppers:The Rest of the Game

Days 130 to 218: Over the next 4 days, the team logs in about 80 times. The logins are typically less than 5 minutes, plotting a few key parameters like lead time and inventory, and checking standing. Order quantity is increased somewhat, to about half the EOQ.

Greenhopper’s Login Activity

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Real Day of Exercise

Cu

mu

lati

ve l

og

ins

Virtually all decisions made during this interval

All 11 Teams: Activity Level During the Week

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

plo

ts p

er t

eam

per

day

All 11 Teams: Data Downloads

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

do

wn

load

s d

uri

ng

th

e w

eek

per

tea

m

Does Activity Translate To Performance?Total Logins versus Final Rank

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th

tota

l lo

gin

s ve

rsu

s fi

nal

ran

kin

g

Formal Student Feedback:Undergrad OM Course at SFSU*

Question posed to student. 1= Strong Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree; N=67 AverageThese games contributed to my understanding of capacity management and inventory management. 4.1In these games, I frequently found myself actively thinking about the simulation game and what decisions I should make. 4.2As a result of these simulation games, my interest and curiosity about operations management has increased. 3.9

The students were also given the opportunity to write comments. Most comments were positive about their experience with the simulations. Some of the students use the word “fun” to describe their experience with the game. A few students criticized the $20 cost of the game.

* Courtesy of Professor Julia Miyaoka

The Adoption Process

• Faculty requests packet and free trial account from [email protected] for evaluation

• Approximate dates, student counts and billing address e-mailed to receive course account

• Pricing is per student

• Price typically passed on to students through course reader or directly through bookstore

Summary

• Littlefield Technologies is a web-based competitive simulator

• Competition, made possible by being online, is apparently important

• Learning is apparently taking place: “Ah Ha” events mixed with long-run skill acquisition and refinement

• Students value the experience