PRODUCTION/OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

Michael J. Showalter, Feature Editor, Florida State University

Why Can't We Practice What We Preach?

by Mark M. Davis, Bentley College

In the 1960's only 7% of U.S. businesses were exposed to foreign competitors. By the 1980's that figure grew to greater than 70%, and is still rising [2]. With this trend toward greater international competition, no company is immune, and only the best, as defined by world-class competitors, will survive.

As the world rapidly approaches a single global economy, many of the geographic advantages that were previously enjoyed by companies and countries are quickly disappearing [3]. Advances in communication technology, lower transportation costs coupled with faster delivery, and the trend toward lowering political barriers to entry (e.g., tariffs) have made every corner of the world virtually accessible.

In such a fiercely competitive environment, the paradigms that produced success in the past are no longer applicable to today's issues. Without geographic advantages and protectionist policies, companies and countries must seek new ways to achieve a competitive advantage or face failure and second-class status in the newly emerging world order. That advantage currently appears to be in the skills and education of a country's (or company's) workforce.

In fact, the inability of American businesses to compete effectively in the global arena has been attributed, in large part, to the inability of its business schools to properly educate the business managers and leaders of today and tomorrow. While the failure of American businesses and the poor education system that now exists in this country cannot be totally attributed to our business schools, they must claim their fair share of the responsibility.

The reason we have failed to provide the proper education for the business executives of today and tomorrow, is, to put it quite simply, we don't practice what we preach.

We preach, for example, that the successful company or organization must put its customers first and listen to what they have to say. And yet many faculty in academia continue to teach existing courses and/or design new courses that focus on their own individual interests or areas of expertise, regardless of the needs of the students and the firms that hire them.

We preach that the successful company must apply the concept of "benchmarking," which is to learn and then emulate the practices of the most successful firms in an industry, in order to stay current on advances in technology and management techniques. And yet benchmarking is virtually non-existent on our campuses. Consequently, there are a large number of courses at virtually every business school that have remained almost unchanged over the years. As a result, students are often taught outdated and irrelevant material.

We preach that the successful firm should adopt a "seamless" organization concept, doing away with functional hierarchies which we call "silo" type organizations. This approach provides better communication across functions and eliminates redundancies and/or omissions of needed operations. And yet there is little if any communication across disciplines in a business school, each department tenaciously defending its respective territory from the invasion of outside intruders. As a result, the same topic is frequently presented in more than one course without any coordination among the instructors. To quote one student, "Don't you professors ever talk to one another? I've seen the same film in three different classes." From an overall curriculum perspective, equally problematic is the omission of critical material that isn't covered in any of the courses.

We preach that an important dimension in product quality is the consistency with which that product is made. And yet faculty continue to assert their "academic freedom," often refusing to agree on a common syllabus for a core course. In some cases, faculty cannot even agree on a common textbook for these core courses. Is it any wonder that the quality of our output is so erratic and variable?

We preach the concept of continuous improvement and the importance of feedback on performance. And yet the measurement of faculty performance in the classroom is primarily limited to student evaluations. The classroom performance of tenured faculty and adjunct faculty by peer review is typically not done at many institutions.

We preach that the successful company must focus on a particular market niche or segment and then develop the necessary strengths to serve that market. And yet how many colleges and universities have a clear mission statement that includes a well defined market segment? Can anyone truly define the differences, for example, between the business school programs at Babson College, Bentley College, Boston College, Boston University, Northeastern University and Suffolk University, which are all located in the Boston area?

We preach the importance of time-based competition. þBetter never than late,þ to quote George Stalk [4]. And yet we continue to drag out the process for revising curricula and developing new courses, often with little substantive changes. To quote Myron Tribus, former dean of MIT's Thayer School of Engineering, ". . . its easier to move a graveyard than to change a curriculum" [1]. In fact, because of the long development times, even "new" courses often contain outdated information in today's fast paced world.

There are some, both among faculty and administrators, who recognize the existence of these problems, and who have already taken up the challenge to change our approach to business school education. However, there are still many, too many, for whatever the reasons, who are entrenched in the old philosophies and paradigms.

The first step toward improvement is the recognition that the problem exists. The goal of this article to create an awareness and an acknowledgement of the problems we face in our business schools, not just a castigation of the current system. It should serve as a challenge to change the status quo. This article will have served its purpose if at some time in the near future it could be said that the business schools in this country truly "practice what we preach."

References

[1] Dobyns, L. and C. Crawford-Mason, Quality or Else: The Revolution in World Business, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, 1991

[2] Gwynne, S.C., "The Long Haul," Time, September 28, 1992.

[3] Naisbitt, J., and P. Aburdene, Megatrends 2000, William Morrow & Co., Inc., New York, NY, 1990.

[4] Stalk, G., Jr., "Time - The Next Source of Competitive Advantage," Harvard Business Review, July-August, 1988.

MARK M. DAVIS is Associate Professor of Operations Management at Bentley College, Waltham, MA. Dr. Davis received his MBA and DBA degrees from Boston University's School of Management and a B.S.E.E. from Tufts University. He worked as a manufacturing engineer for the General Electric Company and is a graduate of its Manufacturing Management Program. He was also a program manager for the U.S. Army Natick Research Laboratories. Dr. Davis has published in several journals, including , The Journal of Operations Management, Decision Sciences, The Journal of Services Marketing, The Journal of Business Forecasting, and OM Review. Dr. Davis is currently president of the Northeast Region of the Decision Sciences Institute, and is on the editorial review boards of OM Review and The International Journal of Service Industry Management.