Student Evaluations Edited by Peter L. Jackson
School of Operations Research and Industrial Engineering
Cornell University
Sponsored in part by the National Science Foundation Synthesis Coalition for Engineering Education.
The groups were too big. The ideal size is 4 people. Because the cases did not require the full energy of 6 people, I believe that this may have caused some people to be slackers.
Make the teams smaller (4, maybe 5, people).
Six persons in a group might be too [many]. I know that some groups divided into two [groups]. They took turns for projects. In my group, everyone met together for each assignment. [We] wasted a lot of time in waiting, discussing and reporting.
In our team, we were only 5 and sometimes were really thinking that we were maybe a little too [big]. On the other hand, the purpose is also to learn how to work in a team, to coordinate and dispatch work.
With groups as large as 6 or 7 people it was sometimes very difficult to allocate individual work to each person. There were times when every group member was not utilized.
It is very difficult for six people to work together on one case. Generally only two or three students worked effectively on each case. The only case where it was possible to divide the work in a balanced way was case 1, where we had a few assignments that were independent from each other. If this cannot be done with the other cases, I suggest decreasing the group sizes. If this increases too much the reading work for the professors and TAs, I suggest reducing the number of cases. Then all students can really get deep into all the cases and there will be a similar number of reports that the professors and TAs will have to grade.
The teams are too large. It is difficult to schedule meeting times between two Cornell engineers. It is impossible to schedule meeting times between six. Once everyone did get together, we could not get everyone to agree on anything. Major discussions seemed to drag on forever. It seems that four would be a much better team size.
Having teams of six or seven proved to be cumbersome at times. It was sometimes difficult to find enough time where everyone could meet. In many cases, at meeting not all group members' time was used to efficiency since there may have been only two computers; or not enough different tasks to be accomplished at the time. I feel reducing team sizes to three or four with maybe fewer cases to accomplish might have made the learning experience better for all.
Make the group project individual work.
Require each group to contain at least three ORIE majors out of the six members. The balance is very important. While diversity is good, it is essential for some members to have the ORIE background in manufacturing.
Groups should be assigned by professors. It is important to learn to work with people you don't know, and with people you don't like working with. In the real world, you are seldom able to choose who you want to work with.
It is important that every member of the group have a different background. Although this was one of the requirements for our class, most groups didn't follow the requirement.
In the way this course is organized now, only four in the team [were needed to do] the work. The team size should be reduced or the amount of work increased ( but this will not be very popular).
Smaller teams! We often found that the group worked very well when the entire group was not meeting together. When the entire group met, we often did not get much done. We began delegating the writing of the assignments to two people per case. Often those people would do more work for the case than the rest of the group. This situation made giving presentations quite difficult. A team size of four would be ideal.
Smaller groups in future classes would be beneficial. It seemed as though a group of seven was too large for the scope of these projects. Often time was wasted explaining different aspects of the projects to all the members of the group. In addition, it is very difficult to find convenient times for all seven group members to meet. A smaller group would allow all group members to gain more out of each case study and would be more manageable.
The team size made division of efforts difficult. Most of the case studies could easily be broken into four parts, but were difficult to break into six parts. This resulted in some team members working much harder than others and seemed to encourage slothfulness because there were plenty of team members to pick up the slack.
I found the size of teams (6 members) to be too large and distracting. There are too many people to account for and much time was wasted just waiting for late arrivals or filling other members in on what happened.
It would be good to work in two different teams before having to choose the permanent members for the rest of the [semester]. In my case, the dynamics of the first team [[for the Manufacturing Operations Game]] was a little strange and I wanted to try something different. Unfortunately, the second team also had some trouble. If permanent selections were made after the second case [[meaning, case 1 of Llenroc?]], then a better choice of team members could be made because we would know more people. Finally, the second report [[case 1 of Llenroc?]] is worth a high percentage of the grade and is difficult to complete if your team members changed from the first case. The emphasis forces the team to perform quickly, which is very strenuous on the members. There was much other homework due around the same time and the diversification of majors made meetings time difficult.
Swap groups midway throught the semester. While it is good to have a consistent group to work with, it is also good to learn how to work in different groupings. We became very set in roles with our group, and I don't see that as particularly good.
Having teams of both seniors and graduate students is another idea to think about. You might think that grad students could end up doing most of the work, but I honestly do not think so. The advantage of this type of grouping comes to play when grad students take higher level courses or have more industry experience, two aspects which can contribute new ideas to the discussions. [[Teams were separated into undergraduate and graduate teams. However, oral presentations were often made by both type of teams during the same session.]]
Any ways that you can think of to facilitate meeting classmates and finding team members would be helpful. The Manufacturing Operations Game was good, but I was put in a section with Seniors instead of M.Eng.'s. Then, when I went to form a team, I hadn't met any M.Eng.'s. Also, make it clear when teams need to be formed. I felt like I was scrambling at the last minute to find teammates.
Because of the different [disciplines] or because this course is really too Operations Research oriented, [the two members from other disciplines] could never express themselves and provide their share of the work. In building our team for this course, we should have looked for people who could really bring something.
Unfortunately, we could not really incorporate or use the skills of two team members coming from [other] fields. [In spite of] leadership and encouragement from the other team members, loss of interest and [understanding] from these two members increased with time. Before an interdisciplinary team is formed the interdisciplinary problems have to be identified and confirmed.
The Llenroc Plastics cases deal mostly with inventory, distribution, demand variation, and lead time. I did not see any problems concerning electrical or mechanical aspects of manufacturing. The reason I took this course is the course title "Design for Effective Manufacturing" implies interdisciplinary subjects in manufacturing which should include operations research, electrical, mechanical, chemical, economics, laws and regulations, and even political [factors] such as NAFTA. I believe this class can be enriched by inviting outside speackers not only from manufacturing but also from law firms, political agencies, or even labor relations. Frankly, I do not believe that operations research alone can create an effective manufacturing [system].
We had some troubles with people from other departments who could not provide their share of the work. I had the feeling that this was due to the fact that ORIE 515 is too Operations Research-oriented and that the ORIE students were teaching what they know to EE and MAE students when we could not take advantage of their knowledge. This could be improved by adding, if possible, some questions involving some electrical or mechanical knowledge.
Clarify the cases, because sometimes what was written didn't make sense.
At times, the data / text were unclear and we often had to make assumptions [we were unsure of].
A more detailed diagram of the Fabrication room could have been helpful. This diagram would show how material flows in and out of the MJs and sanders, and it would show what [material handling] devices [scissor lifts] are located at the entrance and [exits] of the machines.
Appendix F is a little confusing. I had trouble following how to make the safety stock calculations. For example, on page F4 no subscripts are needed on any of the alphas if I understand them correctly. It should be specified how to make the divisions into the A/B/C categorizations. Say that the A items make up 80% of the demand, etc. This is important because it is used later in the other cases.
There was so much information presented in the Case Studies that not all of it was relevant.
I would review the text for the class. Most of it was clear and easy to understand, but some of the tables were slightly confusing, and without a better understanding of the process, it was hard to tell exactly what the numbers meant. The text should be written assuming no understanding at all of the process. For the most part, it was. There were just a few confusing parts.
If we are given a clearer picture of the current situation with Llenroc Plastics we will be able to perform a better job on the assignments. Sometimes, I felt that the information was not enough and it was unclear. This created some difficulties for us.
Improve the description of the cases as much as possible. Also it would be a good idea to have a reference file or book or even video tape where we can consult for details about the actual situation of certain operations. Throughout the semester, we lost a lot of time making incorrect assumptions. It is sometimes not possible to ask a professor or a teaching assistant at the time the questions arise.
Moreover, sometimes, we cannot wait until the next available day. That is why a common reference will be extremely helpful.
Sometimes I got the feeling that we were missing data that would have been useful in evaluating different alternatives. For example, in cases 5 and 6 we had production time and demand very well specified, but nothing on costs. Maybe cost is not a major issue here, but it can definitely tip the scales between two possible solutions.
There was something strange [about] case 3 and I can't really put my finger on precisely what. I think it was either too broad or too early in the semester. I was going through it just now and the issues did not seem too complicated, but I remember that we had about 4 meetings for that case where the first question was "OK, what do we have to do for this?" I remember we did not know how to start so we lost a lot of time. I would guess that this is why in the end most groups ended up only playing with the software, without doing any further analysis.
I hope that the software is improved. The bugs in the programs caused severe headaches at times as well as wasted a lot of time (the programs [[TRUCKS?]] didn't allow [us] to save [our data] which made us redo the entire [[truck schedule?]]).
Remove the bugs in the software.
Software in this course should be fully tested / debugged or just rewrite the whole thing. ( I heard these programs are written in Basic. Why not C?)
The software must be tested more thoroughly before springing it on the students. The software packages for cases 1 and 3 [[TRUCKS and the Warehouse Location Software]] would crash several times. This is inconvenient seeing as it is hard enough to organize a group meeting where everyone can attend. If the software then crashes, the meeting becomes unproductive. Overall, the software was effective. The only problems I felt were with "random crashing" and the speed of some of the programs.
There are several fatal "bugs" in the [graphical] software used for Cases 1 and 3. The software [[TRUCKS?]] sometimes saved the wrong demand and supply data. Even worse, the software sometimes kicks the user out of the program. The nice graphical [[warehousing software]] takes a lot of processing time and so takes a lot of our time unnecessarily.
There were many bugs still in some of the initial computer packages that caused extensive delays in project completions. These should be worked out for next year.
Debug the software for distribution cases [[warehouse location software]]. We tried many different distribution patterns to reduce the number of trucks. In the end, we came up with an efficient schedule. Feeling very happy, we went home. The next day, when we sat down to write the report, we couldn't retrieve our file.
The computers in the MEng. lab are too slow. [[IBM 386 SX.]] This caused a lot of frustration [[ The warehouse location graphical software was slow, even on a 486 machine.]]
The software was not only not very interactive, it ran very slowly on most computers. A manual of how to operate the software should be included in the course packet. The recitations [[laboratory sections]] do not satisfy the needs of everyone due to differences in computer skills.
Use a totally different program for trucking schedules. The one we used for case #1 [[TRUCKS]] was not very user-friendly.
An obvious [way to improve] is the software for the first cases. It is not vital but it would be nice to have smoothly running software.
One of the things that could be improved in the Llenroc Plastics Experience is the amount of utilization of the software created by Prof. Jackson. [[The student is probably referring to CGANTT, the software for cyclic scheduling. This was used in one recitation to illustrate the concepts of cyclic scheduling but was not used in any of the Llenroc cases for detailed analysis. It is an integral part of a different design experience, The Manufacturing System Development Game.]] I believe [it] could be a useful tool in reaching optimum solutions to the cases. The cases could be adapted in order to use the available software or vice versa. I think that all the time and effort Prof. Jackson put in writing the various software should not be wasted.
It would have been helpful to have a visual introduction to the case at the beginning of the course, rather than in the middle. [[Faculty conducted a "plant tour" with the aid of 35 mm slides before case 6.]] There is much more you can understand from a situation when you see it.
If a new case is developed in the following years which involves a factory nearby, arrange a trip to that factory. Students will be able to come up with better solutions if they have the opportunity to observe what is going on.
It would have been great to do a live plant tour. It seems ironic that I will graduate from Cornell, having spent the bulk of my time preparing for work in manufacturing, and never even have been to a plant as part of my coursework. A plant trip would not even have to relate to the Llenroc cases, it would just be nice to have the opportunity to visit any facility with my professors on hand to comment and answer questions.
I would suggest that more videos and audiovisual equipment be used to give us a taste of what is going on in reality. This was done for once and it was great. [[A prototype of interactive multimedia factory tour was demonstrated.]] I know that it would probably be very hard to get more of these videos at this time, but I just wanted to point out their great value. Having more of them would be great.
Making recommendations for a production plant that we have not been able to even take a tour of is very difficult. I think it is integral to be able to visualize the current production process before making any recommendations for change. This is why I think more visual slides such the ones given during the one [plant tour] lecture should be given. This can even serve as an introduction to the class during the first week or two. Once you can visualize what is going wrong in the plant, it is easier to see what steps need to be taken for improvement.
I would try to give the students more of a picture of what the plant looks like. The video clips (or slides) were somewhat helpful, but I think each part of the process should be visually defined before assigning the project. In this way, we can better understand a process which most of us have never seen.
I don't think there was enough [work required for the course]; we should have done case 7 as well.
Assign one less case and spread the extra time to ease the other cases' deadlines. If ORIE 416/515 is to remain a 4 credit course, the workload must be more manageable. I spent a huge amount of time working with my group, more time than I have ever spent on any 4 credit course at Cornell. The intensity may be good, but a couple of extra days to finish the reports might have enabled me to better concentrate on my other classes.
Either reduce the number of cases or combine a couple. By the end of the semester, it became extremely tedious to write up cases every week, especially as other major projects became due.
The cases were overwhelming in terms of work and time and a one week deadline causes me to neglect my other courses.
If we can be given more time I believe the quality of the reports can be further improved.
The more interesting and time consuming cases came towards the end of the semester (cases 4-6). By pushing the cases earlier in the semester, I think we'll have more time to analyze the cases.
The end of the semester is very busy for most students, especially grad students. Therefore, the only portion of the course that I would suggest changing is starting case one earlier in the semester so that the last few cases were spread out in the end.
Only half of [the lab periods] were effective.
I understand this course requires us to spend a large part of our time on the case studies. I also understand you don't want to repeat material the grads have seen. But I would have benefitted from additional formal teaching. I am a senior, and I haven't learned everything yet.
Assign several short homeworks to reinforce how to perform calculations such as WIP, throughput, and inventory stock requirements. The lecture and recitation covered it, but some people are not comfortable doing these calculations by themselves.
If you were not an ORIE major (ie. never taken a class in this material before), then I feel that you tend to get less out of the cases. The amount that you learn is dependent on your own motivational level. For example, I never had to understand some of the financial analysis and scheduling that was done, as the ORIE's did it themselves. I had to constantly ask what was happening in order to keep up and contribute. Perhaps a basic optional text could be made available?
If you are not an ORIE student or if you do not have any background in statistics or economics, you are at a severe disadvantage. More common sense stuff should be taught instead of learning all that theory (statistics equations, standard deviation, etc.). Not all theory should not be learned, however. Some of the cases called for knowledge some of us simply didn't have. Not having taken OR 451 [[Economic Analysis of Engineering Systems]], I could not build the economic model the case requested and had to leave it up to other members of the group. If this happens frequently, then the members will not be contributing equally.
Explain the basics of OR theory more completely for the benefit of non-ORIE students.
Students with a solid background in operations research and industrial engineering had to teach many basic principles to the non-ORIE majors. For example, topics such as engineering economy, inventory theory, and cyclic scheduling were clearly understood by ORIE majors. However, we then had to teach these principles to the non-OR's before progress could be made on the cases. A possible suggestion would be to go over some basics in Engineering Economy and Inventory Theory in optional lectures for non-OR's.
Make the lectures optional for OR students. The lectures should be mandatory for non-OR students. The lectures should then provide background in such areas as simulation, economic analysis, etc., so that the OR students in the group are not left with the teaching responsibilities.
I recommend that we have fewer lectures. More office hours in place of lectures would be beneficial. Lecture material should be more structured around the labs or cases. For example, talk about production scheduling towards the end of the course [[when case 6 is studied]]. [Describe] demand aggregation, reduction of variability, the No B/C Stock policy with slightly more math. emphasis, or maybe closer to the cases where those ideas will be applied. This was especially true in the beginning of the course when we covered a lot of material that we then used two months later (thus some of those ideas got lost in time!).
I felt like we learned many of the tools too far in advance of when they were needed in the course. This was not a big issue, but it might have provided more continuity.
The classes used for explaining the types of inventory should be placed between [case 1 and case 3?]. That is, it will be more useful for us to analyze the types of inventory in class when [case 3] is being analyzed. This arises from the fact that when [case 3] is being done, a lot of questions arise about the types of inventory and how they [behave?].
The lectures were usually boring and uninteresting. I think the lecturers need to have more energy and enthusiasm when presenting the lectures. The material covered in the lectures was interesting, it was just the manner in which it was presented that made the material to also seem boring.
Teams were left in the dark to some extent when it came to problem solving methodology. From the IBM Manufacturing Consulting people [[guest lecturers]], I learned that most consulting groups have a clearly defined methodology that they follow. I am not saying that a methodology should have been forced upon us. However, it would have been productive to look at some of the more successful methodologies at the start of the course.
You could have a lecture (ot two) about how to manage groups and working together as a group. This could include how to run meetings, prepare meeting agendas, prepare meeting reports as a group, and how to make a group presentation. [[One of the guest lectures was entitled Group Dynamics and addressed some of these topics.]]
Encourage the guest speakers (some of them) to interact more with the class.
Eliminate the guest lectures from the curriculum. I felt that the issues that were being covered in these lectures were good overall manufacturing topics. However, they seemed to have little direct relevance to the cases. Topics such as these were covered in ORIE 410, and we have the tools to use them already when taking the course. Also, some of these lectureres were the same speakers as in our seminar later on that day. [[M.Eng. students are required to attend a 1 credit colloquium on Manufacturing Engineering.]] Often, material was repeated from 515 during the seminar.
Invite as many guest speakers as possible. The knowledge and experience they bring is invaluable. It might be interesting and enlightening to invite speakers who just graduated from Cornell and don't have much work experience. Listening to the problems these people faced when they started work could help us prepare better for work.
I recommend that the Teaching Assistants become more involved in the course. The few times I tried to talk to a T.A., he/she seemed to know less about the case than I did. Their involvement in the first few cases was strong but gradually deteriorated throughout the semester. [[The faculty did not involve the T.A.'s in cases 5 and 6.]] Late night questions are normally directed towards a T.A. because calling a professor at night at home seems unprofessional. We were unable to do so this semester.
Since most of the time the T.A.s did not know what the cases were about, we could not count on them to answer our questions. This is why you, the professors, ending up answering our questions all the time. Usually, TA's are easier to catch than the professors. Also, I believe that TA's should be willing to understand and see all the possible points of view when grading the cases. [[The TA's graded case 4 reports.]] They should not grade only according to what they think is the best solution but also taking into consideration the assumptions and line of thinking of the students.
There was little incentive to come prepared for the oral progress reports, since most of the time, they were just Prof. Muckstadt and Prof. Jackson giving more information on the case. If we could be required to come prepared with the discussion questions, as we did in case 1, I feel that the sessions would be more beneficial.
[Perhaps, there should be] more oral progress reports, though not necessarily so long. Perhaps a short in-class discussion (15-20 minutes) for those cases where we don't have oral progress reports. (This is just an off-the-top-of -the-head idea; overall, I thought the way you handled the cases was very effective.)
I would somehow try to meet in smaller groups more often. The large lectures were much less useful that were the small progress report meetings. In the small meetings, the one-on-one interaction allowed for more questions and an open discussion of any misunderstandings the students might have.
It would have helped if we received more guidance on each case. Perhaps, in lecture, [you could] define some key issues on which we should focus.
It would be helpful if all of the students, or at least the M.Eng.'s had to do oral presentations twice. A few people in my group who were not comfortable speaking in front of others made it clear that they would not participate in [the last] presentation. Therefore, the people who needed the most practice did not get it.
If we could have four cases where [oral] presentation is required it will be very beneficial.
You may need to require students to participate in at least two presentations instead of only one.
Make the written report something like homework and forget about [oral] presentation.
The teams should make their presentations to larger groups of people. I understand time constraints, but for grading consistency, both instructors should have a say in every group's grade for every case. In addition, the group members would doubly benefit from the comments of two instructors.
During the presentations, I disliked that occasionally the professor would incite debate between the groups presenting. this made it very personal between the groups. This is too confrontational and potentially embarassing for a weaker team.
All students should be led to the proper resources which can maximize the aesthetics of their projects. Teams whose members have access to color slides and laser printers have a distinct advantage over those who don't. The advantages, if not eliminated, should be compensated for in the grading.
Maybe it is just my ignorance of ORIE classes in general, but it seems to me that the "dog and pony show" aspects of the reports and presentations were weighted too heavily over content.
An interesting idea would be to have random presentations. All the group members would prepare it and then at the actual presentation you could randomly pick people to present certain parts. While the presentation would not be as refined, it would ensure that everyone in the group, not just the presenters of that section, understood each section of the project.
Go over the cases more extensively once they have been handed in. What solutions did Llenroc actually implement? What were the results? What would Llenroc say to the suggestions that we came up with? It seemed that once the case was finished, the next case would be started immediately without discussing what Llenroc actually did.
It would be nice to see more of what Llenroc really did, particularly after we finish each respective case.
Lecture time could be used more to support the case. For instance, class time could be used to go over what happened in each case and what the real issues were (after the fact).
There is good feedback from the written reports, but the feedback from oral presentations were also important for us. If we could receive a critique about how well or how [poorly] our presentations were and what we could improve, then we can learn more and continuously improve our presentation ability.
A discussion of each case should be followed after each case is due. Discussion should include the good and bad points of reports.
The professors [should] address some good solutions and points from some nicely done reports.
Put more emphasis on improving the style and form of the writing and oral presentations.
The feedback that we received for the written and the oral reports was poor. Sometimes we made the same mistake because we did not understand what you were expecting. In addition, sometimes we had questions about the grading policy and about some of the comments written on the reports. I think that a 15 minute feedback session per team, per case, will help us improve the reports.
Provide an example of what you considered an "A" written report after each case. This would help students realize what is important, what is NOT important, and give students an idea of how a report could be organized. Of course, this would only be a pseudo-example, and there would be many other formats that could represent an "A" report.
It is hard to present in front of Professor Muckstadt because he puts you on the defensive. It is especially hard the first time because his tactics totally blow your concentration. I am not saying that what he does is bad; actually, it is good. However, you may want to tell the students that the reason that you do this is so that they will be prepared when a [client] does it to them, so the students don't end up thinking that you are ripping them to shreds because they can't do anything right.
On some cases, we began to work very early, and we lost a lot of time, because we were working with the wrong assumptions, trying to do things that are not demanded, or with constraints that have changed. [[The faculty used the oral progress report meetings as a time to clarify the objectives of the case.]] This means that the cases need a better description, and a more precise indication of the assumptions that are made.
There is a lack of feedback on the oral and written presentations. Actually, the written reports contain a lot of annotations, and that helps a lot. It may be interesting to get some kind of correction at the end of each case. For the oral report, I wish we had more comments on what was wrong, and how to improve it. Sometimes, from the comments we had, we thought we did a good presentation, but the corresponding grade was not as good as expected.
I would strongly suggest much more feedback on the evaluation portion of the class. At times, I did not have a clear impression on what we could do to improve both our oral and written presentations. I suggest that more time be scheduled so that either the professors of the T.A.s can give more feedback. This would make the learning experience much better.
Provide more feedback about student presentation skills so that they could be improved upon for future presentations.
Sample cases should be provided to allow students an idea of what is expected. Sample cases could include actual cases presented to Llenroc or cases from previous years.
The cases should be integrated from the start, with students aware of all the eventual necessary improvements at the beginning of the semester. In addition, lectures taught immediately after cases are graded should relate to what was good and bad about each of the students' solutions. The major emphasis should be on why certain wrong solutions are not viable.
At times I felt that a case was not covered as completely as I would have liked. Maybe if there were fewer cases with more attention to each case, the student would learn more about certain areas instead of a little bit of all areas.
I understand that there are many right answers to problems such as this, but in many cases, I was curious as to what the most correct answer was. More attention to this could have been made after each case was finished.
[[Students were required to hand in confidential evaluations of the contributions of their team members. One peer evaluation was submitted after case3; the second after case 6]]
Make students fill out the peer evaluation forms more frequently, perhaps after each case is completed. This way, you are able to spot sooner people who might be slacking off, and aleter them of the situation before more drastic measures are needed. Having only two peer evaluations is not enough...
Make the peer evaluations COUNT for more. That way the lazies will work.
There should be some way to deal with students that are not necessarily doing their share of the work. As it stands, it was left to the groups to deal with the internal dynamics and task assignments. If there was a student that did not have a grasp of the material, then the rest of the group was required to do more work. (This was not a major problem for my group, but I know it was a problem for many of the groups.)
One of the great lessons of this class was the one learned from working with other people. This lesson could be amplified by having intra-group evaluations after every case. In these forms, students could give students feedback on all aspects of their work and interpersonal skills. This would give every student an added incentive to perform and it would also create a mechanism to progressively improve the team skills of everyone.
An interesting case [to include] might be a marketing oriented case.
Ask students to do Case 7 and give a presentation on it. This would help put all the other cases [into] perspective.
Try and fit case 7 in. Even if it is a shortened version, I think it would be effective. Talking with Prof. Muckstadt during the last presentation got us going in that direction because he asked us to tell him in which order we would implement the changes we recommended throughout the cases.
One or some of the projects should include techniques in effective data collection.
I missed the data research aspect which is, I am totally aware, very difficult to put in place. This could, perhaps, be done by only giving the data during the progress meetings when the teams would have thought of which data they are going to need.
As an ORIE major, there are a few topics I haven't learned anything about, such as sales and marketing, product design, financing various proposed changes, and mission statement / corporate strategy... I know these topics might go beyond the scope of the course, but maybe it would be worthwhile to think about how these areas may affect manufacturing. For example, how can sales and marketing work together to provide customers with the best quality product and the shortest waiting time? What incentive is there for the salesman to understand and consider the manufacturing process? Can the product be designed better? What changes would have to be made in the manufacturing equipment? What is happening in the market for this good? Do trends exist in the data?
To add a proactive perspective to the case study, a complete analysis should be conducted on the recommendations made by the teams. For instance, when we stated that the customer service will improve, the president of AMP suggested we predict how much market share will increase because of the improvement. And, accordingly, determine if we will have the capacity to handle the increased market share. This approach will help understand the ramifications of our conclusions. [[Bill Hudson sat in on oral presentations of case 6 and indicated that this market share prediction is the type of analysis he requires of his planners.]]
Get a better lecture room next semester.
Most of the time, Professor Muckstadt and the student answering a questions were very difficult to hear. Maybe more should be written on the board so that we can keep track of these important points.
Faster computers [[existing computers were 386SX]] in the ORIE lab and more printer paper would have been very useful.
Another difficulty we faced was finding space to utilize the software given for some of the cases. There is a minimal number of computers in Hollister [[general undergraduate PC computing facility]] and many of them are very slow (especially when using the software for the [warehouse location] case study). This problem may be overcome if the students could have more access to the [ORIE] computer lab in the Theory Center. [[This is a teaching lab that is not generally open on evenings or weekends. Access was increased later in the semester.]]