2009
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4609.2009.00225.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Push Versus Pull and Mass Customization: A Lego Inukshuk Demonstration

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The application of teaching-learning dynamics within Production Engineering has been reported frequently in simulations and games involving concepts of production management. Snider & Eliasson (2009), in turn, used LEGO® mounting parts to explain the differences between manufacturing and remanufacturing in programming environments with the MRP I (Material Requirements Planning) and MRP II (Manufacturing Resources Planning) systems. Gokhale (1995) observed that students who participated in active teaching experiments performed better on critical analysis tests than students who studied individually.…”
Section: Dynamics For the Teaching-learning Processmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The application of teaching-learning dynamics within Production Engineering has been reported frequently in simulations and games involving concepts of production management. Snider & Eliasson (2009), in turn, used LEGO® mounting parts to explain the differences between manufacturing and remanufacturing in programming environments with the MRP I (Material Requirements Planning) and MRP II (Manufacturing Resources Planning) systems. Gokhale (1995) observed that students who participated in active teaching experiments performed better on critical analysis tests than students who studied individually.…”
Section: Dynamics For the Teaching-learning Processmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Built upon the work of Billington (2004), Snider and Eliasson (2009), and Vaughan and Gartner (2009), it is pedagogical exercise that utilizes approximately 20 students to support a four-tier supply chain, consisting of a customer, a focal manufacturer, and multiple raw material (RM) suppliers (two tiers) to produce paper airplanes. Built upon the work of Billington (2004), Snider and Eliasson (2009), and Vaughan and Gartner (2009), it is pedagogical exercise that utilizes approximately 20 students to support a four-tier supply chain, consisting of a customer, a focal manufacturer, and multiple raw material (RM) suppliers (two tiers) to produce paper airplanes.…”
Section: Simulation Administrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To facilitate students' understanding of LSS supply chain management principles, we describe a progressive, "hands-on" simulation that emphasizes the short comings of traditional approaches to supply chain management and the benefits of LSS application. Built upon the work of Billington (2004), Snider and Eliasson (2009), and Vaughan and Gartner (2009), it is pedagogical exercise that utilizes approximately 20 students to support a four-tier supply chain, consisting of a customer, a focal manufacturer, and multiple raw material (RM) suppliers (two tiers) to produce paper airplanes. In each simulation run, which lasts exactly five minutes, the airplane supply chain is asked to fill 60 randomly distributed customer orders, each order consisting of a single red, green, or blue airplane.…”
Section: Simulation Administrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The simulation presented here falls into the final category: tangible product. Like the simulation presented by Snider and Eliasson (), in which students created Duplo Lego Inuit rock structures, students actually make something (using a “toy” many are familiar with from childhood) rather than input data, interact with a software via a keyboard, or watch charts modify in response to supply chain events (based on the “draw of a card” or randomized based on some pre‐defined probability distribution). They see, first hand, increasing (or depleted) inventories, “machine” breakdowns, set‐up interruptions, and quality failures all while being engaged in the same sorts of multidisciplinary interaction and collaboration that have positive learning effects demonstrated in the reports from the other simulation approaches.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%