James Drogan

One of my graduate students in transportation management writes a very interesting response using The Six Troop Leading Steps (B-A-M-C-I-S) as a framework.

As most of you know, I think in terms of SIDAL.

I'm wondering whether there is value in merging the two management processes?  What are the similarities and differences between the two?  What are the strengths and weaknesses of each?  All else being equal, does the person with military experience make a better executive?

My classes include a statement of the contexnt in which the subject matter will be studied.  This context is usually shown by the following diagram.

The central part of this diagram is adapted from Porter, Michel E. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. The Free Press, 1985. 

The nature of the socio-political-economic forces driver can be described as country risk or, in the terms of The Economist, operational risk.

When considering whether or not to do business on a global scale one needs to take into consideration the risk associated with the  socio-political-economic environment.  While I expect students to give consideration to this matter in all my courses, it becomes particularly important to do so in the Capstone class.

Information abounds regarding risk of this nature (sometimes also called country risk).  A good place to start to investigate this is The Economist.  For example, I was prompted to make this post by the article, Operational risk ratings: Asian fusion, in the April 28th, 2008 issue.

This article is from the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics.  I especially want to bring this to the attention of those contemplating a career in supply chain and logistics.

"Ten years is a long time in the life of supply chain – whether in the past or the future. We asked two leading professionals, Jake Barr, Director, Manufacturing, Planning & Logistics, The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G), and Kevin Smith, Senior Vice President, Supply Chain and Logistics, CVS/pharmacy, to take a retrospective look at the supply chain field and the big challenges that lie ahead. They also offer some pointers on what it takes to carve out a successful career in supply chain. Both P&G and CVS are MIT-CTL strategic partners."

I've added new lecture notes for System Design and Control and The Logistics Channel Within the Supply Chain.

The former course will be taught for the first time this fall; the latter was taught for the first time this past spring. 

Syllabi for courses I have taught will be found in What I am Teaching. 

Those of you with sharp eyes and/or good memory will note that I have previously taught logistics at the graduate level.  The Logistics Channel Within the Supply Chain is a rework of the previous course based on a new text (Christopher, Martin. Logistics and Supply Chain Management : Creating Value-Added Networks. 3rd ed. Harlow, England ; New York: FT Prentice Hall, 2005, 0-273-68176-1) and reflects a new emphasis we wished to give the subject.  

From Dave Pollard comes this wonderful piece regarding the power of the story.

There is good advice here for those of you who learn, or teach, or sell, or entertain, or otherwise try to covince people to appreciate another point of view.  Read it, think about it, take it to heart. 

There has been, from time to time, a lament for the decline of in the rolls of the farmers.  This, by way of Greg Mankiw's blog, should help build the farm population.

I wish I were taken care of in this fashion.  I must write my congressmen. 

I came across the subject line in a e-mail a few days ago and it caused me to wonder about the relationship between thinking and politics.

It seems to that this relationship is extremely strong; unbreakable, in fact.

Thinking, to me, is of little value unless it results in conclusions.  Conclusions would therefore seem to represent a set of views on issues which can be labeled as politics.

Hence, how could thinking be admired, but the conclusion of that thinking (i.e., the politics) not be admired?

Well, perhaps the originator was referring to the process of thinking, not the thinking itself.  For example, he might conclude that his subject was following acceptable rules of critical thinking, but was biased in the selection of issues, data, and analysis.  That would explain the apparent dichotomy.

Or perhaps the originator was thinking that the politics of the subject did not result from the thinking, but rather, perhaps, amounted to the subject avoiding his responsibilities and hewing to a party line.

And what is politics anyway?  Unfortunately, one's politics is often assigned a simple label (e.g., let, right, left of center) that is really a convenience and not the result of real understanding.  Hence, we find ourselves in the partisan politics of the Dims versus the Rips where the objective function is to win in such a way that the other side loses.  Whether the outcome is best for the constituency is a minor point as is understanding.

Hhhhhmmmmm.