Supply chain learning by doing: LMS is just a start

A few years ago, the concept of massive open online courses (MOOCs) suddenly became hot. Renowned universities like MIT and Stanford championed this movement early, with Professors throwing out lectures and other teaching material to tens of thousands of students tuning in virtually (and free) from all around the world.

However, after a couple of years it has turned out to be less revolutionary than originally hoped, with at least 90% attrition among the first wave of students. The problem apparently lies in the very nature of the concept – specifically, that they are massive and that they are open. It seems that real learning requires a lot more investment, both by those doing the teaching and those being taught.

MOOCs won’t work in supply chain education

Much the same experience holds for many corporate sponsors of learning management systems (LMS) which assemble and provide access to extensive training or enrichment material for any number of functional specialties. For supply chain people, this LMS movement is only just getting started. Maybe this is good news since talent coordinators in supply chain will be able to learn from the mistakes others have made, whether elsewhere in the corporate world or with MOOCs.

According to survey data collected by SCM World from almost 3000 respondents between 2011 and 2013, supply chain talent is a persistent problem. On average, companies spend just over 3% of fully loaded personnel costs on external training and development, yet the majority don’t even attempt to measure return on investment. At the same time, career lifecycle analysis says the problems are worst for mid-level executives seeking compelling career progression.

What’s amiss? Perhaps it’s the same problem dogging MOOCs, which is that people seem to learn best in action with a mix of theoretical foundation, practical application and teamwork. This may explain why, despite some pretty shaky agendas and inconvenient logistics, so many industry conferences continue to proliferate and why so many attendees go away reasonably satisfied with the proverbial “nugget” of insight. Given the connective technology of the day, why is mining for insight still nearly as inefficient as panning for gold?

A path forward

Learning supply chain today is all about hitting moving targets. Work in the real world demands a solid foundation, like that provided in APICS training or other association certification programmes. However, professional progress in the real world demands creative application of these same skills to get ahead.

One of the most interesting things revealed in our field study of sales & operations planning is that S&OP processes led by sales are the least likely to believe that forecast accuracy can be improved. The closer one gets to reality, the clearer one sees its native ambiguity. Learning supply chain may start with skills training, but only in the ‘doing’ do we truly learn what is possible.

Hans Van Alebeek’s presentation on Nike’s handling of the National Football League apparel business at last year’s Leaders Forum said more about how to learn supply chain than any course or case study I’ve ever seen. Nike uses data analytics, yes, but also judgment, creative problem solving and, maybe most importantly, an iterative process of refinement that is the essence of learning in action. The same principle applies to other supply chain organisations I’ve seen who are moving so fast and driven to improve so hard that practically nothing is too crazy to try. Nike rival Under Armour comes to mind here, as do disruptors like Sonos, Burberry and Samsung.

The takeaway for those building talent development programmes and anyone trying to make a career in supply chain is that the learning cannot ever stop. The availability of knowledge in MOOCs or learning management systems is nearly infinite but, without some sort of active application, too little sticks. Perhaps more worrying, they can create a false sense of certainty for those eager to learn “best practice”.

We’re still defining supply chain. Nothing is yet written in stone.