I N F O R M STransactions on Education

Vol. 11, No. 2, January 2011, pp. 77–89issn 1532-0545 �11 �1102 �0077 informs ®

doi 10.1287/ited.1100.0057©2011 INFORMS

Learning from a Classroom Manufacturing Exercise

Irwin GraySchool of Management, New York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, New York 11568, igray@nyit.edu

By performing a hands-on manufacture of a paper product along a fabrication line set up in a classroom,students experience the complexities of an actual production line—how to work with people to construct

a smoothly flowing line and analyze and deal with technical changes. In particular, they learn how a changein one position on the line affects the manpower, methods, and machines of the entire line. The quantitative aswell as qualitative problems of batch processing, work-in-progress inventory, misutilization of labor, and evenelements of product liability become “live concepts” instead of dry exercises from a book. Students in an MBAprogram with no real-life experiences against which to reflect what they are learning in their classes are ableto experience a working fabrication line in all its complexities. They are challenged by having to design theirown products and the jigs and fixtures to make them—even when they have no engineering or specializedknowledge. One group, for example, manages to design a production jig for a folding step that other groupshave been doing by hand; the jig enables a 57% improvement in production per labor minute. The exercises alsodemonstrate the costs of idle time: When a batch process is mishandled, worker idle time jumps to 19% of thetotal time needed to run the batch. This exercise prepares students for future job decisions involving productionproblems of in-house manufacturing or service operations, off-shore procurement, and quality control.

Key words : experiential learning; manufacturing complexities; developing critical thinking; active learning;teaching production/operations management; teaching with projects; hands-on learning; factory simulation

History : Received: August 2009; accepted: July 2010.

I hear and I forgetI see and I rememberI do and I understand

(Confucius, circa 500 B.C.)

With the advent of powerful computer simulations,some of the instruction in every activity from sur-gical procedures to running a business is delegatedto learning through a computer display—touted as21st century learning. However, there is a consider-able amount of experience and research that arguesfor retention and even growth in the importance ofteaching via old-fashioned hands-on manipulation ofactual components and real people interacting oncommon projects. It develops the kind of knowledgethat is sometimes called “street smarts.” When thisdevelopment does not take place at appropriate peri-ods in life for various skills or abilities, it has lifelong(and often damaging) effects. When a career choicecalls for the use of those underdeveloped skills, theindividuals who fail to remedy their deficiencies (bytraining or education) will tend to perform at lowerlevels than they might otherwise have reached.This paper is about a classroom manufacturing

exercise that I have taught for more than 20 years to

over 1,800 MBA students in my operations manage-ment course. Few of the students had even minimalexposure during their lifetimes to tools, tooling, oreven rudimentary fabrication efforts. Once they areinvolved with this project, they realize it will helpthem compensate somewhat for their lack of produc-tion experience and they embrace it with a great dealof enthusiasm. It is a very effective instructional exer-cise that has benefitted even those who completelymissed the chance to exploit their applicable windowsof development. I now relate the story of Bob.During my undergraduate summers, I worked as a

plumber for my father—a contractor participating in afederal program to refurbish small apartment houses.As part of the contract, the firm had to hire youngmen from disadvantaged backgrounds and train themto the minimal levels that would qualify them forplumbing union apprenticeships. Bob, a 20-year-old,was assigned to me as a “plumber’s helper” to installbathroom wash basins and faucets. At the time, hotand cold water faucets were separate and each time Itried to secure one of the faucets in place, the wholefaucet turned from its set position when I tightenedthe bottom nut. At one point I called to Bob, “Tapeup a wrench’s jaws so you don’t scratch the chrome,

77

Gray: Learning from a Classroom Manufacturing Exercise78 INFORMS Transactions on Education 11(2), pp. 77–89, © 2011 INFORMS

grab the faucet, and when I say ‘pull,’ turn it clock-wise to straighten it out when it moves as I tightenthe nut below.” I then yelled “pull” and he pulled onhis wrench; the faucet twisted almost 90� and made apretzel of the tubing underneath the basin. I movedout from under the basin and looked up—Bob had an18-inch heavy-duty pipe wrench in his hand!Those faucets came with little glass beads with C’s

or H’s on them. A gentle tap seated the bead intothe top of the valve handle. “Bob,” I told him, “geta hammer, tape up the front of the head, and verygently tap the beads into the valves.” I left the bath-room to speak to the foreman a few feet away—atwhich point we heard a loud “pop!” followed by astring of curses from the bathroom. Then, we heardanother loud “pop!” and a repeat of curses. Bob wasusing a taped-up 10-pound ball peen hammer. Thosebeads exploded into dust with even the lightest tapfrom the hammer.What happened? Bob had no concept of what torque

was and the forces it could exert on a small faucet—the size of a wrench and the torque needed for ourlittle faucets were totally beyond his cognizance. Thiswas likewise for associating the mass of a hammerand its effect on a glass bead (even with a gentle tap).His life experiences thus far had involved only a slightacquaintance with hand tools. Lack of hands-on expo-sure to tools at an early age damaged Bob’s career asan adult. As was true of so many others in the appren-ticeship program, he never had success with classroomwork; getting him interested in classes at his age toovercome his developmental deficiencies was impos-sible. (On-the-job training proved to be insufficient—few of the recruited young men were admitted to anyof the apprenticeship programs.)What was true for Bob in plumbing remains equally

true for individuals in many careers—from thoserequiring a rigorous formal internship such as inmedicine to internships in business. Those who missthe experiential learning that would have developedcertain age-appropriate skills and background do nothave the groundwork for absorption of many aspectsof later classroom concepts or the ability to exercise,at higher effectiveness levels, whatever they did learnin the real world. As a young doctor explained tome, “Without the experience of cutting into a cadaver,I could never have developed the skills of cuttinginto a living, breathing individual who expects toget off my operating table in better condition thanwhen he got on it.” It is a long conceptual step fromthe learning of medicine to that of management, butthe reality aspect is not. The lack of applicable expe-rience at an early age will hurt the undergraduatemanagement student. The lack of work experiencewill damage learning at the MBA level—the one withwhich I am concerned. Numerous academic studies

have been done from the earliest stages of children’sschooling to the internal research done by MBA-levelcollege admission officers. They support the need forappropriate experiences to make the formal educationprocess at each level more successful for students.The remainder of the paper is organized as follows.

In the next section, I survey related literature and inthe third section, I discuss the use of the project in anMBA program and how it will help students in theirfuture careers. Following that, I present details on theformat of the project and then describe my experi-ences with its execution. In the sixth and seventh sec-tions, I cover the benefits expected from the projectand the important learning elements derived there-from. Finally, in the last two sections, I present myconclusions and suggestions for future research.

Experiential Learning in the LiteratureThe need for experiential learning is demonstratedby measuring the achievement of children as youngas six years of age (Hernandez 2009). English testsfor city children in third grade include questionsrelating to chickens and eggs; in math, they countsheep and horses. Rural children are asked to calcu-late how long it takes to run around a city block. Theyare, essentially, being asked to conceptualize andwork with elements totally foreign to their immediateenvironments—and they do not do well on the tests.Picturing these elements in a book, on a computerscreen, or even on TV does not carry the impact orthe experiential learning necessary for higher achieve-ment test results. However, taking city dwellers tofarms where they can touch, hear, smell, and interactwith the animals does indeed raise their scores appre-ciably. The same is true for rural children who aretaken on city trips.Later, in high school, Junior Achievement (JA)

“educates students about workforce readiness, entre-preneurship and financial literacy through expe-riential, hands-on programs” (JA 2009). Reachinginto the young adult years, we find a plethora oflearned papers (Combs 1982) that distinguish betweencognitive learning (learning vocabulary or multi-plication tables) and experiential learning (address-ing the needs and wants of the learner such asapplied learning about engines in order to repaircars). Experiential learning involves, these authorstell us, “a direct encounter with the phenomenabeing studied rather than merely thinking about theencounter or only considering the possibility of doingsomething about it” (Kolb 2009). David A. Kolb’smodel presents an experiential learning circle thatinvolves four elements: (1) concrete experience—knowledge by acquaintance or direct practical expe-rience; (2) reflective observation—what the experi-ence means to the experiencer; (3) forming abstract

Gray: Learning from a Classroom Manufacturing ExerciseINFORMS Transactions on Education 11(2), pp. 77–89, © 2011 INFORMS 79

concepts—developing knowledge about the conceptand comprehending it more fully; and (4) testing innew situations—testing the concepts in practice (Expe-riential Learning Cycle 2009). Experiences are trans-formed into an individual’s expanded capabilities andknowledge, then transformed into new experiences,and so forth.A great number of researchers of experiential learn-

ing have been influenced by the work of John Dewey(Dewey 1910), with most making use of his mate-rial on “concrete thinking” and “empirical and sci-entific thinking” as the bases for their studies. Helooked at learning as a “framework for practice” thatprovides the experience for follow-on reflection. Thatpractice-reflection combination is what enables stu-dents to become more independent when they nolonger have authorities standing by at every turnof their lives (Knott 1994). This is especially impor-tant when one is trying to develop scientific skillsin young people: Expecting them to learn simply bywatching or listening was likened by Piaget to teach-ing swimming by having learners sit in rows on awharf and watching swimmers in the water (Huittand Hummel 2003). The AIMS Education Founda-tion researched a very large number of studies onthe differences of attainment of students in tradi-tional textbook and lecture courses versus those inhands-on studies. One of those studies was a meta-analysis of 15 years of study involving 13,000 stu-dents in 1,000 classrooms—activity-based programsproduced marked differences in creativity, percep-tion, logic development, language development, sci-ence content, and mathematics (Youngs 2003).At the undergraduate and MBA levels, more and

more schools are expressing the desirability for real-life experiences as the backdrop for appreciatingclassroom work; their Web pages feature experientiallearning as attractions as applicants to their programs.Such opening (or closely linked) Web pages revealvast programs, exercises, and courses involving expe-riential learning activities (both on- and off-campus).NYIT (my own school), Amherst, Randolph, Ithaca,Williams, and Babson College, for example, incorpo-rate experiential or service learning as part of theirprograms. I checked more than 150 college websitesin my research for this paper and found that regard-less of the size of the institution or its prominence(or lack thereof) in higher education ranks, experi-ential education was featured on their institutionalWeb pages (including those of University of Cali-fornia, Berkeley, Purdue, University of Pennsylvania,and Michigan State, to name just a few). The Uni-versity of California, Davis has extensive referencesto to experiential learning whose (abbreviated) modelcan be expressed as “Do, Reflect, and Apply”—whereknowledge is created through the transformation of

experience. If we are interested in seeing just how theultimate of experiential education is conducted, wecan examine the Frank Lloyd Wright Schools of Archi-tecture in Arizona and Wisconsin—under his leader-ship, “learning by doing” was made the bedrock oftheir architectural learning experiences.At the MBA level, schools have sought to incor-

porate experiential education into their programs byproviding internships, mentoring programs, and paidcorporate residency programs (such as that at North-eastern University’s College of Business Admin-istration, where students work in full-time, paid,MBA-level positions as part of the curriculum).Few MBA programs will explicitly state that they

are seeking a set minimum number of years of workexperience from their applicants. Nevertheless, theaverage number of years of full-time work expe-rience for applicants who have won admission totop MBA programs has risen dramatically at the topB-schools; less than 2% of a recent class at Whartonhad under two years of full-time work experience(MBAprograms.org 2009). While the Harvard Busi-ness School’s website specifically states that “thereis no minimum work experience requirement for theMBA Program” (Harvard MBA Admissions Admis-sions Criteria 2009), the school’s educational philoso-phy is built on bringing real situations into the class-room as case studies from the moment of a student’sentry to the program. It does not take much imagi-nation to visualize the difference in intellectual dis-cussion levels that take place in a classroom of newlydegreed undergraduates versus a class with businessexperience. For such programs to work with enrichingdiscussions at challenging levels, the overwhelmingmajority of the participants must bring at least somereal-life work experience to the discussions.A number of faculty members have developed

classroom exercises for the teaching of production andoperations management courses. One website (Wrightand Ammar 2009) features eight different learningexercises involving Lego blocks, representations ofproducts, and computer simulations intended to givestudents some tangible experiences with productionproblems and quantitative decisions, but none featurea “real product.”Another study compared the learning outcomes of

two groups working on developing a database asthey took a course in database management. The firstgroup had a canned project for a fictitious librarywith the instructor as the client; the second groupworked on an actual customer database for Toshiba-Houston (Smith and Clinton 2006). The second grouppresented a far more challenging experience for thegroup as well as for the instructor—and took farmore time than is ordinarily allotted for a courseproject. The real-world experience, participants noted,was richer because they not only completed an actual

Gray: Learning from a Classroom Manufacturing Exercise80 INFORMS Transactions on Education 11(2), pp. 77–89, © 2011 INFORMS

project but also got to strengthen their oral and writ-ten communication skills and manage interpersonalconflicts. Other studies, such as the production ofpaper puppets (Heineke 1997) and the W. EdwardsDeming beads experiments (Deming 1982), have rein-forced the effectiveness of experiential learning.A paper by a small group of faculty members teach-

ing different sections of an operations managementcourse describes an e-learning-type course built onthree different delivery modes: classroom, web-based,and experiential (Zimmers et al. 2004). E-learningindicates that the course provides links to other web-sites and lessons featuring related course materials,such as a slide show of an automotive transmissionproduction facility. That slide show’s photos are, inturn, linked to still other instructional elements toprovide in-depth references for students. Althoughthe students did most of their computations and anal-yses on computers using spreadsheets and other soft-ware, the experiential element was provided by a visitto a transmission shop and the gathering of actualproduction and other relevant information from theshop. The most beneficial aspect of the learning camefrom real-time sharing of data generated by the trans-mission shop.Finally, there is the story of “Zarco”—a mock fac-

tory activity intended for use on the opening day ofan operations management course (Polito et al. 2009).The instructor enters the classroom, takes his placeat the head table, and without a word begins assem-bling a “ZargPak”—a paper, clips, and rubber bandpackage. He then selects a small group of the studentsto be the new Zarco “factory” to duplicate and pro-duce as many ZargPaks as possible. As the selectedgroup studies the ZargPak and works out the assem-bly details, the instructor chooses other students totake roles that involve marketing, design, efficiencychanges, and the like. Eventually, the whole class isinvolved with making and distributing ZargPaks. Theintent of the exercise is to get the students involvedwith all phases of operations management throughthe immediate (first day) focus on the production ofZargPaks. Polito et al. (2009) found that this imme-diacy of involvement, demonstration of principles,and forced usage of certain principles heightens stu-dent interest in a course and results in significantlyimproved learning.In review of the literature, I was unable to locate

any projects that incorporate the making of a realproduct and the principal tools for that productionin an ordinary classroom—a gap in the reportingof games and simulations. Meeting the challenge ofsuch tooling requires the students who are almostuniversally not engineers or even technically trainedto stretch their imaginations, to work very closelytogether, and to effectively mine all their sources

(from family to friends to employers). They mustequip themselves to set up fabrication lines that aremore than handicraft operations in a classroom. Thispaper intends to help close the literature gap.

MBA Application of the ConceptsTop-tier MBA-level colleges have the luxury of choos-ing applicants with some years of experience in busi-nesses relevant to their planned career paths, butmany MBA programs accept students with zero tominimal levels of business experience. Even fewer ofthese applicants have ever worked with actual prod-uct or know how things are made despite the adventof cable TV and its “How Things Are Made,” “Build-ing Big,” or “Deconstruction” programs, to name afew. In fact, because most students see themselves asfuture white collar employees, they do not take aninterest in manufacturing details. They fail to appre-ciate that their future decisions may well require atleast a basic familiarity with the manufacturing pro-cesses that turn out their products, or they may leavethemselves open to extra costs, delayed shipments,and poor quality.Worse yet, almost all of the MBA entrants who just

graduated with a bachelor’s degrees are as devoidof hands-on experience as Bob, the plumber’s helper,was in his field. To respond to this lack, I decidedthat I could improve their learning of operations man-agement concepts by introducing a student-selected,self-designed paper product that could be completelyfabricated in a regular classroom setting in less thanfour to five minutes per unit. The students wouldbe responsible not only for the product but also fordesigning and making the production tools necessaryto fabricate the product quickly, uniformly, and withreasonably good quality.The major objective of the particular hands-on

experience chosen for my course is to show studentshow mechanical or technical changes in manufactur-ing affect a great many of the “front office” operationsand the productivity of a firm. Changes in productsare most often quite visible (features, size reductions,etc.) and easily understood by all those making deci-sions about that product. However, the changes thatare made so that a product is better suited to a fab-rication or assembly line may not be so evident tomanagers working at sites remote from the produc-tion facility. Such managers, in making their productsourcing or costing decisions without proper appreci-ation for the necessity or advisability of the changes,may cause missed marketing deadlines, cost over-runs, approvals of inferior products, and even prema-ture life cycle death of the products involved.Another objective of my project is to provide stu-

dents with insights into what is required to establish

Gray: Learning from a Classroom Manufacturing ExerciseINFORMS Transactions on Education 11(2), pp. 77–89, © 2011 INFORMS 81

and operate a manufacturing line that turns out amass-produced product. I had to design the exerciseso that I could accomplish that objective within thephysical constraints of an ordinary classroom. Unlikea computer simulation, the exercise can (and does, attimes) degenerate into all the messiness of a real-lifescenario, including a broad range of human conflictand competition, mishaps with tools and materials,failures from lack of planning, and the ever-presentunexpected consequences that result from decisionmaking on the job. The course of events during anydemonstration often brings out important elements ofwhy and how things fail, how better planning couldhave forestalled the poor results of some groups, andhow superior creativity and insights can yield out-standing results.This experience should help students if they find

themselves in careers that involve handling such mat-ters as:(a) Budgetary control or approval of manufact-

uring-related expenditures within an organization.(Why do things cost what they do, and how do dis-ruptions affect schedules and overall operations?)(b) On-shore or off-shore manufacturing of a

product—whether providing staff input or liaisonfunctions to the procurement functions or highlyimportant—quality control aspects.(c) Supervisory or staff input to the producing arm

of the organization—especially to the line depart-ments doing the work that yields a firm’s revenues.

The ProjectStudents form groups of four or five to help a smallcrafts shop change its present handicraft production(one at a time, with wide variations in the appearanceof the product) to more standardized mass production(minimal variations and at higher speeds of outputand acceptable quality). This will enable the shop tosell in greater volume at its store and also enable itto promote Internet sales. The shop is open to sellingwhatever products the group designs for fabricationon its mass production line.Each group will fabricate (cut, paint, fold, or bend)

component parts and assemble them (join the piecesby gluing, stapling, or taping) to produce a smallpaper product. The group will also design the jigs andfixtures to produce it. Jigs are devices that guide fabri-cation tools so that each piece produced is a duplicateof all the others. Fixtures are essentially workpiece-holding devices. A fixture must be equipped withstops that prevent a worker from improperly load-ing or securing the paper. The jigs go onto the paperand are positioned by the fixture in such a way thata worker has no leeway to do any of the productionsteps incorrectly. The jig and fixture setup constrains

the cutting, bending, or joining steps to assure thata worker produces the product to specifications andthat identical units come off the classroom desktopfabrication line.The product must include a minimum of four sig-

nificant steps in its manufacture: cutting, coloring(flow pen, ink, crayon, pencil), folding, and joining(gluing, stapling, or taping). The target time for themanufacture of one unit must be under five minutesand the demonstration should show three to five units(one batch) being made. The choice of those four stepsis deliberate: Aside from molding with papier-mâchéand other forming processes, they represent the basictypes of processes that can be used with paper. Stu-dents are expected to start with any commerciallyavailable sheets or ribbons of paper and to feed theminto the line for processing.Each group designs its own small jigs and fixtures

to permit speedy and uniform hand fabrication of theproduct. In addition, each group must prepare a com-plete bill of materials, fabrication chart, OperationsProcess Chart (2009), a right-hand/left-hand chart (forone station on the fabrication line), and a report onthe utilization of the labor minutes on the line.The assignment is made at the beginning of the

term, and all class projects are to be demonstratedstarting with week 12 of the 15-week course. A com-plete demonstration including setup, manufacture,breakdown, presentation of charts, and cleanup musttake no more than 30 minutes.Background reading for this project includes the

work of pioneers of four major aspects of the fabri-cation line: (1) Adam Smith’s division of labor as ameans of fostering higher rates of production (Smith1776). Students reading his work will immediately seethe logic of breaking up the production tasks for thisproject, as opposed to each person on the line mak-ing the entire product (which some students initiallyadvocate); (2) Eli Whitney’s concepts of interchange-able parts that emphasize the necessity of uniformityof production (Whitney 1798). Whitney’s emphasis oninterchangeable parts was meant to insure uniformityof gun parts production for ease of assembly; in thisproject, however, I show the students how variationsin the product’s appearance can cause customers toview the differences as variations in the quality ofwhat they are buying; (3) Frederick Winslow Taylor’sprinciples on management’s role in designing themethods and supplying the tools to get the job done(Taylor 1911). Students are cautioned that when thereare quality deficiencies, it is because the jigs and fix-tures are not properly designed—and it is manage-ment that bears the responsibility for that failure; and(4) Henry Ford’s experience in developing the assem-bly line (Ford 1908). Students gain some backgroundinto the experimentation and careful development of

Gray: Learning from a Classroom Manufacturing Exercise82 INFORMS Transactions on Education 11(2), pp. 77–89, © 2011 INFORMS

the tasks to be performed at each station in orderto evenly distribute a line’s workload. They are alsodirected to conduct a number of trial runs to get theirfabrication lines operating smoothly and effectively.The project, derived directly from the content of

my operations management course taught at theNew York Institute of Technology, focuses on the sixM’s of manufacturing as follows:Management—the groups establish officers and

decide on performance norms for each member of thegroup. Furthermore, they had to choose a product,design it, gather or fabricate all the hand/power tools,jigs, and fixtures, and prepare the charts mentionedearlier.Manpower/womanpower—the groups apportion the

labor for preparation of the project, assign duties forpresentation/execution, and establish due dates. Thenecessity of training the operatives to do their jobsproperly is stressed: Each group is expected to plot alearning curve of its respective tasks, and its perfor-mance is to be at a point where the curve levels off. Ifsomeone within a group cannot achieve a respectablelevel, the group reassigns that person to work that heor she can do so as to reach the desired levels.Money—the approximate cost per unit of production

is calculated using actual and imputed numbers wher-ever necessary. (For the basic exercise, the cost aspectof the production analysis is not of paramount impor-tance. For other projects using multiple pieces fabri-cated on the line plus “outsourced” parts, cost analysiscan be a major part of the demonstration presentation.)Machines—the project requirements call for the

group to manufacture its own jigs and fixtures to turnout parts and assemblies in a uniform manner. Thereis to be only the slightest of variations among the pro-duction pieces. A word about safety and legal aspects:In one fortuitous incident that involved a paper cut,the class chose to delve into OSHA regulations andthe subject of worker safety, workers’ compensation,product liability, and costs to a business for appropri-ate programs and insurance. Design for green produc-tion calls for the avoidance of toxic paint sprays orglue sprays in the classroom, and design for minimumwaste calls for careful procurement of raw materialsand their utilization.Methods—the fabrication method is established by

drawings and/or charts so that someone not versed inbuilding the product can follow instructions and pro-duce it. Smooth functioning of the line at the time ofpresentation is assured by practice and training of theworkers. Safety of the workers is paramount duringcutting (no knife slips, no finger incidents) and paint-ing (no use of aerosol sprays or lead based paints),and material safety data sheets are provided for eachchemical used. As part of the methods design, chartsfor left-handed and right-handed workers are were

set up and the use of such charts in job design tocomply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)provisions is discussed. Students have been especiallyinterested in questions such as how to change jigs andfixtures to accommodate a stroke victim (who may beparalyzed on one side) or desk arrangements for awheelchair-bound worker.Materials—the products are to be made of paper

but cloth or some other easily fabricated material canbe substituted with faculty permission. Small metalfasteners, pivot points, and other minor parts can beprocured from outside “suppliers” for the classroomfabrication line.The amount of time that must be devoted to this

project depends on how many topics are generallycovered as part of the regular course content. In mycase, I introduce the concepts of assembly and fabri-cation lines and cover the gamut of fabrication—fromthe use of hand tools (plus jigs and fixtures) to theoperating principles of computer integrated machines,lines, and factories—as part of my regular course con-tent. Specifics about the experiential exercise are thencovered with individual groups in after-class discus-sions. During the ensuing weeks, I devote anywherefrom just a few minutes to a quarter of an hour ofeach class session to the discussion of questions aboutthe project so that all students profit from any onegroup’s problems and comments. Finally, I scheduletwo three-hour class periods for demonstrations andallow at least one additional class session during theterm should we have need for demonstration overruntime. Many of the question and answer interchangesrun past our class scheduled dismissal time but a veryhigh percentage of the students stay and participateuntil the discussions end.

Experience with Execution of the ProjectExecution of the project runs smoothly for groupsthat have taken the time to practice their presenta-tions and less smoothly for groups that did not prac-tice. Most of the outright failures, however, occur notbecause the project is overly demanding or becauseof a lack of student interest, but rather because a par-ticular group’s members were under heavy employerpressures; they were simply had been unable to allo-cate the time needed to do the project at a betterthan C level. There will occasionally be groups thatdisintegrate under pressures of jobs, families, person-ality incompatibilities, etc. These incidents are also dis-cussed in class—how could a group have preventedwhat happened or forged a “work around” to keepthe project alive? Some groups have access to homeworkshops or shops at their workplaces and bring incleverly designed, well-made wooden or metal jigsand fixtures. Still others bring in homemade tooling of

Gray: Learning from a Classroom Manufacturing ExerciseINFORMS Transactions on Education 11(2), pp. 77–89, © 2011 INFORMS 83

Figure 1 Jig for Cutting a Box Blank

heavy artist board, Styrofoam, or plastic with impres-sive displays of design and execution ingenuity. Theinterest quotient of the students is usually very highand the groups frequently vie with one another todevise the cleverest product and the fastest, highest-quality production line.Grading of projects is done per the Production Line

Grading Guide presented in the appendix. While agroup is presenting its fabrication process and sup-porting charts, the instructor quickly evaluates theirwork, using the grading guidelines. Afterward, aquick evaluation is made of the number of A’s and B’s,etc., and from this a composite grade for the product,jigs, and fixtures is awarded along with a second com-posite grade for the charts.Students manufactured jigs and fixtures as shown in

Figures 1–3. Figure 4 shows the completed (but uncol-ored) box.The jig in Figure 1 is used to cut out the blank for

the cardboard box. A knife is used to trace the out-line of the jig onto the cardboard sheet held under-neath it. The wide slots are meant for someone to usean empty ballpoint pen to make grooves in the card-board; this permits easy folding. On the fabricationline, the cutout blank of the box is then “painted”(using flow pens) for the coloring step. The next stepis folding and, in the initial demonstrations of the fab-rication line, folding was done by holding the paperand folding it along the grooves to achieve the shapefor gluing. In later demonstrations of the line, thefolding jig/fixture of Figures 2 and 3 had been builtand it supplanted the hand holding of the third step

Figure 2 Folding Jig/Fixture (Open)

Figure 3 Folding Jig/Fixture (Closed)

in the production. The jig folded over on itself andthe sides closed against the main block as shown inFigure 3. Because this jig also held the paper in placewhile it folded, it is also a form of fixture. When thesides and top were “closed” onto the block, all thesides of the box except the top were glued together;the jig/fixture was then opened and the newly fabri-cated box removed. The open top, of course, allowsthe box to be filled at a later time. The jig/fixturemade the folding step so fast that the amount of work-ers assigned to steps 1, 2, and 4 had to be doubledto utilize the production capabilities of this techni-cal change.The fabrication processes were presented in class

with group members taking up positions on the fab-rication line spread across two classroom tables. Afterthe demonstration of their line operations, the groupspresented their assembly charts, operations processcharts, bills of material, and right-hand/left-handcharts. Particular attention was paid to the uses of theright-hand/left-hand charts in cases where firms haveto deal with disabled employees—what steps could beeliminated in the work being done, what steps couldbe supplemented by a machine, and what steps couldbe extensively redesigned if necessary to accommo-date handicapped employees—at reasonable costs to

Figure 4 Completed Box (Uncolored)

Gray: Learning from a Classroom Manufacturing Exercise84 INFORMS Transactions on Education 11(2), pp. 77–89, © 2011 INFORMS

firms? The use of a chart to identify points at whichan employee might not be able to handle a job is alsoa key management concern—ADA investigative agen-cies need convincing proof that a disabled worker isnot suited for a job because otherwise a discriminationcharge can be filed against the company.At the end of each demonstration, the presentation

is critiqued by the class and the instructor. Presentersmight be challenged to explain why particular jigs, fix-tures, or product design were adopted, or how theycould have been improved. It is not unusual for a classto voice lavish compliments when a group presents aparticularly impressive project.

Benefits of the Experiential WorkAs expected, real experiences presented the studentswith much more than just neatly wrapped sequencesof events or alternatives from which to choose theiralternatives. Real-world considerations invaded theclassroom in the form of personality differences,time pressures, attention deficits, job problems, familyproblems, and school pressures that diverted studentsfrom their assigned tasks and caused missed projectdeadlines.Groups had to learn to make painful compromises

in their products in the following terms.1. What various members of a group individually

wanted and what the group could agree to.2. What looked great, what would make a group

proud, and what could actually be fabricated inthe classroom setting within the assignments timeconstraints.3. The nature and variety of the jigs and fixtures

that could be made by the students. Some groups withhome or employer workshops produced impressivejigs and complex fixtures. Groups that sought out-side help with their tooling reported that the meetingsand discussions they had with their “suppliers” wereamong the most interesting and challenging aspects ofthe work.4. The skills available in the group versus the spe-

cific tasks that had to be accomplished. The mostskilled persons were frequently those with the mostpressing demands on time they could devote to theproject. As mentioned elsewhere in this paper, timewas the major constraint on what groups could accom-plish interms of design and quality, be it in toolingor in the product. Some of the best products wereproduced by groups with poorly designed jigs andfixtures. Some of the worst products were made bygroups with professional quality tooling.

Important Learning Elements ofThis ExerciseMost of the students at one time or another duringthe term expressed amazement at the sheer amount of

work involved in getting a simple product designed,set up for production, produced, and through inspec-tion (although this was in no way a complaint aboutthe project—they appreciated the learning that wastaking place). The students noted the reactions oftheir fellow students to their products. Class reactionsto demonstrations were important in that classmatescould offer worthwhile suggestions to simplify prod-ucts while enhancing them they could make sugges-tions for more effective fabrication steps that a groupmay not have even contemplated in its deliberations.It most certainly was a confirmation that designers,whether of products or production, should alwaysseek the widest possible inputs to their decisionsbefore freezing them for production.Next, the students learned some fundamental and

practical aspects about production. The first was themeaning and use of the learning curve in forecastinglabor costs for bidding on contracts. A group memberassigned to do the cutting for the box blank used thetemplate of Figure 1 to guide the cuts. He recorded atime of 18 seconds to do the blank with no damag-ing cuts or movement of the template. A student withno experience in handling the knife was then allowedto train himself by cutting 10 templates. His timesdecreased as shown in Figure 5, and the shape andcharacteristics of his learning curve were compared toone calculated using the Wright Learning Curve calcu-lator developed by NASA (NASA 2010). With a learn-ing rate of 84.4, the NASA calculator predicted thatthe 10th unit would take only 23 seconds—which wasprecisely as observed in the classroom. However, theactual cumulative average rate as predicted by NASAwas only 30.1 seconds, whereas the classroom exerciseshowed that the drop was not as steep and yielded anaverage of 35 seconds. Students learned to be cautiousin the use of precalculated curve analyses: the NASAWright curve used for this real-life situation wouldhave led to a contract bid that was too optimistic interms of the average time needed to make a unit.A special assignment was then given to the group:

Your client has asked you for a production run of

Figure 5 Observed Performance Times

0 1 2 3 4 5

60

50

40

30

206

Trial number

Num

ber

of s

econ

ds

7 8 9 10 11

Gray: Learning from a Classroom Manufacturing ExerciseINFORMS Transactions on Education 11(2), pp. 77–89, © 2011 INFORMS 85

Table 1 Fabrication Line Before Technical Change

Cut Paint Fold Glue Total Cumulative average:No. of 1 operator 1 operator 1 operator 1 operator completed by Position/labor minuteMinutes Position 1 Position 2 Position 3 Position 4 end of minute completed

1 1 0 0.002 1 1 0 0.003 1 1 1 0 0.004 1 1 1 1 0 0.005 1 1 1 1 1 0.056 1 1 1 1 2 0.08

� � �

48 1 1 1 1 44 0.2349 1 1 1 1 45 0.2350 1 1 1 1 46 0.2351 1 1 1 47 0.2352 1 1 48 0.2353 1 49 0.2354 50 0.23

50 units of your product. How many minutes will ittake to produce them, and how will the utilization ofworkers on the line be affected if you run the batchwithout any other batches preceding or following?The production line consisted of four workers who

were each given one minute to accomplish an assignedtask in the order of cutting, coloring, folding, andgluing—the line was balanced so that each workerrequired the same amount of time. Before the technicalchange (in the folding jig), the fabrication line had fourstations balanced so that each station took no morethan one minute to complete its work. The line pro-duced one completed unit every minute starting withthe fifth minute. In order to produce 50 units, the linehad idle stations for the first three minutes and thelast four minutes of the production run—each stationconsuming one labor minute. The production of the 50units yielded the data shown in Table 1.Table 1 amply illustrates why job or batch shops

“hate” short runs. At the beginning of the job, there areidle stations until the initial four work pieces fill eachof the positions. They are then followed by additionalinputs to the line as pieces are finished. At the endof the production run, stations are left idle as replace-ment work pieces stop entering the line and the lastwork-in-process items move down the line and thenleave it. Note that in the 54th minute, station 4 is notidle—it is pushing out the 50th unit. There are 15 min-utes of idle positions out of a total of 216 minutesof available time on the positions of the line—a lossof 7% of available production time if the shop can-not find alternative (fill in) work for the vacated posi-tions (while the 50-piece batch process is exiting thefabrication line).It is just this type of fill-in activity that set the stage

for a huge commercial product liability lawsuit. Thiscase was settled out of court and papers were sealedto assure confidentiality. (I learned of the details from

a participant in the case who was assured anonymity.)A giant fertilizer factory made a highly potent weedkiller in addition to fertilizer products. The machinesthat filled the bags were used alternatively for fertil-izer and weed killer. To utilize time that was becom-ing available on filler line positions, plant operativesbegan feeding weed killer into the line as a hugerun of fertilizer bags was being completed. However,because they forgot to pull the left over empty fertil-izer bags off the line before changing to weed killer,a few hundred bags of weed killer left the factory inbags marked as fertilizer.Subsequently, these incorrectly marked bags made

their way to the hothouse growing beds of one of thelargest exotic flower growers in the world. The bedswere “fertilized” with weed killer which burned outthe flower beds and ruined the soil in them. Hundredsof tons of the richest and finest soil (compounded overyears of nurturing) had to be discarded in toxic wastedumps and the growing pans and plumbing had to becompletely sterilized. It took four years to bring theflower yields back to the pre-incident production lev-els, and the settlement of this case cost the fertilizerfirm millions.Notice that the jig in Figure 1 has long, narrow

slots machined into it. These slots were used as guidesfor someone with an (empty) ballpoint pen to makegrooved folding lines in the blank. When the jig waslifted off, the paper was simply folded along thegrooved lines and shaped to make the box. This foldstep was clumsy and had to be done with all the fin-gers holding parts of the boxes in shape as the gluewas applied and dried. It was the worst position for aworker on that fabrication line.Another group that also made boxes developed a

jig/fixture as shown in Figure 2. The group simplyplaced its cutout blank on the jig and made the firstfold of the cardboard around the cube, then bent the

Gray: Learning from a Classroom Manufacturing Exercise86 INFORMS Transactions on Education 11(2), pp. 77–89, © 2011 INFORMS

Table 2 Fabrication Line After Technical Change at Position 3

Cut Paint Fold Glue Total Cumulative average:No. of 2 workers 2 workers 1 worker 2 workers completed by Position/labor minuteminutes Position 1 Position 2 Position 3 Position 4 end of minute completed

1 2.2 0�0 0.002 2.2 2.2 0�0 0.003 2.5 2.2 2.2 0�0 0.004 2.5 2.5 2.2 2.2 0�0 0.005 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.2 2�2 0.066 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.5 4�4 0.107 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.5 6�9 0.148 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.8 9�4 0.179 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.8 12�2 0.1910 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 15�0 0.2111 3.5 3.1 3.1 3.0 18�0 0.2312 3.6 3.5 3.1 3.1 21�0 0.2513 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.1 24�1 0.2614 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.5 27�2 0.2815 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.6 30�7 0.2916 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7 34�3 0.3117 4.0 4.0 4.0 38�0 0.3218 4.0 4.0 42�0 0.3319 4.0 46�0 0.3520 50�0 0.36

cube against its side to make another fold. The hingedparts of the jig were folded against the sides and thebox was formed into the appropriate shape. Three ofthe cardboard sides were glued into place and driedon the jig. Then, the box was pulled off the jig andwas ready for use. This technical improvement wasappended to the first fabrication line to take the placeof the hand folding and holding that was being donein positions 3 and 4. The line then became completelyunbalanced because the folding part of the work wascompleted in far less than a half a minute. So, laborminutes and appropriate jigs and fixtures were dou-bled for positions 1, 2, and 4 to supply enough workfor a very fast-operating position 3. This time, the pro-duction of 50 units went as shown in Table 2.Because of the additional labor assigned to the

project, underutilization periods became a more seri-ous concern—with 26 labor minutes idle out of 140total labor minutes, underutilization rose to 19% of thetotal time available. In the 20th minute, station 4 wasnot idle: it was completing the last 4 units. As in theprevious case, a company confronting such a situationmust be careful to schedule lead-in and lead-out jobsso that workers do not remain idle waiting for specificbatches to clear the line.Notice what happened at the start of this up-

labored, technically changed fabrication line: Produc-tion, on the part of two workers in a position, didnot simply double for that work station—each sta-tion more than doubled the prechange output, thoughsome confusion and interference between partnersrequired several trials to establish a smoothly coordi-nated fabrication line. Before the folding change wasmade, each station was limited by the throughput of

station 3 (folding). With the folding jig as part of thefabrication line, it was no longer the throttle point. Atstation 1, the two workers were able to help each otherwhen either had a moment’s difficulty; as soon as theycleared up their difficulties, they worked together as awell-functioning team. At one point, the cutters at sta-tion 1 split their jobs to take advantage of one workerbeing right-handed and the other being left-handed.As the workers across the entire line became more pro-ficient, per-station output levels rose to as high as fourpieces per minute.Of major importance was the change in the produc-

tion fixture: Because the introduction of the box folderjig of Figure 2 was considered a key technical change,graphs of the process were made to study the breakpoints. The major element of interest here was theincreased productivity measured in cumulative aver-age pieces per worker made on the line before andafter the change, as shown in Figure 6. At the max-imum productivity rate, the difference in cumulativeaverage pieces per labor minute from before the fold-ing change to after it yielded a 57% improvement.The before and after curves in Figure 6 illustrate

the sharp increases in output per worker that wereachieved by the up-staffing of the fabrication line(made possible by the improvement to the bottleneckfolding step). Note that the line had no output until allstations were filled with work in process. This furtheremphasized to the students why inventory and idlestations in batch processes are usually significant costfactors. These two elements also show how inventoryfinancing costs are incurred by a firm because it can-not start billing for completed units until at least some

Gray: Learning from a Classroom Manufacturing ExerciseINFORMS Transactions on Education 11(2), pp. 77–89, © 2011 INFORMS 87

Figure 6 Productivity Before/After Technical Change

00

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

5 10 15

Before

After

20 25 30 35 40

Minutes

Cum

avg

pos

/labo

r m

inut

e

production comes off the line, for shipping, at the endof the fifth minute.

ConclusionsExperiential learning of the managerial aspects of aproduction line opened students eyes to what (in theirown words) “were amazing ramifications of real-timeproblems.” They assimilated the material that wasassigned and then went beyond it to cover aspectsof production that they would never have thought ofotherwise. Many of the students had previously beeninvolved with computer simulations of various finan-cial and marketing games—they overwhelmingly feltthat the experiential exercise in production was farmore beneficial in terms of their assimilation of thematerial than any conceivable computer simulationcould have been. They pointed out the number oftimes the class diverted from scheduled class eventsto cover such points as the learning and technicalchange curves that had been made real by the exer-cise. Furthermore, the students discussed how workerunderutilization problems at production start-up andcompletion were made startlingly evident when theysaw idle workers on the line. The link of these uti-lization and underutilization aspects as an opening toproduct liability cases opened a completely newworldto nearly all of the students—most of themwent, unas-signed, to the library to explore the huge variety ofproduct liability journals and litigation reports andsame away with comprehensive, international reviewsof the subject.The grading of the entire process was as fair and

objective as possible; I used the grading categoriesshown in the appendix to evaluate projects. Addi-tional credit was given to groups whose presentations

sparked class discussions and the exploration of dif-ferent concepts during the discussions.This type of exercise is one of the most satisfying

and rewarding that I have led in my classrooms.

Future ResearchThe curves and numbers used in Figures 5 and 6 andTables 1 and 2 are taken from several repetitions of thefabrication line and are supplied here to illustrate typ-ical results from the project reporting groups. Groupdemographics were not researched nor was evalua-tive data over the years of the exercise retained. How-ever, it is recognized that the data generated from theprojects do open possibilities for future research.Opportunities for future research involve group

demographics that could be linked to the grade eval-uations. Over a suitable period of years, relation-ships could be researched between success with theseprojects, students’ countries of origin, their ages ofexposure to tools, machines, manufacturing relatedactivities, and more.

Appendix. Production Line GradingThe following Production Line Grading Guide is whollyoriginal to and was designed and developed by this paper’sauthor, Irwin Gray, Ph.D., P.E (Gray 2009).This is a guide to the manner by which student efforts

and the results of classroom manufacturing exercises areevaluated. The faculty member observes the demonstrationand awards grades for each major aspect of the presenta-tion as laid out here. Each group’s performance yields twooverall grades:1. The first grade is an evaluation of the production

charts.2. The second grade is an evaluation of the product and

the fabrication process itself.In calculating a student’s class grade for the entire term, thetwo grades earned for this class enter into the final account-ing with the heaviest weight put on item 2 above; a lesserweight is given to item 1.3. Grading for this exercise is done with a piece of car-

bon paper that permits two copies of the completed gradesheet to be filled out simultaneously. One copy is given tothe student and the other retained by the faculty member.The faculty member fills out grades for specific items whilethe demonstration of the fabrication and charts proceeds.At the conclusion of a presentation, the various item gradesare evaluated and an overall grade is awarded for the chartsand product/process. Individual faculty members combinethe partial grades in a manner appropriate to their individ-ual classes.

Production Line Grading GuideGroup Number: ___________Date: ___________ Time: ___________Team members presenting: _________________________________________________________________________________

Gray: Learning from a Classroom Manufacturing Exercise88 INFORMS Transactions on Education 11(2), pp. 77–89, © 2011 INFORMS

GradingThe grading for the production exercise is on the basis of A,B, C, D, or F. The level of grade is keyed to the followingdefinitions.A: This step was exceptionally well-conceived and exe-

cuted so that its function was effective and very well-performed.B: This step was properly carried out with acceptable

imagination and performance so that its function was car-ried out acceptably.C: The step was performed with insufficient preparation

on too simple a challenge, or an assumed challenge wasimpossible to perform so that its function was haltingly orclumsily executed with lesser quality.D: This was a mediocre performance with very little evi-

dence of much thought or preparation. The function wasimproperly or poorly carried out.F: This performance showed that the performers scraped

the bottom as far as trying to get by with little to noeffort. The results clearly demonstrate this: The function waspoorly carried out, was incomplete, and damaged the wholeprocess of the fabrication line. Even if the performancewas accompanied by imaginative excuses, it is awarded apoor grade.

ChartsSome steps or items may be left out of a chart to make itclearer for presentation in class. The completeness, applica-bility, and thoroughness of preparation of each chart will bejudged using the following guidelines.Bill of Materials Chart(1) Does it list the parts, descriptions, quantities com-

pleted for one unit of the product being built? ( )(2) Consider how well a purchasing agent could fulfill

the buying of the materials need for production based onthe chart. ( )(3) Is the fabrication or assembly chart appropriate for

the process being demonstrated in class? ( )(4) Consider whether it properly lists subcontracted

parts. Does it improperly list parts that are not compo-nents of the final product delivered to the customer or enduser? ( )(5) Are elements missing from the chart? Are there items

that should have been listed or described better or moreclearly? ( )(6) Is the chart readable and easily interpreted from any

position in the room? ( )Fabrication Chart(1) Is it complete enough for a “stranger” totally unfa-

miliar with the item to cut out, fold, paint, and or join theparts together to make the product? ( )(2) Are there elements missing from the chart? What

could be shown better or more clearly? ( )(3) Is the chart readable and easily interpreted from any

position in the room? ( )Operations Process Chart(1) Does it show the sequence of tools used for each of

the workers on the fabrication line? Is anything missing orunclear? ( )(2) Does it track the product through the process and

show all the tools, jigs, and fixtures used at each step? ( )

(3) Could a manufacturing engineer figure out what toolsto buy and how to lay them out for maximum flow ofproduct? ( )(4) Is the chart readable and easily interpreted from any

position in the room? ( )Right-Hand/Left-Hand Chart(1) Does the chart show what each hand is doing each

time either hand changes its function? ( )(2) Does the chart show evidence that the fabrication pro-

cess has been studied and revised to make it more efficientto make the product or easier to carry out the process? ( )(3) Does the chart reveal where efficiencies could be

increased by substituting specially designed tools for ordi-nary household manual ones? ( )(4) Could the chart be used to redesign the job for hand-

icapped workers? ( )(5) Are there essential steps missing from the chart?

What could have been shown better or more clearly? ( )(6) Is the chart selective—does it leave out excessive

detail or show too many steps that are not needed to repre-sent the fabrication process and how it was executed? ( )(7) Is the chart readable and easily interpreted from any

position in the room? ( )

The Product/Process, Layout, and PresentationThe group must demonstrate its ability to produce threeof the products with reasonable accuracy—symmetry, samedimensions/cuts, good folds, joins, and color (except whereintentionally different from unit to unit)—within the allo-cated time.The Product(1) Is the product put together reasonably well? Does

it meet the established specification—incorporating cutting,folding, gluing, “painting” steps? Does it look like some-thing people would buy? ( )(2) Is the level of the product appropriate to the

assignment—not too complex or too simple? This is recog-nizably not an objective appraisal of what is an appropriatelevel. For example, a simple bookmark is below the levelrequired for this course, and a complex Chinese jigsaw puz-zle is considerably above the level. ( )(3) How complete is the fabrication process demon-

strated in class? Are subcontracted parts logically subcon-tracted or did the group subcontract parts to avoid dealingwith necessary steps in class? ( )(4) Is there anything in the product that could have been

simplified to make it easier for the craft shop owner to fab-ricate on his own line? ( )(5) Are there any elements that can be easily added to

the product to better suit it to the target market? ( )Jigs/Fixtures Process(1) Are there instances of hands being used inefficiently

as holding tools because the group failed to design/buildproper fixtures? ( )(2) Do the fixtures control the positioning of the work

and jigs so that a tired, disinterested, or lazy worker is beconstrained enough to “forced” to do a good job? ( )(3) Would the hands’ skilled work and inordinate care be

made easier and faster in the execution with a better jig? ( )(4) Are there places a jig or fixture should have been used

but were missing? ( )

Gray: Learning from a Classroom Manufacturing ExerciseINFORMS Transactions on Education 11(2), pp. 77–89, © 2011 INFORMS 89

Workplace Layout(1) Is material waste minimized? Is the production line

waste disposal properly thought out? ( )(2) Is there a smooth flow of the work pieces through

the line? Or does the line bunch up behind one part of theprocess that is much more difficult than all the rest? ( )(3) Are there steps in the production that are too com-

plex? Is there evidence that the group thought themthrough? Should steps be rearranged or improved? ( )(4) Is there a reasonable balance of work between posi-

tions or is one position assigned much more of the task thanthe other positions? ( )(5) Does the manufacture of an item take an excessive

amount of time from start to finish? Does the group manageto make the minimum number of items? ( )

The Overall Presentation(1) Does it show evidence of careful thought, planning,

preparation, and rehearsal? ( )(2) Are the tools charts, jigs, fixtures, and the work-

place laid out, well and clearly presented? Did the group’sthought, preparation, and rehearsal eliminate major defi-ciencies in the presentation or were correctable deficienciesremaining in the presentation? ( )(3) Does the presentation come across as worthy of the

time it took to be viewed in this class? ( )

Overall Grades as Evaluated1. Charts2. Product, Jigs/Fixtures, Layout, Presentation

ReferencesCombs, A. W. 1982. Affective education or none at all. Educational

Leadership 39(7) 494–497.Deming, W. E. 1982. Out of the Crisis. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Dewey, J. 1910. How We Think. Dover Publications, Mineola,

New York.Experiential Learning Cycle. 2009. Accessed July 29, 2009, http://

www.learningandteaching.info/learning/experience.htm.Ford, H. 1908. Henry Ford Changes the World. Accessed July 29,

2009, http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/ford.htm.Gray, I. 2009. Production Line Grading Guide. Lecture Notes,

unpublished.Harvard MBA Admissions Admissions Criteria. 2009. Accessed

August 20, 2009, http://www.hbs.edu/mba/admissions/admissioncriteria.html.

Heineke, J. 1997. Enhancing learning using classroom games andexercises. Quality Management J. 44 32–42.

Hernandez, J. C. 2009. A moo-moo here, and better test scoreslater. New York Times (October 20) A1, A28.

Huitt, W., J. Hummel. 2003. Piaget’s theory of cognitive develop-ment. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta State Univer-sity, Valdosta, GA. Accessed September 20, 2009, http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/piaget.html.

JA. 2009. Junior Achievement. Accessed July 28, 2009, http://www.ja.org.

Knott, R. C. 1994. Science curriculum improvement study 3. D. L.Haury, P. Rillero, eds. Perspectives of Hands-On Science Teaching.North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, Berkeley.

Kolb, D. A. 2009. On experiential learning. Infed. Accessed Decem-ber 27, 2009, http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-explrn.htm.

Manufacturing Bill of Materials. 2009. Accessed July 2, 2008,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_bill_of_materials.

MBAprograms.org. 2009. MBA admissions criteria. Accessed July27, 2009, http://mbaprograms.org/mbaadmission/criteria.asp.

NASA. 2010. Accessed July, 2009, http://cost/jsc.nasa.gov/learn.html.

Operations Process Chart. 2009. Accessed August 10, 2009, http://www.answers.com/topic/operation-process-chart.

Polito, T., K. Watson, T. Groleau. 2009. Zarco, Incorporated:A Deming-inspired, opening day operations managementexperiential learning activity. Accessed December 19, 2009,www.tonypolito.com/wri_zarc.doc.

Smith, A. 1776. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealthof nations. Adam Smith Institute. Accessed July 28, 2009,http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won/won-b1-c1.html.

Smith, K. D., S. Clinton. 2006. Experiential learning: A case studyof a mutually-beneficial database development project. IssuesInform. Systems VII(1) 26.

Taylor, F. W. 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management. Harper &Brothers, New York.

Whitney, E. 1798. From interchangeable parts to Visual Basic, abrief history. Accessed October 20, 2009, http://www.ryerson.ca/∼dgrimsha/courses/cps841/Interchangeable.html.

Wright, R., S. Ammar. 2009. Accessed December 29, 2009, http://web.lemoyne.edu/∼wright/learn.htm.

Youngs, D. 2003. Research shows the hands-on approach utilizedby AIMS works. AIMS Education Foundation (Activities Inte-grating Math and Science), AIMS News (November), 1–3.

Zimmers, E. W. Jr., G. L. Tonkay, N. L. Baskin, L. R. Butler,M. Sohail Ahmed. 2004. Operations management educationutilizing e-learning techniques with industry-university col-laboration. Proc. 2nd World Conf. POM/15th Annual POM Conf.,Cancun, Mexico, April 30–May 3. Accessed December 29, 2009,www.pomsmeetings.org/ConfProceedings/002/POMS_CD/…/002-0030.pdf.