The T-shape dilemma in the industrial engineering and management

Purpose: This paper concerns the undergraduate “Industrial Engineering and Management” curriculum. The purpose of the research was to examine the extent to which there is in-depth coverage of teaching/learning in the combined field of industrial engineering and management, as opposed to breadth in multidisciplinary teaching/learning in this field (the T-shaped dilemma). In line with this aim, the following research question was derived: With respect to the breadth of multidisciplinary teaching and the depth of teaching in industrial engineering and management, what is the desired situation as opposed to the actual situation? Design/methodology/approach: To examine the T-shaped dilemma, 16 in-depth interviews were conducted with senior-level managers in industry, and with leading academics in the fields of industrial engineering and management. The interviewees were asked questions regarding the planning and design of the curriculum in these fields. The analysis of the interviews was carried out by ascribing categories to the data, and presenting the categories with the highest frequencies in all of the interviews. Findings and originality/value: One of the most significant results was the considerable variability between the answers of senior-level managers in industry and those of the academics. Whereas individuals in the business field (senior-level managers) place great importance on focusing on the management/business aspect and the acquisition of multidisciplinary knowledge, academics emphasize the importance of understanding the theories and rationale behind the material studied, studying the basic principles and thus acquiring a strong theoretical foundation, the implementation of which is then expressed in diverse applications. Research limitations/implications: Owing to time constraints, the research only included 16 in-depth interviews. In order to increase the external validity of this research, more interviews should be executed. Originality/value: The framework of this research is unique in terms of the topic and analytic processes.Peer Reviewe

Can We Train Management Students to be Systems Thinkers- Additional Results

Systems-thinking, a holistic approach that puts the study of wholes before that of parts, is an efficient way of dealing with real-world situations. By emphasizing the interrelationships between the system's components rather than the components themselves, systems thinking allows us to increase our personal and professional effectiveness, and transform our organizations. Specifically, systems thinkers can conceptually analyze the system without knowing all the details, recognizing the forest through the trees. They can see beyond the surface to the deeper patterns that are responsible for creating behavior. The current study deals with the development of systems thinking among students and graduates of technology management. The goals of the study are to identify the factors that influence the development of systems thinking and to find ways to encourage this development. We used a variety of research tools:  A questionnaire for assessing the capacity for systems thinking, The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality type test and supervisor evaluations.  In conclusion, the current study findings show that graduates with certain personality traits can gradually acquire or improve their capacity for systems thinking by receiving appropriate training and through a wide range of work experience, and by holding different job positions over time. Having a broad range of professional experience and holding different job positions can help graduates gain knowledge and become familiar with diverse systems and technologies

The T-shape dilemma in the industrial engineering and management

Purpose: This paper concerns the undergraduate “Industrial Engineering and Management” curriculum. The purpose of the research was to examine the extent to which there is in-depth coverage of teaching/learning in the combined field of industrial engineering and management, as opposed to breadth in multidisciplinary teaching/learning in this field (the T-shaped dilemma). In line with this aim, the following research question was derived: With respect to the breadth of multidisciplinary teaching and the depth of teaching in industrial engineering and management, what is the desired situation as opposed to the actual situation? Design/methodology/approach: To examine the T-shaped dilemma, 16 in-depth interviews were conducted with senior-level managers in industry, and with leading academics in the fields of industrial engineering and management. The interviewees were asked questions regarding the planning and design of the curriculum in these fields. The analysis of the interviews was carried out by ascribing categories to the data, and presenting the categories with the highest frequencies in all of the interviews. Findings and originality/value: One of the most significant results was the considerable variability between the answers of senior-level managers in industry and those of the academics. Whereas individuals in the business field (senior-level managers) place great importance on focusing on the management/business aspect and the acquisition of multidisciplinary knowledge, academics emphasize the importance of understanding the theories and rationale behind the material studied, studying the basic principles and thus acquiring a strong theoretical foundation, the implementation of which is then expressed in diverse applications. Research limitations/implications: Owing to time constraints, the research only included 16 in-depth interviews. In order to increase the external validity of this research, more interviews should be executed. Originality/value: The framework of this research is unique in terms of the topic and analytic processes.Peer Reviewe

FOUR LAYERS APPROACH FOR DEVELOPING A TOOL FOR ASSESSING SYSTEMS THINKING

To perform successfully systems engineering tasks, systems engineers need a systems view, in other words, a high capacity for engineering systems thinking (CEST). A tool for assessing systems thinking of engineers, once validated, may be used for systems engineering workforce selection and development, developing systems engineering curriculum, education, and training programs, as well as a standard tool for assessing systems engineers' competencies. Since there is no known way of directly 'measuring' systems thinking in general and CEST in particular, an indirect method is needed. This paper proposes an idea for developing an indirect means, i.e. a questionnaire for assessing the CEST of systems engineers. The idea is composed of four logic layers

The T-shape dilemma in the industrial engineering and management

Purpose: This paper concerns the undergraduate “Industrial Engineering and Management” curriculum. The purpose of the research was to examine the extent to which there is in-depth coverage of teaching/learning in the combined field of industrial engineering and management, as opposed to breadth in multidisciplinary teaching/learning in this field (the T-shaped dilemma). In line with this aim, the following research question was derived: With respect to the breadth of multidisciplinary teaching and the depth of teaching in industrial engineering and management, what is the desired situation as opposed to the actual situation? Design/methodology/approach: To examine the T-shaped dilemma, 16 in-depth interviews were conducted with senior-level managers in industry, and with leading academics in the fields of industrial engineering and management. The interviewees were asked questions regarding the planning and design of the curriculum in these fields. The analysis of the interviews was carried out by ascribing categories to the data, and presenting the categories with the highest frequencies in all of the interviews. Findings and originality/value: One of the most significant results was the considerable variability between the answers of senior-level managers in industry and those of the academics. Whereas individuals in the business field (senior-level managers) place great importance on focusing on the management/business aspect and the acquisition of multidisciplinary knowledge, academics emphasize the importance of understanding the theories and rationale behind the material studied, studying the basic principles and thus acquiring a strong theoretical foundation, the implementation of which is then expressed in diverse applications. Research limitations/implications: Owing to time constraints, the research only included 16 in-depth interviews. In order to increase the external validity of this research, more interviews should be executed. Originality/value: The framework of this research is unique in terms of the topic and analytic processes

Systems Thinking Education—Seeing the Forest through the Trees

Systems thinking is an indispensable tool in comprehending and analyzing real-world phenomena. Observed processes are naturally composed of many interconnected components which ought to be studied jointly rather than individually. Engineering systems thinking is a very valuable skill, which helps to successfully execute multi-disciplinary projects. In high-tech companies that deal with complex and dynamic systems projects, the need for engineers with high systems thinking skills is growing. Engineers with high systems thinking skills are able to understand the big picture and the project in its entirety, both functionally and conceptually, without necessarily knowing all of the small details. Systems thinking enables understanding the entire system beyond its components, and clarifies the importance of the isolated component as part of the system as a whole. Systems thinking helps understand how sub-systems connect to one whole system, and provides solutions for the client’s specifications and requirements. In addition, systems thinking enables perceiving the inter-relationships and mutual influence among the system’s components and other systems. The current study examined the development of systems thinking among engineers and engineering students. In addition, the personality traits of engineers with high systems thinking skills were examined by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality type test. This article also presents the initial results of the development of a new systems thinking study course, taught as a pilot course to industrial and management engineering students. It seems that engineers with certain personality traits can acquire or improve their systems thinking capabilities through a gradual, long-term learning process and by acquiring the necessary tools. Additionally, the study includes recommendations for the continuation of ongoing research on developing systems thinking