The SCOR Model Supply Chain Game: G. Scott Webb Stephanie P. Thomas Sara Liao-Troth

1
The SCOR Model Supply Chain Game
G. Scott Webb
Stephanie P. Thomas
Sara Liao-Troth
Georgia Southern University
Statesboro, GA
Contact Information:
G. Scott Webb
Department of Marketing and Logistics, COBA
PO Box 8154
Statesboro, GA 30460-8002
scottwebb@georgiasouthern.edu
912-478-2554
Stephanie P. Thomas*
Logistics PhD Program, COBA
PO Box 8154
st01846@georgiasouthern.edu
(704) 576-2169
Sara Liao-Troth
Logistics PhD Program, COBA
PO Box 8154
ul00037@georgiasouthern.edu
(360) 220-0942
*Corresponding author
This document is available from our site and provided for your personal use only and may not be retransmitted or redistributed without written permission from the
Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP). You may not upload any of this site's material to any public server, online service, network, or bulletin board
without prior written permission from CSCMP.
2
ABSTRACT
The Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model Supply Chain game is an in-class
activity that helps students develop a holistic understanding of the processes and challenges in
supply chain management through the use of the Plan, Source, Make, Deliver, and Return
processes. Competing supply chains work to produce and sell two products, each experiencing
differential demand. Seasonal demand, quality defects, and tax audits offer complexities that are
a realistic component of actual supply chain management. The behavioral dynamics of
collaboration between various functional nodes is illustrated through students interactions as
they try to achieve their roles objectives.
Keywords: Supply Chain Management, SCOR Model, Game, Class Activity
3
INTRODUCTION
This article presents a classroom game used to illustrate supply chain management
processes and challenges to students that can be run in a typical class session (45 to 75 minutes).
The game provides students a tactile understanding of supply chain management, creates a
shared experience for future class discussions, and fosters high student engagement levels.
Supply chain management (SCM) can be viewed as a philosophy based on the belief that
each firm in the supply chain directly and indirectly affects the performance of all the other
supply chain members, as well as ultimately overall supply-chain performance (Cooper,
Lambert, and Pagh 1997). One of the challenges of teaching SCM themes such as
interdependencies between supply chain partners and the need for collaboration is that traditional
undergraduate students often have limited practical work experience and thus have difficulty
translating conceptual knowledge into a concrete plan of action that could be applied to a real
business situation (Feger and Thomas 2011). The use of simulation games to apply key theories
and show causes and effects of managerial decisions in action have been suggested as part of an
active learning approach in the classroom (Auster and Wylie 2006). These games help students
to gain a comprehensive understanding of course material and have been shown to increase
students ability to apply what they learn (Stewart et al. 2011).
One common classroom simulation used to illustrate supply chain management concepts
is the Beer Distribution Game (Sterman 1989). Although this simulation has been used in
countless undergraduate, graduate and executive education courses, it illustrates the reality of a
supply chain in only a simplified way and considers only certain effects (Hieber and Hartel
2003). For example, the Beer Distribution Game does not allow information sharing and is
limited to four serial nodes in a supply chain. Unlike the Beer Distribution game, the SCOR
4
Model Supply Chain game provides additional complexity in the form of realistic additional
nodes such as end customers, third party logistics providers (3PLs), and tax collectors. In
addition, open information sharing allows for the possibility of relationship building and
negotiations. These differences allow students to understand the processes of managing a supply
chain with varied and complex results.
The game is based on the Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) model, a crossfunctional framework developed by the Supply Chain Council specifically for integrated supply
chain management (Stewart 1997). The SCOR model is used as a strategic planning tool to
simplify the complexity of supply chain management by bringing order to the diverse activities
that make up the supply chain as well providing a common terminology and standard process
descriptions (Stewart 1997). The SCOR model has been identified as a key element which
should be included in supply chain management curricula in order to prepare students for
successful careers in the field (Grandzol and Grandzol 2011).
THE SCOR MODEL SUPPLY CHAIN GAME
The SCOR Model Supply Chain Game can be used for various class sizes and is most
appropriate for strategically focused classes (such as a capstone course) that seek to illustrate the
interdependencies and complexity of managing a supply chain. However, the game can also be
used in introductory classes for non-supply chain majors to illustrate the processes that must
occur from raw material sourcing to the end consumer product purchase.
In the game, supply chains compete to efficiently and effectively produce and sell two
different products. Each supply chain consists of three functional nodes (supplier, manufacturer,
and sales & marketing) linked by financial, information and materials flows with third party
logistics providers (3PL), tax collectors, customers (i.e. distributors), customers customers, and
5
suppliers suppliers. In carrying out the functions of their assigned node, each group of students
must understand issues relating to the SCOR models five processes. Students must plan by
developing inventory, distribution, and customer relationship management strategies as well as
setting prices. They must understand where to source parts, how goods are made, and how to
deliver goods. Students will also face logistical issues in the manufacture and delivery of goods.
Additional supply chain complexities in the form of quality defects (returns) and tax collector
audits show how intertwined each node is. Differential demand for each of the two products
produced also contributes to complexity in managing the supply chain and illustrates the
importance of strategic planning. Finally, each node must figure out how to work with other
nodes in the face of competing objectives. Figure 1 illustrates the nodes and flows of this
exercise.
[insert Figure 1]
MATERIALS
The following materials are needed to run the exercise:
1. Assortment of large and colorful construction blocks (e.g. Mega Bloks) with a minimum of
three colors to allow for the assembly of two separate products. These large size Mega Bloks
can also be used for other classroom exercises (e.g. Ashenbaum 2010) involving production
systems. Before class, use a permanent marker to put a black mark on the inside bottom of
approximately 10% of the blocks to indicate quality defects. Assemble a sample of each of
the two products (Eagles and Turkeys) to show the students. An Eagle is composed of 1 blue
+ 2 other color blocks (not red). A Turkey is composed of 1 red + 2 other color blocks (not
blue). We often name the premium product after the university mascot and name the low-end
product after a rival mascot.
6
2. Play money in denominations of $1, $5, $10, $20, and $100. Sheets of money can be printed
and cut up for use. Given the different functions, a variety of denominations can minimize
the need for a bank to give them change to make a transaction.
3. Game time clock. We utilize an online game clock projected on the classroom screen.
4. Photocopies of demand schedule (seeTable 3) and Rules and Constraints for each functional
node (see Table 2 - for detailed Rules and Constraints sheets, please email the corresponding
author).
5. Name tents for each functional node (Suppliers Supplier, Supplier, Manufacturer, Sales &
Marketing, Customers, Customers Customer).
RUNNING THE SCOR MODEL SUPPLY CHAIN GAME
Step 1: Set-up. Assign each student to a node within a supply chain (recommended numbers for
each node are provided in Table 1). At a minimum, the game requires two supply chains and
various other functional nodes to be populated. For larger classes, three supply chains add an
additional level of complexity and competition. Each supply chain should develop a name for
identification and to foster friendly competition. Provide each functional node with their specific
duties and constraints which should not be shared initially. Also, give each functional node their
appropriate starting funds of play money (see Table 2).
[insert Tables 1 and 2]
Step 1b: Review the objectives and rules of the game. Students are to simulate a supply chain by
sourcing, producing, transporting, selling and returning two products (one is a premium product
and worth more to the Customers Customers in terms of points). Additionally, each node has
specific objectives, rules, and information relevant to their role (refer them to their individual
rules sheets). They must also make strategic decisions (e.g. each supply chain should decide
7
whether to produce Eagles or Turkeys prior to the start of the game). Regarding the flow of
information, all supply chain nodes are allowed to communicate freely (unlike the Beer Game).
Encourage the supply chain teams (Supplier, Manufacturer, Sales & Marketing) to work together
to develop a strategy before the start of the game.
Step 2: Getting Started. Game timelines (see Table 3) with demand information should be given
to Customers Customers and Suppliers Suppliers. The Suppliers Suppliers are given all the
block component parts. Reiterate the differences between Eagles (blue) and Turkeys (red) to the
class and show the product samples that you assembled. Remind the class that red and blue parts
are not compatible and cannot be stored, manufactured or shipped together. Project a time clock
onto a screen in the classroom and begin the game.
Step 3: Game Play. A game timeline is provided in Table 3. Do not show the demand patterns to
students who are not Customers Customers or Suppliers Suppliers. Play of the game is often a
little slow in the beginning as the students are getting familiar with their roles and learning how
each of the nodes performs their role. The last 10-15 minutes are usually very fast-paced and
frantic as the competition between all the different roles increases.
Step 4: Determining Winners. The game is done after 45 minutes of game play, but the time can
be adjusted for shorter class periods. Announce winners for each Supply Chain (Supplier +
Manufacturer + Sales/Marketing), 3PL, Customer, and Tax Collector group based on final
revenue or points earned (see Table 1).
Step 5 De-brief. Debriefing students experiences and strategies is a key piece of this exercise.
Try to leave at least 10 minutes at the end of the game for the de-brief discussion. Suggested debrief questions are provided in Table 4.
[insert Tables 3 and 4]
8
Key takeaways include:
Demand: Students universally attempt to produce Eagles (the premium product) at first
and do not anticipate the difficulties caused by its seasonal demand (at some point, no one will
buy Eagles). If the supply chains are agile, they will switch over to producing Turkeys in the
latter half of the exercise. However, the information about customer needs and seasonality is
often not shared with other members of the supply chain, which presents an opportunity to
highlight the importance of information sharing and contact with customers. Students also tend
to ignore obvious competitive information the supply chains tend to make decisions on what to
produce without observing the competing supply chains activities. Often, we observe that the
students supply chains end up producing the same product at the same time. Tradeoffs in
competing based on product differentiation versus price can be highlighted.
Quality: Students often remember the difficulties in dealing with defects in parts and will
guess that defects number is much higher than the actual 10%. Most Customers Customers try
to return defective products back through the supply chain rather than incur negative points. This
action sends a ripple effect through the supply chain relationships (students have finally figured
out their role and strategies, and returning parts are a hassle). If returns are refused, the
purchasing relationship tends to be threatened and results in Customers Customer decisions not
to do business again. Defective parts show the importance of planning for the return flow
otherwise a disproportionate amount of attention will be spent on a small percentage of the total.
They also present the opportunity to discuss supply chain relationships and how disruptions in
the supply chain can strengthen or weaken those relationships depending on how they are
handled.
9
Information Flow: Although the seasonal demand schedule for Eagles are known by
Customers Customers and Suppliers Suppliers from the beginning of the game, most do not
think to share this information to the Customers or Suppliers. Even if they do share with the
Customer, the information will often stop there. Students who play this game a second time, if
placed in the role of a Customers Customer, will demand to only buy Turkeys and can change
the overall game to one of supply chains competing on efficiency and price.
Competing Supply Chain Incentives: Each 3PL is kept busy providing service for the
supply chain nodes. One way to vary the game is to not assign a 3PL to a specific supply chain
and to add a third 3PL.This creates more of a competitive environment for the 3PL. Some 3PLs
will try to negotiate for exclusivity with one supply chain. Depending on busy the 3PL is, the
supply chain nodes may sit idle waiting for the 3PL to move their parts or products, providing a
good opportunity to discuss of the impact of idle functions on the total supply chain. Some nodes
elect to hold inventory in order to assemble a full truckload before transporting parts or products.
This may optimize their profit but may also cause a delay or disruption in product flow for the
remainder of the supply chain.
Inventory Carrying Costs: After the first several audits, students tend to note that the tax
collector shows up when inventory is high. They dislike the tax collector not because of the tax,
but because audits slow down or stop their supply chains. The presence of the tax collector
highlights the impact that each individual has on the entire supply chain.
EFFECTIVENESS AND DISCUSSION
The SCOR model game is popular with students. The activity engages students in doing,
rather than sitting and listening. For students lacking practical business experience, the exercise
brings to life key supply chain processes. When conducted at the beginning of a semester, the
10
game provides a foundation of shared experience for instructors to reference throughout the
remainder of the semester. If conducted later in the semester, the game can provide a venue for
students to apply concepts they have learned in theory and observe the results of their decisions.
In addition, the friendly competition of competing supply chains helps to create a lively
classroom dynamic.
To assess the learning impact of this game, a pre-game and post-game survey was given
to 163 undergraduate logistics students at a large Southeastern university within the first 2 weeks
of the semester (pre-exercise), and then immediately following the running of the exercise in
class (post-exercise). The survey question responses were assessed on a 1-7 Likert-type scale
ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (7).
An ANOVA comparison of students pre-exercise and post-exercise responses shows
significant differences in their perception of having a big picture understanding of how supply
chain management works (F =118.82, p =.000) as well as describing the basic problems in
managing a supply chain (F =151.47, p =.000). In addition, students reported high agreement to
positive statements regarding their experience. In response to This game improved my
understanding of key concepts involved in supply chain management students answered a mean
of 5.72. Similarly, mean responses for I believe I learned more from the game about supply
chain management than traditional lecture/reading assignments was 5.86; The game was an
engaging classroom exercise was 6.36; and The game was fun was 6.28.
Students also provided overwhelmingly positive comments regarding the experience
itself as well as their learning insights. Sample comments include:
The game was a good exercise that taught me a lot about how a supply chain works.
I really enjoyed this game. It really helped me with understanding how the supply chain
works, and the negotiation and how important relationships are.
11
I loved this game. It helped me understand what supply chain management is. I don't think I
would have understood it as well if we did not play this game.
The game was very accurate. I work in a distribution center and the same problems are
involved in the everyday life of moving products.
I think it was a good working model and provided tangible examples of why and what kind
of problems can occur in a supply chain.
I wasn't too sure about it at first but after a little bit I really learned a lot about what it takes
as a supply chain to make the customers happy.
You have to know about what is going on in all parts of the supply chain. Just because you
are doing good does not mean the whole thing is going well.
Often, students ask to repeat the game, hoping for an opportunity to adjust their
strategies in the future. The SCOR Model Supply Chain game is a fun and informative way to
teach students about the processes and complexities of supply chain management.
12
REFERENCES
Ashenbaum, B. 2010. The Twenty-Minute Just-In-Time Exercise. Decision Sciences Journal
of Innovative Education 8(1):269-274.
Auster, E., & Wylie, K. 2006. Creating Active Learning in the Classroom: A Systematic
Approach. Journal of Management Education 30, 333353.
Cooper, M.C., Lambert, D.M., & Pagh, J.D. 1997. Supply Chain Management: More Than a
New Name for Logistics. International Journal of Logistics Management 8(1), 1-14.
Feger, A.L.R., & Thomas, G.A. 2011. Bailing Out the Once-Ler: Using Dr. Seuss to Teach
Operations Management. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 9(1), 69-73.
Grandzol, J.R., & Grandzol, C.J. 2011. An Experiential Approach to Benchmarking
Curriculum. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 9(3), 401-409.
Heiber, R. and Hartel, I. 2003. Impacts of SCM order strategies evaluated by simulation-based
Beer Game approach: the model, concept, and initial experiences. Production Planning &
Control 14 (2), 122-134.
Sterman, J. D. 1989. Modeling Managerial Behavior: Misperceptions of Feedback in a Dynamic
Decision Making Experiment. Management Science 35(3):321 339.
Stewart, G. 1997. Supply-Chain Operations Reference Model (SCOR): The First Cross-Industry
Framework for Integrated Supply-Chain Management. Logistics Information Management
10(2), 62-67.
Stewart, A.C., Williams, J., Smith-Gratto, K., Black, S.S., & Kane, B.T. 2011. Examining the
Impact of Pedagogy on Student Application of Learning: Acquiring, Sharing, and Using
Knowledge for Organizational Decision Making. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative
Education 9(1), 3-26.
13
Figure 1: SCOR Model Supply Chain Game Flow
14
Table 1: SCOR Model Supply Chain Game Roles and Goals

Player
Minimum
Players
Incentive
Supplier,
Manufacturer,
Sales &
Marketing
2 people for
each supply
chain
Profit
Make more profit than competing supply

chains
3PL
1 person for
each, 2 3PLs
minimum
Revenue
Make more money than competing 3PLs
Tax Collector
1 person
Revenue
Customer
3 people
Profit
Customers
Customer
5 people
Points
How Do They Win?
Make more money than competing tax

collectors
Make more profit than competing
distributors
Create more points than other customers, 10
points awarded for each Eagle, 5 points for
each Turkey
15
Table 2: Rules and Constraints for each Functional Node*
Supplier
Manufacturer
Sales &
Marketing
Objective
Maximize
Maximize
Maximize
revenue in
revenue in
revenue in
total with your total with your total with your
Manufacturing Supplier and
Supplier and
and Sales &
Sales &
Manufacturing
Marketing
Marketing
team
team
team
3PL
Maximize
your
revenue
by
competing
against
other
3PLs for
business
Tax
Collector
Collect as
many taxes
as possible
given your
constraints
Initial
Funds
Primary
Duties
$100
$100
$100
$0
$0
1. Buy parts
from the
Suppliers
Supplier
2. Receive
orders from
Manufacturers
for new parts
3. Ship orders
to
manufacturer
through 3PL
4. Manage
inventory
1. Build
Eagles &
Turkeys
2. Receive
orders from
Sales &
Marketing for
products
3. Ship orders
to Sales &
Marketing
through 3PL
4. Manage
inventory
1. Set price
2. Promote
products
3. Sell
products
4. Place orders
to the
manufacturer
5. Manage
inventory
1. Audit
any node of
the supply
chain once
every 10
minutes; no
activities
can occur
at the node
during the
audit
2. Charge
20% of the
total cost of
inventory
Constraints
Orders filled
first come first
serve
Orders filled
first come first
serve
Customer
orders can be
filled in any
order you want
1. Carry
all
inventorie
s between
supply
chain
nodes
2. Collect
payment
for your
service
3. Impose
a 1 minute
lead time
for all
shipments
Orders
filled first
come first
serve
Customer
Produce
revenue by
buying
product from
each supply
chain and
selling them
to the
Customers
Customers
$100
1. Buy and
sell products
2. Earn as
much money
as possible
3. Reward
high
performing
relationships
with loyalty/
future
business
Customers
Customer
Purchase Eagles and
Turkeys according to
the demand schedule
and maximize your
points when turning
product into the
Suppliers Supplier
Act as the Suppliers

Supplier by selling
parts to Suppliers;
Award points to the
Customers Customers
based on the demand
schedule
$1,000
$0
1. Buy product and

turn product into
Suppliers Supplier
for points based on
demand schedule
2. Negotiate with the
Customers group
3. Follow demand
schedule: Eagles are
seasonal items based
on the schedule
whereas Turkeys can
be purchased at any
time
1. Sell parts to
Suppliers
2. Award and track
Customers Customer
points
3. Act as quality
control inspector identify and reject
defective products
4. Accept Supplier
returns and refund cost
of defective parts
Orders filled first

come first serve
Do not disclose exact

quality defective
indicators to others
All: no
credit
transactions
*For detailed Rules and Constraints game sheets, please email the corresponding author
Suppliers Supplier
16
Table 3: Game timelines

Minutes*
-10 to 0
(Pre-game)
Supply Chain
Sales team,
Functions
manufacture
rs and
suppliers
may order,
produce and
ship
Tax Cycle
Demand
Signal: what
customers can
turn in for
points
Constraint
NA
0-5
All
functions
active
(sell, order,
produce,
ship)
ONLY
Turkeys
5-10
All
functions
active
One tax
cycle
should
have been
completed
ONLY
Turkeys
10-15
All
functions
active
Both
15-20
All
functions
active
One tax
cycle
should
have been
completed
ONLY
Turkeys
20-25
All
functions
active
ONLY
Turkeys
25-30
All
functions
active
One tax
cycle
should
have been
completed
Both
30-35
All
functions
active
ONLY
Turkeys
35-40
40-45
All functions
active
All functions
active
One tax cycle

should have
been
completed
One tax cycle

should have
been
completed
ONLY
Turkeys
Both
No selling
or sales
negotiation
during this
time frame
Customers
Customers
Customers
will only
will only buy will only buy
buy from
from stores
from stores
stores that
that they
that they
they bought
bought
bought
product
product from
product from
from in the
in the
in the
previous 5
previous 5
previous 5
minutes
minutes
minutes
*For shorter class periods, you can leave off one or two of the last 5 minutes increments or shorten the time for each cycle. In shorter class periods, you can also
skip the pregame and give the supply chains some inventory to start with.
17
Table 4: Suggested Discussion Points

Demand
What was the demand for Eagles?
How was the initial product mix between Eagles and Turkeys different from the ending
product mix?
Why does knowing or having some idea of the demand type help supply chain profitability?
Quality
What were considered quality defects?
What unforeseen problems did the defects cause within the supply chain?
What percentage of the blocks do you think had quality defects?
Why do a relatively small number of defects cause the perception of big problems?
Information Flow
What constrained your information flow?
What key information would have helped your node the most?
Competing Supply Chain Incentives
What sort of partner was the 3PL?
How could the 3PL make more money?
How could the supply chain have aligned incentives to make the 3PL more cost effective?
How did the Suppliers Suppliers help or hurt your supply chains?
Inventory Carrying Costs
How did carrying costs (taxes) motivate your inventory policy?
What other penalties hurt the supply chain besides the actual taxes?

The SCOR Model Supply Chain Game: G. Scott Webb Stephanie P. Thomas Sara Liao-Troth

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The SCOR Model Supply Chain Game: G. Scott Webb Stephanie P. Thomas Sara Liao-Troth

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1

The SCOR Model Supply Chain Game

Keywords: Supply Chain Management, SCOR Model, Game, Class Activity

Table 1: SCOR Model Supply Chain Game Roles and Goals

Make more profit than competing supply

Make more money than competing 3PLs

How Do They Win?

Make more money than competing tax

Act as the Suppliers

1. Buy product and

Orders filled first

Do not disclose exact

Table 3: Game timelines

One tax cycle

One tax cycle

Table 4: Suggested Discussion Points

Вам также может понравиться