University–industry collaboration: Enhancing students’ business acumen and aptitude through competitive SCM challenges

Abstract

This article describes a collaborative process between a university’s Supply Chain Management (SCM) program and the business community supporting the program to bring about a student team–based case competition. The ideas used for the competition were based on actual challenges experienced and submitted by businesses, while the case narrative and supporting material, as well as the assessment rubric, were developed and written by the SCM program faculty. The implementation of the competition was originally designed to benefit students by helping them further develop and demonstrate their capabilities in the areas of business acumen, soft skills, critical thinking, and problem-solving to potential employers. Interestingly, this activity also provided unforeseen benefits to the original collaborating parties. The article discusses the immediate benefits resulting from the collaboration as well as its impact on future collaborative opportunities between SCM programs and businesses.

Keywords

University–industry collaboration case competition professional development experiential learning Supply Chain Management

In today’s competitive job market for university graduates, it is essential for undergraduate business programs to meet the ongoing challenge of developing experiential opportunities that advance and enhance students’ capabilities to meet the talent expectations of employers (West and Thompson, 2015). In response to this challenge, the Supply Chain Management (SCM) program faculty at the University of Nebraska at Kearney carried out a university–industry collaboration (UIC), undertaking with regional business leaders to create a case competition for students in the program. The purpose of this activity was to provide students with an application-based opportunity that would showcase their capabilities in the areas of problem-solving, critical thinking, business acumen, soft skills, and working in a team setting.

Prior to the creation of this activity, each year the program sent two student teams to an out-of-state SCM case competition that allowed a maximum of only two teams per school, with no more than four students per team. Student teams participating in this event were provided with a business-related case challenge when they checked in and were given approximately 14 h to read, analyze, problem solve, and develop a proposed solution to the problem. Teams presented their proposals to a panel of judges made up of selected faculty from schools participating in the competition. Once judging of all presentations had been completed, the top three teams were determined and recognized at a luncheon. Student teams that were not placed in the top three received minimal feedback regarding their presentation. Furthermore, the feedback provided to teams finishing in the top three places did not address their problem-solving or critical thinking skills; rather, judges’ comments were focused on what they had determined to be the proper solution to the case.

After sending several student teams to the competition, the SCM faculty assessed the overall value of the external case activity for students in the program. Several questions were raised during the assessment, including the following: (1) What did students attending the case activity learn from their experience? (2) How did their experience help the students who did not attend the activity to grow in their SCM knowledge and experience? and (3) Was the activity providing students with an opportunity to showcase their talents with potential employers?

It was from their assessment that the faculty decided to create an alternative learning experience that would better serve all students in the program. This decision was the starting point for what has become a successful annual SCM case competition that includes the participation of students, regional businesses, and program faculty. Today, all students in the SCM program have the opportunity to participate in at least one case competition prior to graduation, providing them with valuable feedback from potential employers which will assist them in their professional career development.

In the next section, a review of literature is presented supporting our case-competition initiative. Following the literature review, the SCM program’s experience with its case-competition activity is documented along with the assessment outcome from the past two years. Finally, the article concludes with a discussion of benefits realized by participants, lessons learned, and a report of the most significant outcomes from this collaboration.

Background

There are three research themes that are closely related to our case-competition initiative: (1) experiential learning (EL); (2) collaborative learning in a competitive setting; and (3) UIC. In what follows, we review each theme and highlight its relevance to the development and implementation of our case competition.

Experiential learning

Experiential learning, which emphasizes exposure to concrete experiences in the learning process, has increasingly been recognized as an important component of business students’ expectations as well as of the business curriculum (Hawtrey, 2007; Hodge et al., 2014; Hope et al., 2020). According to Dewey (1938), experience refers to an individual’s interaction with his or her external environment. The process of learning from experience is described notably in the experiential learning theory (ELT) proposed by Kolb (1984). Built on foundational works from EL scholars such as John Dewey and Kurt Lewin, ELT contemplates learning as a process of constructing knowledge in which the learner traverses a dynamic, recursive cycle of experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting (Kolb, 1984). More specifically, the cycle starts with the learner’s personal involvement in a specific experience; this concrete experience provides the basis for reflections (reflective observation), which are assimilated and distilled into abstract concepts (abstract conceptualization). These concepts then guide decisions and actions (active experimentation) that lead to new concrete experiences.

In practice, EL can take many forms including action learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, case-based learning, and enquiry-based learning (Hope et al., 2020). Activities that induce EL at business schools include team-building exercises, simulations, guest speakers, and internships (Hodge et al., 2014). A common theme found in EL is active student involvement in constructing knowledge and understanding inside and/or outside the classroom. Furthermore, previous work has argued that EL could help develop lifelong soft skills such as critical thinking, creativity, problem-solving, and communication (Chan, 2016; Savery, 2015), thus increasing students’ employability.

Accordingly, the effectiveness of EL is contingent on many factors, such as the nature of the problem to be solved (e.g., challenging, real, open-ended, and ambiguous), the assessment designed for the task, the students’ college background experiences, and the facilitator (Chan, 2016). In other words, creating meaningful experiences is resource-intensive and students need a supportive environment to gain knowledge linked to “live” business issues (Hope et al., 2020).

Insights gained from the literature are particularly important for our initiative. Given the diverse college experience of our SCM students, we focused our efforts on problem design, assessment, and the facilitation process. First, issues presented in the case competition were linked to real-world business challenges. These challenges, however, were presented with some level of ambiguity so students had the opportunity to clarify the information provided. Second, a framework for problem-solving was established through the questions posed in the case to guide students’ thought processes. Third, the case assessment rubric emphasized content delivery, solution rationale, organization, Q&A, and preparation. Finally, student participation was connected to a grade component in their SCM courses (and meaningful awards for top performing teams), thus motivating their involvement effort.

Collaborative learning in a competitive setting

One important feature of this initiative is that it was a team-based competition. Students were put into teams made up of three or four students, which allowed them to demonstrate their capacity to work together as a team through their presentations to case judges. Such a setting has been shown to provide several potential benefits to students, such as enhanced motivation, communication, and critical thinking (Attle and Baker, 2007; Tauer and Harackiewicz, 2004; Umble et al., 2008). Through a series of team-based competitions in six undergraduate business classes, Umble et al. (2008) demonstrated that, compared to traditional academic analysis projects, complex unstructured projects facilitated better outcomes in terms of (1) providing active learning experience, (2) reinforcing important course concepts, (3) relating concepts to the real world, (4) engaging in critical thinking and analysis, (5) teamworking, and (6) overall learning. Their study also suggested that, among these complex unstructured projects, students tended to favor those that involved personal interactions with actual businesses and professionals.

The arguments for better outcomes from collaborative learning were rooted in the theories of cognitive development and social constructivist learning (Barkley et al., 2014). First, well-designed learning activities challenge students to be actively involved in acquiring and organizing knowledge, thereby facilitating deeper learning. Second, by working with their more capable peers, individuals could learn concepts that are just beyond their current level of development. Third, students learn through emulating others with whom they interact. Fourth, through collaboration individuals have more opportunities to articulate their ideas to others and eventually deepen their own understanding. Finally, collaborative learning activities challenge students to interact with peers to make sense of the information provided and to reinterpret their knowledge to resolve the problems on hand.

Previous work has reported several techniques for engaging students in collaborative learning, varying from non-competitive to competitive settings (Barkley et al., 2014). For our case competition, we were particularly interested in the technique that allowed teams to participate in a competitive activity. One potential benefit of such setting is that it may stimulate higher student engagement by arousing competitive instincts; hence, students are motivated to make valuable contributions to their teams (Chen and Chiu, 2016; Siam and Abdo, 2020). More importantly, it resembles the competitive nature of work in a real business environment. Accordingly, this experience could facilitate the training of students to become both good competitors and cooperative teammates (Attle and Baker, 2007).

The effectiveness of collaborative learning and intragroup competition is dependent on the design of the learning task. In particular, Johnson and Johnson (2002) listed five basic conditions for an authentic cooperative experience: positive interdependence, individual accountability, face-to-face promotive interaction, social skills, and group processing. Stanne et al. (1999) argued that appropriate competition occurred when (1) there was not a heavy emphasis on winning, (2) opponents were equally matched, (3) rules were clear and straightforward, and (4) participants were able to measure their relative progress. More recently, (Williams and Sheridan 2010) found that constructive competition (which motivates learners to stretch beyond their expectations) could be nurtured under three conditions. First, participants needed to develop a favorable attitude toward collaboration and competition as tools for long-term learning. Second, the learning environment had to be open and permissive, with attention focused not only on individual competence but also on the collective knowledge of the group. Last, participants understood the meaning of learning.

To ensure appropriate competition in the initiative, the SCM faculty scheduled many information sessions during class time (or during instructors’ office hours if a student missed the information session) to introduce students to the case competition, its learning purposes, and the judging rubrics and to provide guidance on how to work effectively in a team setting. Students were encouraged to ask questions to clarify case information either through emails or in the classroom. They were also provided 2 weeks (a substantial time relative to 14 h in the external case competition) to develop a proposed solution for the case. It is important to note that the SCM students generally were comfortable interacting with each other because most were involved in a very active SCM student organization on campus.

University–industry collaboration

Because the case competition featured current industry issues and professional interactions with practitioners, the SCM program faculty initiated a collaborative effort to involve industry sponsors and recruit case judges. In this section, a review of UIC research is provided, with an emphasis on the education domain.

A UIC is defined as any type of formal and informal cooperative interaction for mutual benefit (Galan-Muros and Davey, 2019). Benefits include industry access to human capital and new ideas, university funding from industry, university access to company data, equipment, and prospective non-traditional students (Schoenherr and Speier-Pero, 2020). The level of UIC interaction tends to evolve over time (Johnson, 2003), ranging from a transactional relationship (e.g., career fairs, job interviews, and resume reviews) to a strategic partnership (e.g., internships, capstone projects, and dissertations).

Relevant to this article is the collaborative interaction between university and industry stakeholders to create a live case competition (Charlebois and Giberson, 2010; Lebrón et al., 2020). For example, Lebrón et al. (2020) followed a six-step collaborative process to organize a live case competition in a capstone strategic management course. In the first step, the purpose of the case competition was developed. Next, industry sponsors were identified/recruited and the case content was written by faculty to align the company’s priorities and context with the course content. In the third and fourth steps, a cross-functional team involved in competition logistics was established, followed by creating mechanisms to link different stakeholders. Then the competition process was managed though implementing timeline, grading rubric, and section competition logistics. Finally, feedback on the competition experience for all stakeholders was gathered for continuous improvement.

The collaborative process in Lebrón et al. (2020) is closely aligned with the approach we used to create our case-competition activity at UNK in 2019. Figure 1 helps to compare and contrast our process with that of Lebrón et al. (2020). In the figure, we maintain the basic purposes of the six steps from Lebrón et al. (2020) but insert our action plans in each step. A detailed description of these plans is provided in the next sections.

Figure 1.

Case competition collaboration process.

The case competition

This section describes the development and implementation of the case competition. A summary can be found in Figure 1.

Step one: Develop case competition purpose

From the assessment of the external annual case competition previously attended by SCM students annually (described above in the introductory section), it was decided that an alternative approach was needed. The goal of this approach was to provide all students in the SCM program with the opportunity to grow in their SCM experience and knowledge, while at the same time increasing their talent visibility with potential employers (such as problem-solving, critical thinking, communication, and teamwork). It was from this decision that a UIC activity was launched.

Step two: Assess company collaborative interest

In early spring 2019, the SCM faculty took the first step in creating a case-competition activity that would involve students, companies, and faculty. The SCM program coordinator contacted regional business representatives from several different areas within the SCM discipline (transportation, warehousing, distribution, purchasing, materials management, and customer service) to determine the level of company interest in collaborating with the program to develop a case-competition activity. The business community was unanimous in its interest in establishing an SCM case competition. (It is important to note that these businesses also had prior connections with the program through career fairs, field trips, and other social events.)

Step three: Finalize company involvement

Once the conceptual support of business professionals had been determined, the program’s next step involved in-depth conversations with interested companies to ascertain how their participation in such an activity would be of value to their business. An outcome from those conversations was the idea of using company representatives as judges for the case presentations. Interested companies considered that their involvement would be beneficial for recruitment purposes, because as judges they would be able to witness first-hand the problem-solving, critical thinking, and teamwork skills of students, and in turn students would receive “real world” insight from business professionals. It was agreed that implementation of this suggestion would be of value to both the companies and students.

It was decided that two separate judging panels would be used for the competition with one representative from each participating company assigned to one of the two judging panels. A draft of the competition’s judging rubric was then created by the SCM faculty and sent out to company representatives for their review and recommendations.

Step four: Manage case competition planning process

While collaborating with business representatives, faculty were simultaneously developing plans to handle other related issues, such as the following:

Selecting an SCM-related business challenge and writing the SCM-related case problem;

developing a tentative presentation schedule and making arrangements for presentation rooms with videotaping capability;

determining how student teams would be formed in order to ensure fairness;

finalizing a presentation assessment rubric that would provide both industry insight and academic value for students; and

deciding on how presentation teams would be recognized and if there should be a graded academic component associated with the competition.

Step five: Implement case competition plan

By the beginning of the fall 2019 semester, the planning process that took place in Step Four had been completed and the implementation process had begun. The first case competition was held in October 2019. All presentations were videotaped and were made available to the student teams to watch at their convenience.

The business challenge for the first competition required each team to propose an SCM-related response on how they would deal with their manufacturing plant being damaged by a tornado (more case detail can be found in Benson and Jensen, 2020). This case resembled a situation faced by many regional businesses during severe flooding in 2019. In the second competition, a higher level of collaboration was achieved with company participants, resulting in a variety of business challenges available for the competition (see the “Discussion” section below).

Student teams were randomly assigned using the student class roster from the SCM courses being taught during the semester. Each team consisted of four students within each class with no student being assigned to more than one team. Students who were taking more than one SCM course during the semester (regardless of their major) were assigned to only one team.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to the random assignment of student teams. According to Bacon et al. (2001), this approach is easy to use and looks fair, while its potential disadvantages include a lack of diversity and a skill imbalance. When the latter are dominant, the perceived fairness could be considerably weakened. Although we have not received any feedback from student participants concerning the fairness of team assignment, some students may be resistant to being randomly assigned into groups and could behave sub-optimally. To lessen such resistance, during the information sessions the instructors have explained verbally to students the rationale behind group forming decisions. The main idea is that, in the real world, employees generally cannot choose who to work with in a group and they need to learn to work with others (whether or not they know them). The information package also provided guidelines on how to work in a team, so that students could understand and appreciate the setting. Further, the aspect of working together was a part of the judging rubric.

As part of the judging rubric, judges were asked to include written comments about each team’s presentation. All these comments were collected and then redistributed to the corresponding teams after the competition. The qualitative feedback was not a part of the students’ assignment grade, but it provided additional context to them for the score they received.

A recognition social was scheduled for the evening following the team presentations. The social was attended by all students participating in the competition during the day, as well as judges, other company representatives, SCM faculty, and invited university personnel. During the social, the top three teams were announced and were presented with an award. The teams not in the top three were also recognized at the social for their participation. Each team was provided with its raw data score (the number of points received out of the total possible points). It was decided that the activity would have a classroom grade component linked to team performance in the competition.

Step six: Evaluate stakeholder experience

Evaluation of the stakeholders’ case competition experience is examined in the ensuing two sections, “Assessment” and “Discussion.”

Assessment

The effectiveness of the case competition was demonstrated quantitatively through judges’ evaluations and qualitatively through comments from students and company participants. The judging rubric (see Appendix) used for the competition focused on five areas of assessment: preparedness/participation/group dynamics, content, delivery, organization, and Q&A response. Each area was assigned 100 points with four main break points defined in the rubric—unacceptable (<50 points), poor (50–64), fair (65–79), good (80–94), and outstanding (95–100). The comments from judges and students were solicited through emails.

Table 1 summarizes the mean and standard deviation of scores across two competitions. For each team, there were 10–14 judges, who used the score sheet provided to evaluate the performance independently. Hence, 120 score sheets were collected in fall 2019 and 152 in fall 2020. The standard deviations of the scores in fall 2020 were lower than those in fall 2019 because of the increased number of intervals used in the scale (between 0 and 100 points). This modification was recommended by the judges in fall 2019. Nevertheless, these differences were not statistically significant; all F-tests had p-values larger than 10%.

Table 1.

Evaluation scores from industry judges.

		Fall 2019 (12 teams)		Fall 2020 (11 teams)		Total (23 teams)
Evaluation item		Mean	Std	Mean	Std	Mean	Std
1	Preparedness/participation/group dynamics	85.63	6.90	89.31	4.46	87.37	6.03
2	Content	84.38	8.80	88.16	5.33	86.18	7.44
3	Delivery	87.75	6.97	89.11	4.59	88.38	5.86
4	Organization	86.13	7.21	90.46	4.40	88.19	6.30
5	Q&A response	86.00	7.39	89.28	4.44	87.55	6.24

Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of the team scores over two competitions. All outliers were in fall 2019. According to the judges, team performance belonged to three categories defined in the rubric: fair, good, or outstanding; none of the teams fell into the “poor” or “unacceptable” categories.

Figure 2.

Distribution of team scores in various evaluation areas.

In addition to the scores, qualitative comments from students and company sponsors were collected. In general, the feedback was constructive and positive. A sample of these comments is provided below.

Comments from company sponsors included the following:

“Students seemed to do a great job working together. It was very interesting to see the students in action.”

“It was great to see so many students passionate about supply chain!”

“The SCM students were well prepared, and we were impressed. They were dressed professionally and came across well during our interactions with them.”

“The students were all very well prepared. I can see them all moving into full-time positions with the drive and knowledge they are getting through your SCM courses.”

“SCM program at UNK continues to lead the way on getting students and employers together.”

“I thought the whole day ran smooth and it was well organized.”

“I was very pleased with the way the students represented themselves. They were very professional and confident.”

“The quality of the students presenting was really good, very impressed. Would of course like more time to interact with the students after the competition.”

Comments from students included the following:

“I thought the companies were really engaged with the students.”

“I liked the variety of companies that participated as judges. It provided different viewpoints to the topic.”

“The company reps were all very prepared and did a good job of teaching us about what happens in the real world.”

“Overall, it was a great experience and I thank you very much for putting all of this together and making it possible for all of us to enjoy!”

“It was a great experience. I learned a lot about how a lot of things work in the real world. Thank you so much for the opportunity.”

”I liked how the companies engaged in questions at the end of the presentation. It was very informative and they really seemed to care about helping us learn how things really are.”

“I appreciate this opportunity to participate in the case competition. It helped give me an idea of how my Supply Chain Management major can fit into the actual job field, as well as what is it might be like in the daily working environment.”

“I thought the competition was a very eye opening experience! It was nice to get feedback from businesses about what we are studying here at school.”

“Overall, I enjoyed the case competition and saw myself trying to get a job with one of the judging companies in the future.”

“Thank you for letting us international students participate in yesterday’ case competition. I really enjoyed getting the chance to be on a presentation team. That was a unique event in my lifetime.”

“What I really liked is that the companies seemed enormously interested in us UNK-students.”

“Today’s competition was a very beneficial learning experience. It was really nice to take some time away from class to gain some real world experience.”

“I thought the Supply Chain case competition gave me better insight into what goes on in the career field. The experience also gave me good insight on what is expected and how much goes in to being part of a Supply Chain.”

Overall, the results were encouraging as they demonstrated that our students had met the performance expectations of the SCM program and those of industry. It is important to note that the rubrics were developed by the faculty with industry input and then communicated to students. Therefore, even though the faculty did not directly assess team performance, the rubrics used reflect the expectations of the SCM program. Further, the large number of judges used (10–14 per team) helped to mitigate some of the potential bias from individual judges.

Discussion

The first portion of this discussion considers the benefits realized by the companies, students, and SCM faculty. Next, we present how these benefits have impacted the SCM program’s most recent support and collaboration efforts. The section concludes with a description of the challenges we faced when hosting our case competition.

Company benefits

Having direct access to students in the SCM program has been one of the most common requests from companies wanting to recruit SCM graduates to their business. Company representatives who served as members of the case competition judging panel were provided access to students in a manner that allowed them to observe first-hand students’ problem-solving, critical thinking, and communication skills that would not be available through traditional career fair recruiting or classroom visits. Furthermore, a company’s willingness to send representatives to participate in this activity and to provide relevant, real-world feedback to each team assisted students in their personal and professional development. This involvement was not only noticed and remembered by the students, but it promoted and strengthened the company’s “brand” with them. As a result, a company’s relationship with students was improved, which may lead to improved recruiting results.

Student benefits

A request often communicated by students in the SCM program is similar in many ways to the common request received from companies, namely, “access.” Much like company representatives, students are interested in learning how to promote their “brand” to potential employers in a manner that showcases their talent. Specifically, students are interested in finding ways to access company recruiters in a way that will allow them to demonstrate their knowledge and abilities in a comprehensive fashion, rather than through the typical career fair experience which includes an elevator speech, a resume, and a few minutes of cursory conversation.

Based on students’ feedback and further in-depth faculty conversations with them, one of the most appreciated benefits reported was the opportunity to demonstrate their problem-solving skills and business acumen to the judges. Students noted that the team presentation approach made them feel more comfortable when presenting to the judges, which allowed them to feel that they could be more successful in demonstrating their skills. Furthermore, several noted that the Q&A session immediately following their presentation, coupled with the feedback received from the judges, helped them to develop a better connection with the company representatives.

In addition to appreciating the opportunity to display their skills and improve relations with potential employers, students pointed out how the competition had motivated them to apply lessons learned from the classroom, business internships, and other personal experiences in their development of a solution to the case’s business challenge. Since they were divided into teams to assess, analyze, develop, and present a proposed solution to the assigned business challenge, this approach promoted collective problem-solving, critical thinking, and teamwork, resulting in creative solutions to a difficult challenge.

Supply Chain Management faculty benefits

Creating educational opportunities that improve students’ aptitude and business acumen in a manner that meets potential employers’ talent needs and business relevance expectations is a constant challenge for faculty. While textbook instruction provides conceptual instruction to hypothetical and/or past business concerns, this approach alone is unable to provide “real world” insight to students. With the implementation of a case competition, the SCM faculty now have another technique for enhancing students’ business aptitude and acumen. This activity has provided SCM faculty not only with “real world” insight from business professionals on how they deal with recent business challenges, but with an improved understanding of the skills and abilities that employers are searching for in applicants as they strive to fill job vacancies.

Another significant faculty benefit resulting from this case activity is the relational enhancement between faculty and business personnel. During the activity, faculty and business personnel worked together in a way that had not previously been experienced. Through this experience, they developed improved awareness of each other as individuals, a greater appreciation for the level of knowledge and work-related expertise of people in the other group, and an improved understanding how they dealt with their job-related challenges. This resulting development in relations has opened the door for future collaboration and support opportunities between the two groups.

Latest support and collaboration efforts

Since the initial launch of the first case-competition activity in 2019, several new external SCM program support and collaboration opportunities have emerged. While it would be mistaken to conclude an exact cause-and-effect relationship, the program has experienced a greater level of business support and collaboration since the introduction of the competition activity. The following is a summary of the four most significant outcomes, each of which has provided a positive impact on the SCM program.

Increased external financial support. Financial support from regional businesses to the SCM program has increased over 70% during the past two years. Companies that provided employees to be judges for the competition were members of the “Champions of SCM Excellence” program launched in 2017. Since the first case competition in 2019, interest in becoming a Champions member has increased significantly. As a member of the Champions program, companies make a specified annual financial contribution to the SCM program through the University Foundation. Money from the Champions program is used to fund SCM scholarships and activities that enhance a student’s overall SCM educational experience.

SCM senior seminar course collaboration. Following the 2020 case competition, one of the participating companies offered to collaborate with the SCM program in the development of a business case based on one of its current business challenges for use in the program’s SCM senior seminar class. The company has agreed to provide real-time business information and provide personnel to assist with the case development. Furthermore, it has agreed to provide personnel on an as-needed basis, as a resource to students while they are working on the assigned case.

SCM case competition collaboration. Following the first year of the competition, participating companies have provided ideas and related information for new cases based on their recent business challenges. From the submitted ideas, three were selected and converted into cases for use in the 2020 competition. The three ideas used were related to challenges associated with (1) a company’s large-scale national distribution of merchandise resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent unexpected shutdowns; (2) the unexpected failure and immediate need to replace a company’s antiquated enterprise resource planning system; and (3) selecting a strategic site for a new transportation terminal needed by a large trucking company.

Enhanced company field trip access. Each semester the SCM program schedules a field trip to visit three or four company locations so that students can see first-hand how SCM responsibilities are carried out in different types of businesses. The field trip scheduling process requires SCM faculty to contact companies and ask if they would be willing to allow a group of students to visit their location. Prior to the case competition, the acceptance rate from requesting a field trip visit was typically between fifty and sixty percent. Since the October 2019 competition, the SCM program has received more requests from companies wanting to host a field trip than the program can accommodate. Furthermore, the level of visitation time offered by the companies has increased from the standard 90-min visit per location to companies now suggesting all-day field trip visits to their location.

Challenges encountered

While hosting the SCM case competition has provided numerous benefits for our students, the participating companies, and the SCM program, we have experienced a number of challenges while hosting this activity. These have included the following:

Time. It was difficult to set aside the time needed to develop, organize, and carry out the tasks associated with creating and hosting the case competition. A lot of personal time (evenings and weekends) was used to make the necessary arrangements for this activity.

Case Development. Writing original cases that raise students’ interest, are relevant to current SCM business challenges, and promote application of key concepts taught in the classroom has been an ongoing challenge. Fortunately, one of the program faculty had been employed for nearly 30 years in SCM-related positions in the private sector. This work experience has been one of the resources used to develop cases for the case competition.

COVID-19 pandemic. The 2020 case competition had to deal with additional challenges that came with the pandemic. COVID-19 campus regulations required any on-campus activity to first prepare a proposed activity plan that had to be submitted to a review board for consideration and approval. The plan had to identify what actions were going to be taken to protect individuals (students and judges) from contracting COVID-19 as a result of their participation. Our plan explained how we would handle the limited occupancy regulations for presentation meeting rooms; disinfect the room following each presentation; enforce face covering compliance; and implement seating distance requirements for members of the judging panels.

An alternative approach to the in-person case competition would be to host it online. Companies participating in the 2020 case competition were surveyed on their preference for the event setting (i.e., in-person or online). Ten of the eleven responding companies preferred holding the competition on-campus and in-person. Based on the companies’ response and the fact that faculty had been teaching students in the classroom since the beginning of the 2020 fall semester, it was decided to host the 2020 case competition in-person. However, we believe the activity could be adapted to an online setting. Teams could have a designated time to log in to make their presentation to the judging panel. Presentations could be recorded and judges could submit their completed rubrics for each presentation electronically.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article has been to demonstrate the effectiveness of a UIC initiative through the development and implementation of an SCM case competition. The benefits derived from this effort have proven to be substantial. First, this UIC activity has allowed students to (1) gain exposure and understanding to real world situations, (2) improve their proficiency in soft skills and problem solving, and (3) build their network with potential future employers. Second, companies have been able to (1) identify students who could fill future employment or internship opportunities by assessing their skills, knowledge, and perspectives as they presented proposed solutions to a complicated problem, (2) build stronger network relationships with students, and (3) provide the SCM program with recommendations that could better prepare students for the talent demands in their industry. Third, this activity has provided the SCM program the opportunity to (1) build stronger relations with businesses by gaining a better understanding of their business challenges and opportunities, (2) enhance students’ classroom experience through more informed faculty, and (3) develop potential opportunities for future business collaboration.

By giving students early exposure to industry challenges while at school, UIC initiatives may help accelerate their skill and knowledge development, enhancing their employability and subsequently retaining talent in the SCM field. We believe the collaborative framework used in this article can be deployed in a variety of academic contexts, provided that there are alignments in motivation across collaborating participants (Ankrah and Omar, 2015; Benson and Chau, 2019).

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Gregory E. Benson

Case competition judging rubric.

	Unacceptable	Poor	Fair	Good		Outstanding
Organization 15%	Fails to Demonstrate	• There was no clear introduction, structure, or conclusion. • Poor effort in summarizing the proposed response actions into a concise, understandable plan.	• The introduction included the main goal of the presentation. • Most information was presented in a logical order. • A conclusion was included, but it did not clearly summarize the proposed response actions into a concise, understandable plan.	• The introduction included the goal of the presentation and provided an overview of the issue. • Information was presented in a logical order but does not always maintain the interest of the audience. • The conclusion clearly summarized proposed response actions into a concise, understandable plan.		• The introduction was inviting, states the goal of the presentation, and provided an effective overview of the issue. • Information was presented in a logical order and maintained the interest of the audience. • The conclusion effectively summarized the proposed response actions into a concise, understandable, and comprehensive plan.
Delivery 25%	Fails to Demonstrate	• Presenters communicated information in a poor and disjointed manner. • Poorly constructed visual aids. • Ineffective verbal communication skills. • Non-verbal communication was inconsistent with verbal communication. • Presentation style was unprofessional. • Body language was distracting. • Minimal eye contact by more than one member; focused on only a small part of the audience. • The majority of presenters spoke too quickly or quietly making it difficult to understand.	• Presenters conveyed information in a less than clear and concise manner. • Visual aids were acceptable but only fairly effective. • Effective verbal communication skills were not present most of the time during the presentation. • Presenters focused on a small part of the audience, and sporadic eye contact with the audience was made by more than one presenter. • Non-verbal communication was often inconsistent with verbal communication. • Body language was distracting. • Presenters demonstrated appropriate speaking volume most of the time. • Most of the time presenters conveyed less than a professional presence.	• Presenters conveyed information in a reasonably clear and concise manner. • Visual aids were reasonably constructed and effective. • Effective verbal communication skills were evident most of the time during the presentation. • Most of the presenters spoke to majority of audience with good eye contact. • Non-verbal communication was appropriate and generally consistent with verbal communications. • Presenters demonstrated appropriate speaking volume at all times. • Some less than professional fidgeting was evident with at least one of the presenters.		• Presenters conveyed information in a clear and concise manner. • Visual aids were very well constructed and effective. • Effective verbal communication skills were evident at all times. • Non-verbal communication was appropriate and consistent at all times with verbal communications. • Presenters demonstrated appropriate speaking volume with enthusiasm/passion. • Presenters conveyed a professional and confident presence.
Preparedness/Participation/ Group Dynamics 20%	Fails to Demonstrate	• Unbalanced presentation or tension resulting from over-helping. • Multiple group members not participating. • Evident lack of preparation/rehearsal. • Dependence on slides.	• Significant controlling by some members with one minimally contributing. • Primarily prepared but with some dependence on just reading off slides.	• Slight domination by one presenter. • Members helped each other. • Well prepared.		• All presenters knew the information, participated equally, and helped each other as needed. • Extremely well prepared and rehearsed.
Content 25%	Fails to Demonstrate	• The presentation was a brief look at the topic, but many questions were left unanswered. • Majority of the information presented was irrelevant and significant points were left out. • Critical errors were evident in the interpretation of the challenge associated with the case. • Poor development of a proposed action plan and supporting logic used in the plan’s development. • Poor risk assessment associated with the proposed plan. • Little to no content associated with lesson(s) learned from completing the case study assignment.	• The presentation was informative, but several key points were not addressed. • Much of the information was irrelevant; coverage of some of major points. • Some minor errors were made in the interpretation of the case. • Slightly more than minimal development of proposed action plan and supporting logic used to develop the plan, as well as risk assessment associated with the proposed plan. • Presentation contained a marginal amount of content associated with lesson(s) learned from completing the case study assignment.		• The presentation provided a good summary of the topic. • Most of the key points were covered • There was minimal irrelevant info. • Well-developed proposed action plan with supporting logic. • Good risk assessment associated with the proposed plan. • Presentation contained a reasonable amount of content associated with lesson(s) learned from completing the case study assignment.	• The presentation provided a concise and comprehensive summary of the topic. • All, or nearly all, important information was covered • No irrelevant info was presented. • Exceptional proposed action plan with insightful supporting logic. • Excellent risk assessment associated with the proposed plan. • Presentation contained a significant amount of content associated with lesson(s) learned from completing the case study assignment.
Q & A Response 15%	Fails to Demonstrate	• Presenters demonstrated very little understanding of questions asked and provided poor responses to questions asked.	• Presenters demonstrated a poor understanding of questions asked. • For the most part, answers were ineffective in responding to the questions.	• Presenters demonstrated a reasonably thorough understanding of questions asked. • For the most part, answers effectively addressed the questions posed. • Delivered appropriate, concise responses.		• Presenters demonstrated thorough understanding of questions asked. • Effectively answered questions. • Delivered appropriate, concise responses.

Presentation time: ________________________Each team will make a 15–17 minute presentation followed by a 10-minute Q&A session.
• Presentations longer than 17 minutes will have points deducted according to the following schedule:
⊚ 01–30 s more than 17 min: −5 points
⊚ 31–60 s more than 17 min: −10 points
⊚ 61–120 s more than 17 min: −15 points
⊚ 121 s or more than 17 min: −40 points
• Presentations less than 15 minutes will have points deducted according to the following schedule:
⊚ 01–30 s less than 15 min: −5 points
⊚ 31–60 s less than 15 min: −10 points
⊚ 61–120 s less than 15 min: −15 points
⊚ 121 s or less than 15 min: −40 points

Strongest Aspects of Presentation Weakest Aspects of Presentation.

References

Ankrah

AL-Tabbaa

(2015) Universities-industry collaboration: a systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management 31(3): 387–408.

Attle

Baker

(2007) Cooperative learning in a competitive environment: classroom applications. International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education 19(1): 77–83.

Bacon

Stewart

Anderson

(2001) Methods of assigning players to teams: a review and novel approach. Simulation & Gaming 32(1): 6–17.

Barkley

Cross

Major

(2014) Collaborative Learning Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Benson

Chau

(2019) The supply chain management applied learning center: a university-industry collaboration. Industry and Higher Education 33(2): 135–146.

Benson

Jensen

(2020) Leadership after a tornado strike: supply chain management triage. Mountain Plains Journal of Business and Technology 21(1).

Chan

CKY

(2016) Facilitators’ perspectives of the factors that affect the effectiveness of problem-based learning process. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 53(1): 25–34.

Charlebois

Giberson

(2010) From classroom to boardroom: how international marketing students earn their way to experiential learning opportunities, and the case of the “beyond borders of a classroom” program. Marketing Education Review 20(2): 163–172.

Chen

Chiu

(2016) Employing intergroup competition in multitouch design-based learning to foster student engagement, learning achievement, and creativity. Computers & Education 103: 99–113.

10.

Dewey

(1938) Experience and Education. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.

11.

Galan-Muros

Davey

(2019) The UBC ecosystem: putting together a comprehensive framework for university-business cooperation. The Journal of Technology Transfer 44(4): 1311–1346.

12.

Hawtrey

(2007) Using experiential learning techniques. The Journal of Economic Education 38(2): 143–152.

13.

Hodge

Proudford

Holt

Jr (2014) From periphery to core: the increasing relevance of experiential learning in undergraduate business education. Research in Higher Education Journal 26.

14.

Hope

Croney

Myers

(2020) Experiential learning for responsible management education. The SAGE Handbook of Responsible Management Learning and Education. New York: SAGE Publications Ltd, 265–279.

15.

Johnson

(2003) University relations: the HP model. Industry and Higher Education 17(6): 391–395.

16.

Johnson

(2002) Learning together and alone: overview and meta‐analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 22(1): 95–105.

17.

Kolb

(1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

18.

Lebrón

Brannon

Sanford

, et al. (2020) Applying theory to practice: implementing a live case competition in a capstone strategic management course. Journal of Management Education 44(1): 66–100.

19.

Savery

(2015) Overview of problem-based learning: definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning 1(1): 5–16.

20.

Schoenherr

Speier-Pero

(2020) Creating impactful student learning in a business analytics program through leveraging scholar-practitioner engagement. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 18(1): 59–89.

21.

Siam

Abdo

(2020) Effects of inquiry, computer simulation, and cooperation with intergroup competition on electrical engineering students. Research in Science & Technological Education 38(4): 439–462.

22.

Stanne

Johnson

(1999) Does competition enhance or inhibit motor performance: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 125(1): 133–154.

23.

Tauer

Harackiewicz

(2004) The effects of cooperation and competition on intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86(6): 849–861.

24.

Umble

Artz

(2008) Enhancing undergraduates’ capabilities through team-based competitions: the edward jones challenge. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 6(1): 1–27.

25.

West

Thompson

(2015) Mobile knowledge: driving a paradigm shift. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education 7(1): 43–54.

26.

Williams

Sheridan

(2010) Conditions for collaborative learning and constructive competition in school. Educational Research 52(4): 335–350.