Printer Friendly

The future of logistics education.


The importance of transportation and logistics to the U.S. economy has been well documented. As we move toward a more competitive global economy, there will be an increasing demand for highly qualified people to create and manage more efficient logistics systems and supply chains. Businesses have recognized the shortage of talent in this discipline. Unfortunately, logistics education has lagged behind the needs of the industry. American universities are not providing an adequate number of students to meet the needs of American businesses, even when the field is broadened to include supply chain management. This article reviews the current status of logistics and supply chain programs, discusses the reasons for the shortage of talent, and proposes a solution to address it.

The Future of Logistics Education

The importance of transportation and logistics to the U.S. economy has been well documented and is rarely questioned (Bowersox, Closs, and Cooper 2009; Coyle, Bardi, and Langley 2002). The costs associated with logistics functions were more than lo percent of GDP in 2007 (Wilson 2008). While they have declined recently due to the recession (Wilson 2010), undoubtedly, they will rise above previous levels. However, the importance of decisions in this field goes well beyond their macroeconomic impacts. Individual firms compete on the bases of costs and service as demanded by their customers, and success often depends on an effective understanding of the interactions among transportation and other logistics functions. Many logistics decisions involve trade-offs and are not intuitive or obvious, so managers frequently base decisions relating to logistics on how their areas of responsibility are affected. Under these suboptimal decisions, important trade-offs may be ignored, which can adversely affect costs in other areas and lead to inefficient operations (Bowersox, Closs, and Cooper 2009; Coyle, Bardi, and Langley 2002; Knemeyer and Murphy 2004; Slone, Mentzer, and Dittmann 2007).

As we move toward a more competitive global economy, there will be an increasing demand for highly qualified people to create and manage more efficient logistics systems and supply chains. As businesses are beginning to recognize the importance of having knowledge in this area (Aquino and Draper 2008), they also are beginning to recognize that there will be a shortage of qualified talent: "A growing number of companies have recognized the need to develop this expertise. However, companies face a giant obstacle in achieving this goal: the shortage of trained supply chain management professionals at all levels" (ibid., 1). Businesses needing expertise in these areas should have access to well-educated managers with the necessary skills to make responsible and effective decisions. Unfortunately, American universities are not providing an adequate number of students to meet the needs of American businesses, even when the field is broadened to include supply chain management (Aquino and Draper 2008; Knemeyer and Murphy 2004).

It should be noted that the field of supply chain management (SCM) is broader than that of logistics. The fields of transportation and logistics (hereafter referred to as TLOG, or simply as logistics) evolved as a single discipline from common roots (Ballou 2006; Bowersox 1969; Cherington and Schneider 1967; Farris 1997; Langley 1986), and it is only recently that the broader field of SCM has emerged (Ballou 2006; Cooper, Lambert, and Pagh 1997; Mentzer et al. 2001; Gibson, Mentzer, and Cook 2005; Lambert 2004; Kotzab 2005). While there is still disagreement as to whether SCM is a strategy, a process, a business philosophy, or just another term for logistics (Gibson, Mentzer, and Cook 2005; Kotzab 2005), it is offered in universities as a major field of study. With respect to preparing students for careers in business, the courses offered may be similar to those in more traditional logistics programs, but sometimes they are very different. For the discussion that follows, logistics (or TLOG) and SCM will be considered as a single discipline, unless otherwise noted.

The purpose of this article is to review the current state of logistics education, reexamine problems relating to its growth, and to suggest what is, perhaps, a more radical approach to addressing them. This is not a new problem, so discussed first is a brief background on the development of the discipline. Presented next is an overview of the discipline today in terms of the number of programs, courses, students, and faculty. This is followed by an assessment of restrictions to growth of the discipline. Finally, we provide recommendations.


Dealing with the problems of developing the logistics discipline has been going on for nearly 50 years (Harper 1965). Historically, there were many programs specifically devoted to the transportation industry, but by the 1960s, those programs were in a serious state of decline (Harper 1965). The first textbook specifically dedicated to what we refer to today as the business function of logistics was published in 1961 (Smykay, Bowersox, and Mossman 1961), and Peter Drucker (1962) made top management aware of the importance of this new dimension of business. By the latter part of the 1960s, Donald Bowersox was confident that the new discipline of physical distribution was on the rise when he stated: "It is difficult to draw an analogy to any previous area of inquiry that held forth the opportunity for improvement in current business operations offered by physical distribution. At this juncture in time, the future of this new and vital dimension of business study appears bright indeed" (Bowersox 1969, 70).

By 1978, there were approximately 40 TLOG degree programs offered in the United States (Gilmour 1978). Although this was at a time when transportation programs were in decline, it was an impressive number given such a short history of the discipline. Since that time, however, growth has not been dramatic. In 2001, a study found that out of 1,000 schools, only 139 offered at least one course in TLOG/SCM (Biederman 2001). In 2007, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accredited 459 business programs in the U.S., but only 51 of them offered undergraduate programs in the fields of transportation, logistics, supply chain management, or some combination (Ozment 2008). By contrast, logistics education in China grew from virtually no programs to over 1,000 in just 18 years. As of 2006, nearly half of China's institutions of higher education offered logistics as a major (Wang and Tong 2007).

Current State of Logistics/SCM Education

Number of Programs

In spite of ongoing efforts over the past 40 years, very few logistics programs are offered nationwide. As of August, 2010 only 65 of the 475 business schools in the United States accredited by the AACSB reported having undergraduate programs in the fields of TLOG/SCM. The programs identified on the AACSB website (AACSB 2010d) are shown in table 1, but some of those listed do not actually offer degrees. Upon checking individual universities' websites, it was found that some schools offer only a minor or certificate program, or a concentration/career path within the primary major of the host department, or they provide no information at all about the major. One program (University of Nevada, Reno) was listed on the AACSB website, but has since been eliminated (Rogers 2010). When these programs are omitted, there are only about 59 TLOG/SCM degree programs offered nationwide.

About 30 percent (17) of the 59 known programs in table 1 offer degrees in SCM as opposed to TLOG. These programs typically are affiliated with information systems, management science, or production and operations management programs. They focus more heavily on quantitative methods and optimization techniques than on material covered in the more traditional logistics discipline. While these concepts are extremely important, emphasizing them without including material from the traditional TLOG field fails to provide students with a well-rounded education in the area. The reverse also is true in many instances. That is, some of the more traditional programs have dropped much of the quantitative rigor that is needed for a quality program. Colleges and universities usually cut academic material because of increasingly limited resources.

The list of schools in table 1 includes 19 new programs that have been added since 2007 when there were 51 programs listed on the AACSB website (Ozment 2008). However, this overstates the level of growth in TLOG/SCM programs. Two of the new programs and three of the existing programs should be disregarded since they fall into one of the categories noted above (i.e., minor, certificate, etc.), leaving 14 new degree programs. In addition to the loss of the program at the University of Nevada, Reno this year, five degree programs that were listed on the AACSB website in 2007 are no longer active: Arkansas State University, University of Cincinnati, Georgia State University, University of Michigan, and New Mexico State University (although Arkansas State University still has a minor). Thus, the net increase is approximately 8 programs over 2007, when there were 51 programs in TLOG/SCM out of a total of 459 AACSB accredited business schools (Ozment 2008). In 2007, about 11 percent of the accredited schools in the U.S. (51/459) offered undergraduate degrees in TLOG/SCM. Today it is approximately 12 percent (59/275). Although there has been some growth in the area, the new programs typically are very small, as are many of the older programs, and financial constraints often limit the expansion of new programs.

Number of Courses

There are only a few TLOG/SCM programs nationwide that are housed within their own department: the University of Alaska, Anchorage; Arizona State University; and Michigan State University (AACSB 2010d). Otherwise, logistics programs usually are tied to a department such as information systems, management, marketing, or production and operations. Because of the small size of many programs, and since most programs are housed in a department with a larger program, there are typically fewer courses offered in logistics than for the program of the host discipline. At most of the schools listed in table 1, the courses offered in TLOG/SCM represent only about one-third of the total courses offered by the host discipline, and only in rare instances are there elective courses available to students majoring in TLOG/SCM.

Logistics/SCM is a broad field of study, and people see it from different perspectives and view it as having differing needs. Since there are so few programs and since most are very small, employers often are concerned with how programs vary across the country. Finance, marketing and other disciplines also are broad, but since there are so many programs in these other fields and since they typically are relatively large, employers are better able to consistently find students who match their needs. Programs in these more mature disciplines often have a set of core courses for all majors and sufficient elective courses to provide career paths, permitting greater specialization for students within the major. This is not true in the field of TLOG/SCM, however. In a recent study, 126 firms and 19 universities were surveyed to determine how well logistics/SCM programs were preparing students for careers in the field. It was found that most universities were not fully meeting the needs of industry, with only 5 of 11 necessary areas being covered (Aquino and Kraus 2009, 1).

Naturally, if one discipline dominates the department, the resources are not likely to be distributed proportionately, and many decisions requiring a vote will be made in favor of the primary discipline. This makes it extremely difficult to add courses, especially electives. It also makes it difficult to increase the number of faculty, provide release time for research, obtain summer funding, and admit graduate students. It also may affect tenure and promotion requirements, as faculty may be required to publish in journals of the host discipline rather than in those of their chosen field.

Number of Students

The number of students graduating with degrees in logistics/SCM is almost inconsequential given the extreme need. It certainly is disproportionately small with respect to the total number of students graduating with degrees in business. Table 2 shows the degrees awarded in 2009 for TLOG/SCM in 39 programs for which data were available. The data were obtained from the National Center for Education Statistics in the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), but not all schools report this data in a timely manner.

From this table, however, a rather crude estimate can be made of the percentage of students graduating from business schools with degrees in TLOG/SCM and the percentage of students with even a minimal exposure to the discipline.

The mean number of all business degrees awarded by the 39 schools was 685, whereas the mean number of students graduating with a degree in TLOG/ SCM in those schools was 38. This is approximately 5.6 percent of all business degrees awarded by the 39 schools. As shown in table 3, the total number of degrees conferred in all undergraduate majors at AACSB-accredited schools was 201,840 in 2009. The total number of degrees conferred in all undergraduate majors by AACSB schools with a TLOG/SCM program was 44,158. Assuming that 5.6 percent of the students who graduated from AACSB schools with a TLOG/SCM program majored in that area, there should have been approximately 2,473 students graduating with TLOG/SCM degrees in 2009, or approximately 1.2 percent of the total 201,840 business graduates from all AACSB accredited schools (see table 3). To make the assumption that 5.6 percent of all business degrees awarded by the 39 schools is representative of the remaining schools with TLOG/SCM programs, a test of difference in means is provided in the appendix together with the number of graduates from the schools in both samples.

Of the schools that offer degrees in transportation and logistics, less than one-third require a course related to the discipline as part of the business core for all students. This suggests that perhaps only about 14,719 students have a basic exposure to the subject. It is doubtful that any logistics/SCM program could accommodate an additional 10 percent of the school's business students, but if we assume that 10 percent of the students at those schools take an elective course in logistics/SCM, we could expect that another 4,416 students could be exposed to the area. Thus, the number of business students graduating with even a minimal exposure to the field would be less than 11 percent of the total (see table 3).

It is likely, therefore, that nearly 90 percent of business graduates leave their programs with little or no understanding of an area that represents nearly 10 percent of our GDP and has the potential to significantly impact the profitability of the firms for which they may be working. It can be concluded that the vast majority of business graduates probably do not have the level of understanding required to recognize and make meaningful decisions involving the trade-offs among the various logistics functions, or an understanding of how those decisions may affect other business functions such as marketing, finance, human resources, and manufacturing.

Number of Faculty

Since most TLOG/SCM programs are housed within departments with a larger program, the number of faculty with expertise in logistics/SCM usually is a small percentage (frequently about one-third or less) of the total number of faculty in the department. Many TLOG/SCM programs have only one or two professors devoted to the discipline, and even the larger programs are small relative to the host discipline. For example, the Ohio State University's logistics major, one of the largest and oldest logistics programs, is housed in the Department of Marketing and Logistics. That department has 17 tenure track faculty members: 11 (65 percent) in marketing and six (35 percent) in logistics. At the University of Arkansas's Walton College, there are 14 tenure track positions in the Department of Marketing and Logistics. Ten of those faculty positions are in marketing, and only four are assigned to logistics, less than 30 percent of the total. The same is true in most of the other programs, but often the number of TLOG/SCM faculty is even smaller.

Table 4 shows the number of faculty in U.S. business schools by selected disciplines during 2009-10. Of the 27,676 full-time faculty in the United States, only 309 (1.1 percent) are in the field of supply chain management/transportation/logistics. Of the 29 disciplines reported, the four largest (accounting, finance, marketing, and management) represent more than half of all faculty.

Clearly, there is a significant need for additional faculty, but adding logistics faculty may be quite challenging. First, there are very few PhD students pursuing degrees in TLOG/SCM. Currently there are approximately 125 universities in the United States with PhD programs in business (AACSB 2010b). Of those, only about 14 currently are involved in logistics/SCM education. The number of PhD programs in logistics and SCM reported by the AACSB for 2007 and 2008 was 10 and 11, respectively (ibid.). New programs at Iowa State University and Georgia Southern University will help, but real solutions will require expansion on a much larger scale.

The second challenge, budget constraints, severely limit the ability to hire new faculty. Allocation of funding is complicated by the fact that the AACSB does not require logistics/SCM courses as part of the business curriculum (AACSB 2010d) and by the fact that few scholars from other areas accept logistics]SCM as a separate discipline (Harper 1965; Lancioni, Forman, and Smith 2001; Ruppenthal 1975; Russell 1994). Thus, there is little support for providing funds to expand or initiate new programs in TLOG/SCM, especially when other disciplines have increasing needs of their own.

Restrictions to Growth of the Discipline

Research suggests that there are important barriers to the development of logistics/SCM programs. These include a lack of student awareness about the discipline and its potential as a career field (Knemeyer and Murphy 2004; Russell 1994), an insufficient supply of qualified faculty (Closs and Stank 1999; Russell 1994), a lack of appropriate courses, especially in the business core (Dadzie 1982; Gravier and Farris 2008 Russell 1994; Smith, Langley, and Mundy 1998), a lack of interest by employers (Dadzie 1982; Harper 1965; Keolauni and Wood 1975; Ruppenthal 1975; Slone, Mentzer, and Dittmann 2007), and disagreement between academics and industry professionals as to what should comprise an appropriate curriculum (Beier 1972; Ballou and Piercy 1974; Dadzie 1982; Mundy, Langley, and Gibson 1977). This latter dilemma continues to present problems today because of attempts to define SCM and differentiate it from logistics (Cooper, Lambert, and Pagh 1997; Gibson, Mentzer, and Cook 2005; Kotzab 2005; Mentzer et al. 200l).

The authors of this previous research have provided valuable suggestions for logistics/SCM faculty attempting to build programs in their colleges; however, leaving the task of building the discipline to individual faculty has not been highly successful, or there would be far more programs. Moreover, it is not a productive use of faculty time. Faculty attempting to build a logistics/SCM (or any new) program must accept responsibilities beyond what is expected of the typical faculty member. They find themselves involved in administrative activities, course development, working with businesses to create internships and placement opportunities for students, and so on. These activities require efforts well beyond what is necessary to meet constantly increasing departmental expectations for teaching, research, and service. Quite often, there is a cost to the faculty committed to these programs, whether it is in the form of reduced research productivity or reduced time with family and friends. Even when these efforts are successful, the programs typically remain quite small and often disappear when the "champion" retires or moves.

Clearly, there have been restrictions to the growth of this discipline, but for the most part, the barriers to growth noted above stem from the fact that there are simply too few TLOG/SCM programs. The appropriate question, then, is Why are there so few programs? Perhaps the most significant problem that has restricted the efforts of individuals attempting to build TLOG/SCM programs and their growth has been the resistance from within colleges of business by administrators and faculty in other disciplines (Harper 1965; Ruppenthal 1975; Russell 1994). There are two facets of this problem. First, the various disciplines compete for limited resources, so naturally one discipline will opposed another's growth if it is at their expense. Second, many of the faculty in other disciplines do not appreciate or accept logistics/SCM as an academic discipline. As noted by Richard Lancioni, Howard Forman, and Michael Smith : "The field of logistics, more than any other business discipline, has experienced a great deal of difficulty in getting business schools to accept it as a true discipline" (2001, 734).

In a recent presentation, Bowersox (2008) argued that logistics is an academic discipline and should be acknowledged as such. It has an integrated body of knowledge with theories and constructs that explain interrelationships, which has provided a framework for understanding and prediction. These theories and constructs are empirically documented in academic journals subject to double-blind reviews, and the journals have gained respect and recognition.

Some educators and industry representatives are beginning to accept logistics/SCM as a separate discipline. The Marketing Education Resource Center recently updated the marketing curriculum and omitted distribution and logistics from the marketing cluster because these fields had taken on an identity of their own and now are recognized as separate business functions (Ciancio et al. 2007, 15-16). The Supply Chain Council, made up of representatives from corporations such as Dell, IBM, Intel, Boeing, Procter and Gamble, and others, commissioned AMR Research to conduct a study of the nature and needs of"supply chain talent" (Aquino and Draper 2008). After surveying 198 firms in 15 industries, it was concluded that industry leaders view SCM as a business discipline, and that a common supply chain talent model should be developed. Moreover, they believe that universities should take the lead in addressing this problem and that "globalization has created urgency" (ibid., 2). Another study by AMR Researched followed, in which 126 firms and 19 universities were surveyed to determine how well their programs are preparing students for careers in SCM (Aquino and Kraus 2009).

This research represents an important turn in the right direction, but internal resistance is exacerbated by competition between the various disciplines for limited resources. Thus, recognition of logistics]SCM as a discipline by educational organizations and industry is likely to be slow in affecting change. The needs of this nation with respect to logistics and supply chain knowledge cannot be met by merely acknowledging the discipline or by industry hiring students from the 19 programs surveyed by AMR Research. Nor can they be met by the 60 programs currently in existence. Furthermore, other disciplines are not likely to accept diversion of funding to logistics/SCM without serious resistance. Thus, if the discipline is to grow and mature at a rate necessary to meets the needs of a rapidly changing global economy, its value and importance must be recognized by entities that can affect change quickly, such as governments and university administrators.

Conclusions and Recommendations

As many as 90 percent of the students graduating from AACSB accredited business schools probably have little or no knowledge of an area that is vitally important to industry and our nation. The discipline of logistics and SCM simply is not large enough to provide an adequate number of graduates to meet the managerial needs of American businesses, which have been made ever more acute by increasing global competition. A small number of large programs still dominate the discipline, but they generally are in the same schools that have been leading the way for many years. With the exception of Clarkson University, the only school on the list with fewer than 100 total graduates in 2009, Michigan State and Tennessee (and, probably Penn State, although data are not available) were the only schools to produce logistics/SCM majors at a level comparable to those of finance and marketing.

Although the number of programs is gradually increasing, there is no large-scale commitment to the development of this discipline; the number of programs, courses, students, and faculty must increase at a faster rate. With fewer than 60 logistics programs out of 475 AACSB accredited schools and most of them very small, it will be many years before America's needs are adequately met unless the AACSB and/or government supports development of the discipline, as has been done in China.

If logistics/SCM education is going to make a difference on a large scale, it will require solutions on a grand scale. Logistics/SCM educators must work together as a unified group with a single voice. Logistics/SCM education is important to our nation, and building programs should not be left to individual faculty members alone. The federal government should establish a national center to advance logistics and supply chain education. It should be headed by a professional administrator with a full-time support staff. The center's mission should be to get the attention and support of prominent industry leaders, key members of Congress, state legislative representatives, university administrators, and the AACSB. The center's goals should include the expansion of existing programs and the development of new ones. It should work with the AACSB to ensure that logistics/SCM is included in the core of all business programs. It should work to ensure that students in high schools and community colleges are exposed to the logistics discipline as a possible career. It should work with state governments to provide special funding for logistics/SCM programs; it is not reasonable to assume that states would fund programs in accounting, finance, marketing, and so on, and not do the same for programs in logistics and SCM. Finally the center should establish and fund a national endowment for logistics and supply chain education to support the above efforts.

The collective voice of logistics and supply chain educators should target government, and more of our time should be spent gaining government support rather than just working to build individual programs. Hopefully, the collective power of those who support this discipline can ensure its acceptance as an essential component of business education, thereby helping all firms develop to the point that they can successfully compete in a truly global economy.

Total Number of Degrees Awarded in U.S. Schools with TLOG/SCM Programs

Schools Reporting TLOG/SCM Degrees

Alaska, Anchorage 186
Arizona State 1,466
Arkansas 615
Auburn 933
Baylor (1) 559
Bowling Green State (2) 444
Brigham Young 1,026
Central Michigan 899
Clarkson (2) 99
Duquesne (2) 295
Eastern Michigan () 648
Georgia Southern 589
Houston-Downtown 876
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (1) 1,019
Iowa State 734
John Carroll 212
Kansas (1) 540
Lehigh 376
Maryland 1,052
Memphis 510
Miami of Ohio 905
Michigan, Dearborn (1,2) 260
Michigan State 1,065
Missouri State 1,046
Nevada, Reno (3) 382
Northeastern 834
North Carolina A&T State 187
North Florida 631
North Texas 1,218
Ohio State 1,332
Portland State 676
Shippensburg 321
Southeastern Louisiana (1) 565
Syracuse 547
Tennessee, Knoxville 776
Texas, Austin (2) 1,067
Wayne State 453
Western Illinois 386
Western Michigan (2) 984
Total enrollment 26,713
Mean enrollment 685
Number of schools 39
California, Riverside 629
California State Polytechnic, Pomona 1,136
California State, Chico 511
California State, East Bay 790
California State, Northridge 1,610
California State, San Bernardino 695
Central Washington University 588
Florida 1,417
Grand Valley State University 838
Minnesota 436
Nevada, Las Vegas 511
North Dakota 309
Northern Iowa 594
Oklahoma 532
Pennsylvania State University 1,249
Rhode Island 333
Rider University 293
San Diego 528
South Carolina 785
State University of NY at Plattsburgh 275
Texas A&M University 1,189
Texas Christian University 373
Tuskegee University 96
West Florida 325
Western Washington University 577
Wisconsin, Milwaukee 826
Total enrollment 17,445
Mean enrollment 671
Number of schools 26

Source: Table 2 and AACSB 2010a.

The following table shows the result of a test for difference in the mean number of total degrees granted in 39 schools reporting TLOG/SCM graduates, versus 26 schools with TLOG/SCM degree programs but not reporting graduates.
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

 Schools Schools
 Reporting Not Reporting
 Graduates Graduates

Mean 685 671
Variance 117,045 143,611
Observations 39 26
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 50
t Stat 0.1515
P(T < = t) one-tail 0.4401
t Critical one-tail 1.6759
P(T < = t) two-tail 0.8802
t Critical two-tail 2.0086


AACSB. 2010a. "Business School Data Trends and 2010 List of Accredited Schools." (accessed July 14, 2010).

--. 2010b. "Doctoral Programs by Discipline." disciplines.asp (accessed July 14, 2010).

--. 2010c. "Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation." January 31.

--. 2010d. "Schools Accredited in Business, Ordered by Name." 48C6-B104-33768FIDEo1D.

Aquino, David, and Lucie Draper. 2008. "Supply Chain Talent: State of the Discipline." AMR Research. (accessed May 15, 2008).

Aquino, David, and Bob Kraus. 2009. "Leading U.S. Supply Chain Programs, 2009." AMR Research. (accessed October 10, 2009).

Ballou, Ronald H. 2006. "The Evolution and Future of Logistics and Supply Chain Management." Producao 16 (3):375-86.

Ballou, Ronald H., and James E. Piercy. 1974. "A Survey of Current Status and Trends in Transportation and Logistics Education." Transportation Journal 14 (2):27-36.

Beier, Fredrick J. 1972. "The Educational Challenge Facing Logistics and Physical Distribution Management." Transportation Journal 11 (4):40-47.

Biederrnan, David. 200l. "Logistics Education Report: Reading, Writing, and Logistics." Traffic World 265 (2):21-25.

Bowersox, Donald J. 1969. "Physical Distribution, Development, Current Status, and Potential." Journal of Marketing 33 (1):63-70.

--.2008. Presentation at the FedEx Freight 2008 Logistics Education Symposium, Pensacola, FL, February 14-15.

Bowersox, Donald J., David J. Closs, and M. Bixby Cooper. 2009. Supply Chain Logistics Management. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Cherington, Paul W., and Lewis M. Schneider. 1967. Transportation and Logistics in Graduate Schools of Business Administration. Cambridge: Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration.

Closs, David J., and Theodore P. Stank. 1999. "A Cross-Functional Curriculum for Supply Chain Education at Michigan State University." Journal of Business Logistics 20 (1):59-72.

Ciancio, Stacey, Janet Coulon, James R. Gleason, Beth M. Osteen, and Jane Wright. 2007. "Marketing Cluster Status Report." Columbus: Marketing Education Resource Center. (accessed June 19, 2008).

Cooper, Martha C., Douglas M. Lambert, and Janus D. Pagh. 1997. "Supply Chain Management: More than a New Name for Logistic." International Journal of Logistics Management 8 (1):1-14.

Coyle, John J., Edward J. Bardi, and C. John Langley Jr. 2002. The Management of Business Logistics. St. Patti, MN: West Publishing.

Dadzie, Kofie Q. 1982. "Management Education for Physical Distribution and Logistics." International Journal of Physical Distribution ~ Logistics Management 28 (4) 1259-71.

Drucker, Peter E 1962. "The Economy's Dark Continent." Fortune 65 (April): 103, 265-70.

Farris, Martin T. 1997. "Evolution of Academic Concerns with Transportation and Logistics." Transportation Journal 37 (1):42-50.

Gibson, Brian, John T. Mentzer, and Robert L. Cook. 2005. "Supply Chain Management: Pursuit of a Consensus Definition." Journal of Business Logistics 26 (2):17-25.

Gilmour, Peter. 1978. "The Current Status of Business Logistics Education." Transportation Journal 18 (2):71-78.

Gravier, Michael J., and M. Theodore Farris. 2008. "An Analysis of Logistics Pedagogical Literature: Past and Future Trends in Curriculum, Content, and Pedagogy." International Journal of Logistics Management 19 (2):233-53.

Harper, Donald V. 1965. "What's Next for Transportation Education." Transportation Journal 13 (3):21-28.

Keolanui, Gus L., and Donald E Wood. 1975. "A Note on the 'Need' for Graduate Education in Transportation in the United States." International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 5 (5):294-97

Knemeyer, A. Michael, and Paul R. Murphy. 2004. "Promoting the Value of Logistics to Future Business Leaders: An Exploratory Study Using a Principles of Marketing Experience." International Journal of Physical Distribution ~. Logistics Management 34 (10):775-92.

Kotzab, Herbert. 2005. "Supply Chain Management: Development, Current Status, and Potential for Academia and Business Practice." Inaugural Lecture, Copenhagen Business School, October 13.

Lambert, Douglas M. 2004. Supply Chain Management: Processes, Partnerships, Performance. Sarasota, FL: Supply Chain Management Institute.

Lancioni, Richard, Howard Forman, and Michael F. Smith. 200l. "Logistics and Supply Chain Education: Roadblocks and Challenges." International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 31 (9/10):733-45.

Langley, C. John. 1986. "The Evolution of the Logistics Concept." Journal of Business Logistics 7 (2):1-13.

Mentzer, John T., William DeWitt, James S. Keebler, Min Soonhoong, Nancy W. Nix, Carlo D. Smith, and Zach Zacharia. 200l. "Defining Supply Chain Management." Journal of Business Logistics 22 (2):1-24.

Mundy, Ray A., C. John Langley Jr., and Thomas E. Gibson. 1977. "Industry Evaluation of a Transportation/Logistics Curriculum." Transportation Journal 17 (1):33-39.

National Center for Education Statistics. 2010. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Science. September 2010).

Ozment, John. 2008. Presentation at the FedEx Freight 2008 Logistics Education Symposium, Pensacola, FL, February 14-15.

Rogers, Dale. 2010. Personal correspondence with the author. May 20.

Ruppenthal, Karl M. 1975. "Transport Education in Canada: A Contrast." International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 5 (5):297-300.

Russell, Stephen Hays. 1994. "The Coming of Age of Business Logistics." Journal of Education for Business 70 (2):91.

Slone, Reuben E., John T. Mentzer, and J. Paul Dittmann. 2007. "Are You the Weakest Link in Your Company's Supply Chain?" Harvard Business Review 85 (9):116-27.

Smith, Carlo D., C. John Langley, and Ray Mundy. 1998. "Removing the Barriers between Education and Practice: Tools and Techniques for Logistics Management." Journal of Business Logistics 19 (2):173-95.

Smykay, Edward M., Donald J. Bowersox, and Frank H. Mossman. 1961. Physical Distribution Management. New York: Macmillan.

Wang, Charles Guowen, and Wenli Tong. 2007. "China Logistics Education: The Concern Behind Prosperity." Annual Conference Proceedings. Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals, Philadelphia, October 21-24.

Wilson, Rosalyn. 2008. 19th Annual State of Logistics Report. Chicago: Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals, June 18.

--. 2010. 21st Annual State of Logistics Report. Chicago: Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals, June 9.

John Ozment, EM, AST&L

Oren Harris Chair of Transportation

Sam M. Walton College of Business

University of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR

Scott B. Keller

Professor of Logistics and Marketing

University of West Florida Pensacola, FL
Table 1/AACSB-Accredited U.S. Business Programs with TLOG/SCM Majors


Alaska, Anchorage
Arizona State
Baylor (1)
Bowling Green State (2)
Brigham Young
California, Riverside (1,2)
Cal State, Chico (2)
Cal State, East Bay (1)
Cal State, Northridge (2)
Cal State, San Bernardino (2)
Cal State Poly, Pomona,
Central Michigan
Central Washington (1)
Clarkson (2)
Duquesne (2)
Eastern Michigan (1)
Florida (3)
Georgia Southern
Grand Valley State (1)
Houston, Downtown
Illinois, Urbana (1)
Iowa State
John Carroll
Kansas (1)
Miami of Ohio
Michigan, Dearborn (1,2)
Michigan State
Minnesota (2,3)
Missouri State
Nevada, Las Vegas (1,3)
Nevada, Reno (4)
North Carolina A&T
North Dakota (1,2)
Northern Iowa
North Florida
North Texas
Ohio State
Pennsylvania State
Portland State
Rhode Island (1)
Rider University (1)
San Diego (3)
South Carolina (1,2)
Southeastern Louisiana (1)
SUNY, Plattsburgh (1)
Tennessee, Knoxville
Texas A&M (2)
Texas, Austin (2)
Texas Christian
Tuskegee (1,3)
Wayne State
Wayne State
West Florida (1)
Western Illinois
Western Michigan (2)
Western Washington (2)
Wisconsin, Milwaukee (1,2)

(1) New listing since 2007.

(2) Programs in SCM with strong operations emphasis.

(3) Minor, Certificate, Concentration, or no information on
institution's website.

(4) Program discontinued since reported to AACSB website.

Source: AACSB 2010c.

Table 2/Degrees Awarded in Select Schools

 Degrees Awarded

School 2009 TLOG Fin. Mgt. Mkt. All Bus.

Alaska, Anchorage 17 25 69 20 186
Arizona State 143 256 349 246 1,466
Arkansas 40 175 65 141 615
Auburn 76 252 250 145 933
Baylor (1) 7 109 72 113 559
Bowling Green State (2) 47 157 65 139 444
Brigham Young 25 185 88 52 1,026
Central Michigan 45 94 250 138 899
Clarkson (2) 35 15 32 99
Duquesne (2) 15 54 7 81 295
Eastern Michigan (1) 7 53 166 133 648
Georgia Southern 59 134 110 117 589
Houston, Downtown 26 213 206 87 876
Illinois, Urbana- 8 309 162 34 1,019
 Champaign (1)
Iowa State 55 169 122 157 734
John Carroll 4 51 34 56 212
Kansas (1) 5 141 69 93 540
Lehigh 20 158 71 376
Maryland 27 380 59 179 1,052
Memphis 10 106 119 63 510
Miami of Ohio 20 271 93 261 905
Michigan, Dearborn (1,2) 5 68 54 45 260
Michigan State 208 320 163 180 1,065
Missouri State 25 111 191 212 1,046
Nevada, Reno (3) 12 64 71 72 382
North Carolina A&T State 6 9 75 42 187
Northeastern 9 210 44 111 834
North Florida 33 146 203 83 631
North Texas 38 158 138 199 1,218
Ohio State 73 325 7 332 1,332
Portland State 40 106 135 146 676
Shippensburg 20 65 73 100 321
Southeastern Louisiana (1) 0 54 308 112 565
Syracuse 26 134 36 160 547
Tennessee, Knoxville 178 160 81 152 776
Texas, Austin (2) 16 360 59 204 1,067
Wayne State 4 77 125 102 453
Western Illinois 32 82 74 54 386
Western Michigan (2) 74 148 179 341 984
All Schools 1,478 5,840 4,332 4,901 26,331

 Percentage of Total

School 2009 %TLOG Win. %Mgt. %Mkt.

Alaska, Anchorage 9.1 13.4 37.1 10.7
Arizona State 9.7 17.5 23.8 16.8
Arkansas 6.5 28.5 1o.6 22.9
Auburn 8.1 27.0 26.8 15.5
Baylor (1) 1.2 19.5 12.9 20.2
Bowling Green State (2) 10.6 35.4 14.6 31.3
Brigham Young 2.4 18.o 8.6 5.1
Central Michigan 5.0 10.5 27.8 15.4
Clarkson (2) 35.3 15.2 32.3
Duquesne (2) 5.1 18.3 2.4 27.5
Eastern Michigan (1) 1.1 8.2 25.6 20.5
Georgia Southern 10.0 22.8 18.7 19.9
Houston, Downtown 3.0 24.3 23.5 9.9
Illinois, Urbana- 0.8 30.3 15.9 3.3
 Champaign (1)
Iowa State 7.5 23.0 16.6 21.4
John Carroll 1.9 24.1 16.0 26.4
Kansas (1) 0.9 26.1 12.8 17.2
Lehigh 5.3 42.0 18.9
Maryland 2.6 36.1 5.6 17.0
Memphis 2.0 20.8 23.3 12.4
Miami of Ohio 2.2 29.9 10.3 28.8
Michigan, Dearborn (1,2) 1.9 26.1 20.8 17.3
Michigan State 19.5 30.0 15.3 16.9
Missouri State 2.4 10.6 18.3 20.3
Nevada, Reno (3) 3.1 16.7 18.6 18.8
North Carolina A&T State 3.2 4.8 40.1 22.5
Northeastern 1.1 25.2 5.3 13.3
North Florida 5.2 23.1 32.2 13.2
North Texas 3.1 13.0 11.3 16.3
Ohio State 5.5 24.4 0.5 24.9
Portland State 5.9 15.7 20.0 21.6
Shippensburg 6.2 20.3 22.8 31.2
Southeastern Louisiana (1) 0.0 9.6 54.5 19.8
Syracuse 4.8 24.5 6.6 29.2
Tennessee, Knoxville 22.9 20.6 10.4 19.6
Texas, Austin (2) 1.5 33.7 5.5 19.1
Wayne State 0.9 17.0 27.6 22.5
Western Illinois 8.3 21.2 19.2 14.0
Western Michigan (2) 7.5 15.0 18.2 34.7
All Schools 5.6 22.2 18.6 18.9

Note: Data are from 2009.

(1) New listing since 2007.

(2) Programs in SCM with strong operations emphasis.

(3) Program discontinued as of 2010.

Source: National Center for Education Statistics 2010.

Table 3/Estimated Percentage of Students Graduating from AACSB Schools
with TLOG/SCM Degrees and Students with Exposure to the Field

Description Number

Total number of degrees conferred by AACSB schools (2009) 201,840

Total degrees conferred by schools with TLOG programs 44,158

Percent of degrees in TLOG for sample of 39 schools in
table 2 5.6%

Estimated number of TLOG degrees (44,158 X 0.056) (a) 2,473

Estimated percentage of students in AACSB schools
receiving TLOG degrees (2,4731201,840) 1.2%

Estimated number of students in AACSB schools taking an
introductory TLOG/SCM course in the core,
(0.333 X 44,158) (b) 14,719

Estimated number of students in AACSB schools taking a
TLOG/SCM course as an elective (0.1 X 44,158) (c) 4,416

Estimated number of TLOG degrees (44,158 X 0.056) 2,473

Estimated number of students with any exposure to
TLOG/SCM concepts 21,608

Estimated percentage of students in AACSB schools with any
exposure to TLOG/SCM 10.7%

(a) If the mean number of all degrees granted by the schools in the
sample is significantly different from that of other business
schools offering TLOG/SCM degrees, then use of the percentage of
students majoring in TLOG/SCM would be questionable. Thus, the test
for difference in mean number of degrees granted by each group is
provided in the appendix, and it shows no significant difference in
the means.

(b) Approximately one-third of the schools with TLOG/SCM programs
have a required introductory TLOG/SCM course in the business core.

(c) Assuming 10 percent of the students take a TLOG/SCM class as an

Source: Table 2 and AACSB 2010a.

Table 4/Number of U.S. Full-Time Faculty by Field, 2010

Discipline Number Percent

Accounting 4,626 16.7
Computer information systems (CIS)/MI5 2,552 9.2
Economics/managerial economics 2,668 9.6
Finance (includes banking) 3,669 13.3
Management 2,713 9.8
Marketing 3,597 13.0
Production /operations management 1,061 3.8
Supply chain management/transportation/logistics 309 1.1
Other (21) 6,481 23.5
Total 27,676 100.0

Source: AACSB 2010a, 32.
COPYRIGHT 2011 American Society of Transportation and Logistics, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Ozment, John; Keller, Scott B.
Publication:Transportation Journal
Date:Jan 1, 2011
Previous Article:Historical perspective of the logistics and supply chain management discipline.
Next Article:Meeting the challenge of educating the transportation and logistics professional: the American Society of Transportation and Logistics on the 50th...

Terms of use | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters