| ||||
A required course in operations management has long been a pillar of the HBS curriculum, designed to provide aspiring general managers with a broad-based introduction to manufacturing and related technologies. Under the leadership of Professors Roy D. Shapiro and David M. Upton, the syllabus has undergone a number of changes over the past two years to present students not only with the core concepts of operations management but with some of the newest challenges presented by the Internet economy.
Jim Aisner of HBS recently met with Assistant Professor Alan MacCormack (one of ten faculty members teaching the Technology & Operations Management course) to learn more about the latest version of TOM and how his research in the software industry has helped enrich its latest incarnation.
TOM is a 36-session course, taught in the first term. How is it structured?
TOM is comprised of four modules—process design and analysis, systems for product and service delivery, new product and process development, and performance improvement. In addition to case studies (some of which are in a multimedia format), we have several simulation exercises, and we bring into class a number of the case protagonists.
What kinds of simulations are you using?
One is a factory simulation, where the students work in teams to design a process for assembling electronic components onto circuit boards. Trying to meet variations in customer demand under time constraints, they discover that although many designs are possible, the advantage often lies in the efficient execution of their chosen design, as well as the flexibility to respond effectively when things don't go as planned. We also run a simulation on the HBS intranet that allows students to understand the structure of a long supply chain and how its performance is affected by the nature and frequency of the information exchanged within it.
About a quarter of the sessions contain new material. Would you describe some of it?
The case "Textbooks Online" focuses on an Internet company that a current MBA student founded before coming to HBS. It underscores the importance of basic operational analysis as many e-commerce firms discover that most of their troubles occur in the back-end, fulfillment side of the business. "Tyrell Web Developers Inc.," an exercise I developed with [Assistant Professor] Andrew McAfee, puts students in the position of developing a Web site for a demanding client.
The exercise has two objectives: giving students hands-on experience with an important technology and having them participate in a real development project. One of the lessons it demonstrates is the valuable role early beta versions can play in the development process—a finding that came from my research on software development. Beta versions provide one vehicle for establishing a dialogue between customers and the development team.
When did you start studying software development?
I began looking at Internet software development in 1996. Since then, I've broadened the scope of this research to include other software environments. For example, I recently studied both Microsoft's Office 2000 project, a very complex application developed by teams of dedicated employees, and the Linux operating system, whose open-source code is debugged and modified daily by thousands of programmers working on their own around the world. Two new cases based on this work have been added to the TOM course.
Do you see Linux as the operating system of the future?
The open-source process results in a very robust product; thus Linux has gained most ground in applications where reliability is at a premium—on Web servers, for instance. On performance dimensions such as speed and functionality, however, other operating systems often have the edge. The beauty of open source is that Linux is improving at an incredible rate, but it still isn't for everyone. Linux lacks a good graphical user interface and doesn't support several applications that many of us use every day.
Do you think open-source software will replace proprietary products?
It's not clear that open-source software will come to dominate across the board. It seems to be a very successful way to develop infrastructure software—the plumbing for IT systems—because this is an environment where users have both the motivation and the ability to contribute to the project by, say, improving functionality. In applications, however, the same dynamic doesn't always exist. For example, a group of physicians eager to create their own billing system probably wouldn't have the technical ability to contribute to the project. They might be better off if someone hired a few engineers to write a proprietary billing system that could then be sold to each of them. If we accept that open source is not the best solution for some types of software, the big question becomes, Where do you draw the dividing line between infrastructure and applications? We don't know the answer yet.
Finally, how does management fit into the open-source environment?
There are several different models for managing open-source development projects. Eric Allman maintains tight control over Sendmail, the e-mail program he created. But Linus Torvalds, the developer of Linux, delegates most decisions to five key aides, taking on the role of ultimate authority only if needed. Some of my current research aims to determine if running a project in a certain manner attracts more contributors. Several colleagues and I are also trying to understand what motivates open-source programmers to contribute to projects. Is it primarily an economic or a social phenomenon? We believe that the open-source community is quite diverse, which is probably a source of advantage, given that people with different motivations are likely to gravitate to different activities, all of which are necessary for a project to be successful.
· · · ·