Learning from the students
A system design competition for university students became an unexpected learning experience for this judge.
By Jim Apple, Founding Partner, The Progress Group -- Modern Materials Handling, 8/1/2005
Every year the Material Handling Institute and the College Industry Council on Material Handling Education (CICMHE) conduct a system design competition for university students. Cash awards totaling $4,500 are given by Modern Materials Handling and CICMHE to the top three entries.
Last month, teams from twelve universities submitted reports with their solutions to a problem prepared by the consulting group Gross & Associates. I was privileged to be one of the judges.
The case was a typical real world problem, with a variety of conflicting objectives, some conflicting data and enough open issues to require making a few business assumptions. Approaching the problem required more than applying textbook formulas.
It was tempting to evaluate the reports based on how close the team came to my solution. Fortunately, CICMHE provided some objective guidance for judging. But, I got so immersed in the process that I found myself creating an additional set of criteria that I thought would be applied by a management team trying to make a business decision. This is what I came up with as a result of the students' entries.
Clarity – Could I tell quickly where the most promising opportunities lay and what alternatives were considered for addressing them? Was the flow of the story logical and compelling so that I felt confident in taking action?
Analysis – Was data used effectively to create insight and objectivity in defining and understanding the problem? Were tables, charts and diagrams used effectively to help display the data and flows?
Assumptions – Seldom is all of the data and information that we would like to have readily available. Where necessary, were reasonable assumptions made and the sensitivity to them made clear?
Comprehensiveness – Did the team consider all aspects of the operation and their interrelationship? Or, did they get caught refining the solution to one or two of them, giving short shrift to the others?
Innovation – Did they look beyond conventional wisdom for creative alternatives and combinations in seeking a solution?
Justification – Were all relevant cost and savings factors identified and properly evaluated in comparing and selecting solutions?
Implementation – No solution, regardless of its creativity or payback, is worth anything unless it can be implemented in a timely fashion without jeopardizing the ongoing business of the company. Did they develop and present a clear path to success?
I was impressed that these students scored so well on nearly all of these criteria. I wonder how good I looked when I was their age.
We're never too old to learn, or re-learn. Something else that I did learn is that there are at least 50 students out there who care enough about materials handling to make time in their busy school schedule to get some real world practice in the field.
For those of you looking for an energetic, creative engineer to add to your staff, I would begin by collecting resumes of the students who demonstrated their interest and skill in this competition. You can find the names of previous years' winning teams, and this year's when it is announced later this month, at www.mhia.org/cicmhe/designcompetition.
Materials handling: Student design challenge
10/31/2009Justification course on CD-ROM
05/31/1999Future leaders in materials handling
09/30/2005
View All On-Demand Webcasts
