MIT Global Operations Conference 2009

I'm jumping back into academic life by attending the MIT Global Operations Conference. This is run by SDM (my program)/LGO (nee LFM) and focuses mostly on managing global supply chains. My manufacturing background focuses almost entirely on the factory floor, so this is an illuminating new way to think about a much bigger system.

The corporate types deliver slick talks with a message of "we did X and it had Y result." Of course, the speakers only discuss success so Y is a parade of victory and growth. There is little discussion of how they did X and why they rejected the alternatives. I can see why so many business discussions take the form of "What is our cloud/social networking/outsourcing strategy?". Some executive heard that X is a path to success. And it may very well be, but these talks have little support for why that is.

The academic talks are more nitty-gritty. Many take the form of comparisons across companies or industries for a pragmatic look at what works, when it works, and why it works. Or, more interestingly, why things fail. We learn about global compliance regimes for labor standards. We learn about open vs closed corporate architectures and what kind of markets they work in. We learn about creating products versus creating platforms. We learn about why logistics costs have increased from 9% to 10% of GDP since 2003. We boggle at the increased materials consumption of our economy and wonder what to do about it. I'm engaged and digging it. (It's also a reunion of my favorite MechE professors. Harry West and David Wallace are both here. Cool.)

The academics and corporate types all agree on a few things:

  • The US is not an exciting market. It is saturated, static, stable, and old. US and EU sales merely provide a comfortable source of cash to enable entry into China, India, and Brazil. The middle class is exploding there. It's where all of the meaningful growth is going to be for the next generation.
  • GM is dead. Everyone talks about it in the past tense. "Detroit" as a concept is synonymous with decay, decline, and a bottomless hole of debt. The most interesting idea here came from Charles Fine, which is that post-buyout GM had the opportunity to recast itself to be an integrated enterprise like Airbus: publicly owned, cozy with the unions, having collaborative supplier relationships. Airbus is sick, but Fine suggests that this architecture may be the right way to survive in a mature market. But they're not going that way, depriving us of a good case study.
  • There is a casual dismissiveness about six-sigma manufacturing methodologies. Yes, they say, it's important. But if you apply robust methods to a wasteful process, all you get is a more reliable wasteful process.
  • There is a new vocabulary I'm going to have to learn. ERP, SCM, BRIC, SCOR, GSCF, Keiretsu. I'll get it all soon enough, but I'll never be able to unselfconsciously say things like "We're going to uniquely advantage our integration."


I am Karl Critz, a new student at MIT's SDM program. I am returning to school after a decade in the software business. This journal will document my experiences in the classroom. Classes begin soon. Wish me luck.

This is a Test

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum