Abstract
The field of logistics education is rather colorful. The range of possible topics is huge and so each curriculum has unique approach towards which topic areas to emphasize and which to treat briefly or even omit. There is only little effective standardization in logistics education. This study examines the content of 42 undergraduate logistics curricula in Europe via cluster analysis, with a goal to propose a typology of logistics curricula. The findings define the spectrum of logistics education in four clusters, ranging from „business administration“ with little focus on most specific logistics topics, through „interdisciplinary logistics management“ and „modern transport management“ to „logistics engineering“ with a strong quantitative and technology approach. However, a problem remains that curriculum title does not always reflect actual profile. A typical title “logistics management” might in one case contain various engineering elements, but in another none at all. Such findings point out the need for curricula boards to decide, if trying to cover the entire scope by „one-size-fits-all“ program is the best option or if more distinct focus is needed. In both cases this decision needs to be intentional, agreed and clearly communicated to avoid confusing students and society. Furthermore, the study points out the need to refine standards of competences in logistics, especially for logistics engineering.
Highlights
It is challenging to present a detailed and agreed definition of logistics
The main questions asked in this paper concern the extent of agreed core in logistics that would be reflected by common denominators across curricula as well as specific ways to make a logistics curriculum differentiate
Possible titles might be strategic management of logistics or information logistics. Such differentiation is not usually standardized though, so everyone is free to introduce their own concepts, for better or worse. What about those that do not? Are there really as substantial gaps between logistics curricula as selected observations and anecdotal evidence would indicate? This paper offers an analytical tool for curricula analysis and applies it to data of a sample of curricula
Summary
It is challenging to present a detailed and agreed definition of logistics. When the formulation is limited to definition in a single sentence, various approaches exist and most of them can co-exist without much practical implications and debate. One of the starting points of this research were comments made by students in the authors’ faculty on the semester spent studying abroad – the curricula and module titles can often be vague with the most popular title being just “logistics management” and one can be misled without checking the course details. In some cases, this is pure business management view. In other cases the approach is more on process impact on business goals, such as inventory levels and lead times, rather than on how to design the processes
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP)
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
