IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/simgam/v41y2010i4p465-486.html

Teaching Lean Manufacturing With Simulations and Games: A Survey and Future Directions

Author

Listed:
  • Fazleena Badurdeen

    (University of Kentucky, USA, badurdeen@engr.uky.edu)

  • Philip Marksberry

    (University of Kentucky, USA)

  • Arlie Hall

    (University of Kentucky, USA)

  • Bob Gregory

    (University of Kentucky, USA)

Abstract

Problem-based learning focuses on small groups using authentic problems as a means to help participants obtain knowledge and problem-solving skills. This approach makes problem-based learning ideal for teaching lean manufacturing, which is driven by a culture of problem solving that values learning as one key output of manufacturing production. Thus, simulations that organize participants in teams for realistic manufacturing production problem solving are widespread as a way to use problem-based learning to teach lean manufacturing. But a critical assessment of existing simulations for lean manufacturing instruction has been lacking. Accordingly, a literature survey is conducted and existing simulations are classified according to their emphasis on lean tools or the overall lean system; the degree of their focus on soft skills, if any; and their area of application, whether academic or industry. Four gaps are found in existing simulation designs: lack of stress on soft skills, a mistaken focus on “linear lean,†misunderstanding of the key role of the facilitator, and lack of realism. Future directions for study and improvement in lean simulation design are suggested.

Suggested Citation

  • Fazleena Badurdeen & Philip Marksberry & Arlie Hall & Bob Gregory, 2010. "Teaching Lean Manufacturing With Simulations and Games: A Survey and Future Directions," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 41(4), pages 465-486, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:41:y:2010:i:4:p:465-486
    DOI: 10.1177/1046878109334331
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1046878109334331
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1046878109334331?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Erev, Ido & Roth, Alvin E, 1998. "Predicting How People Play Games: Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 848-881, September.
    2. W. Edwards Deming, 2000. "The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education, 2nd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262541165, December.
    3. Robert Slonim & Alvin E. Roth, 1998. "Learning in High Stakes Ultimatum Games: An Experiment in the Slovak Republic," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 569-596, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Timothy C. Clapper, 2016. "Proposing a New Debrief Checklist for TeamSTEPPS® to Improve Documentation and Clinical Debriefing," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 47(6), pages 710-719, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Grosskopf, Brit & Roth, Alvin E., 2009. "If you are offered the Right of First Refusal, should you accept? An investigation of contract design," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 176-204, January.
    2. repec:wyi:journl:002151 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. James Andreoni & Marco Castillo & Ragan Petrie, 2009. "Revealing Preferences for Fairness in Ultimatum Bargaining," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 25, pages 35-63.
    4. Nobel Prize Committee, 2012. "Alvin E. Roth and Lloyd S. Shapley: Stable allocations and the practice of market design," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2012-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    5. Brit Grosskopf, 2003. "Reinforcement and Directional Learning in the Ultimatum Game with Responder Competition," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(2), pages 141-158, October.
    6. David Cooper & Nick Feltovich & Alvin Roth & Rami Zwick, 2003. "Relative versus Absolute Speed of Adjustment in Strategic Environments: Responder Behavior in Ultimatum Games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(2), pages 181-207, October.
    7. Tilman Slembeck, 1999. "Low Information Games - Experimental Evidence on Learning in Ultimatum Bargaining," Experimental 9905001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Jan Hanousek & Evžen Kočenda, 2011. "Learning by investing," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 19(1), pages 125-149, January.
    9. Shachat, Jason & Swarthout, J. Todd, 2012. "Learning about learning in games through experimental control of strategic interdependence," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 383-402.
    10. Olivier Armantier, 2006. "Do Wealth Differences Affect Fairness Considerations?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 47(2), pages 391-429, May.
    11. Cooper, David J. & Stockman, Carol Kraker, 2002. "Fairness and learning: an experimental examination," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 26-45, October.
    12. Olivier Armantier, 2001. "Does Wealth Affect Fairness Considerations?," Department of Economics Working Papers 01-05, Stony Brook University, Department of Economics.
    13. Ido Erev & Alvin E. Roth & Robert Slonim, 2016. "Minimax across a population of games," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(2), pages 144-156, November.
    14. Philippe Jehiel & Aviman Satpathy, 2024. "Coarse Q-learning: Indifference, Indeterminacy, and Instability," Papers 2412.09321, arXiv.org, revised May 2026.
    15. Noah Gans & George Knox & Rachel Croson, 2007. "Simple Models of Discrete Choice and Their Performance in Bandit Experiments," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 383-408, December.
    16. Terry E. Daniel & Eyran J. Gisches & Amnon Rapoport, 2009. "Departure Times in Y-Shaped Traffic Networks with Multiple Bottlenecks," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 2149-2176, December.
    17. Iftekhar, M. S. & Tisdell, J. G., "undated". "Learning in repeated multiple unit combinatorial auctions: An experimental study," Working Papers 267301, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    18. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Mahmud, Minhaj & Martinsson, Peter, 2005. "Does stake size matter in trust games?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 365-369, September.
    19. Ianni, A., 2002. "Reinforcement learning and the power law of practice: some analytical results," Discussion Paper Series In Economics And Econometrics 203, Economics Division, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton.
    20. Matthais Sutter, 2002. "Public Bad Prevention by Majority Voting on Redistribution – Experimental Evidence," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 11(5), pages 415-428, September.
    21. Benaïm, Michel & Hofbauer, Josef & Hopkins, Ed, 2009. "Learning in games with unstable equilibria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(4), pages 1694-1709, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:41:y:2010:i:4:p:465-486. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.