DYNAMIC

EXERCISE
EDUCATION: LEARNING
PRODUCTION

IN
ENGINEERING
PUSH AND PULL

Milton Vieira Junior (UNINOVE )

mvieirajr@uninove.br
Elesandro Antonio Baptista (UNINOVE )
elesandro@uninove.br
Edson Nunes da Silva (UNINOVE )
edsonnunes@uninove.edu.br
Nivaldo Lemos Coppini (UNICAMP )
nivaldocoppini@gmail.com

This paper shows a dynamic exercise to be applied to Engineering students aiming to improve
the learning of push production and pull production systems. The paper was designed with a
brief review of recent education methods (like Problem Baased Learning -PBL - and gaming).
In sequence, the paper shows the application of a dynamics of push production and pulls
production systems to Engineering students. The dynamics promotes a better understanding
about the concepts of push production and pull production, increasing the learning of O.M.,
showing that games and dynamic exercises have also proved to be very useful tools for
developing students knowledge.
Keywords: Teaching; games; production

ICIEOM CIO 2013 Valladolid, Spain

Introduction

The teaching-learning process has undergone significant changes in recent years. Education
began as a passive process in which students simply received the masters teachings without
question or even participation. Over time, education gradually shifted to teaching models that
emphasize student participation and integration, as well as teacher-student and student-student
interactions. Experimental teaching and learning methods have received increasing attention
and heightened interest in research on teachers and students (HAAPSALO & HYVNEN,
2001).
With regard to methodologies, Magill and Roy (2007) propose that these should encourage
students to participate creatively, involving them through the development of ludic activities.
Lewis and Maylor (2007) state that games and practical simulations have been used since the
60s to teach Operations Management, OM, citing as examples the Beer Game, the Cuppa
Manufacturing Game, Training Factory, etc. Curland and Fawcett (2001) discuss the use of
simulation games as a way to develop student skills, forming teams that interpret and analyze
computer-generated statistical data in the form of financial reports. Each team strives to
evaluate the reports and propose solutions as though it were a real-life situation.
Broaching the theme of Education in OM, Brandon-Jones and Queenan (2010) conducted a
discussion session during the 2010 POMS (Production Operations Management Society)
conference, in which they sought to encourage participants to describe methods, practices and
hooks they use in the classroom to improve the teaching of OM-related subjects.
In this context, this paper seeks to expand the discussion about dynamic exercises, particularly
of a theoretical nature, employed in Production Engineering courses. The purpose of this
discussion about the use of dynamic exercises is to promote a greater exchange of experiences
that will lead to a better understanding of the characteristics of production systems and how
they work by ludically experiencing the problems and limitations of each case.
To this end, the next section offers a brief theoretical review of recent teaching methods, such
as Problem Based Learning PBL, and games for teaching engineering.

Problem Based Learning PBL

The 12th century Chinese philosopher Xi Zhi stated that You should examine yourself daily.
If you find faults, you should correct them. When you find none, you should try even harder
(XI ZHI apud YEO, 2007). Xi Zhis rationale can be understood as follows: The identification
and resolution of a problem seems to be the best way to learn, for a simple problem may
involve learning various aspects that influence the learner (YEO, 2007).
PBL is a teaching-learning strategy aimed at promoting active and participatory learning. This
strategy involves encouraging the student to analyze problems, identify the knowledge
required to solve them, and thus assimilate it (BENJAMIN and KEENAN, 2006).
Yeo (2007) defines PBL as an interactive process impelled by a real problem which involves
students in its solution. Thus, PBL requires students to search for concepts and knowledge to
solve the problem.
PBL requires the student to change his attitude, giving up his dependence on teachers and
gaining self-confidence in his ability to learn (YEO, 2005). This can be seen as a factor that
enables the development of autonomous groups, which is a prerequisite for the success of this
teaching methodology.
The application of PBL Exercises (PBLE) changes students perceptions of their own
development. Werth (2009) states that students who engage in PBLEs develop new skills to
recall and apply content discussed in the classroom.

ICIEOM CIO 2013 Valladolid, Spain

Using games and dynamic exercises in engineering education

Children learn many things through play and games, probably because of the involvement and
motivation induced by these ludic activities. Games and play arouse creativity and encourage
experimentation and decision-making, which are desirable skills for professionals from all
walks of life (Rossiter, 2007).
Lewis and Maylor (2007) argue that ludic activities favor empirical learning through concrete
experiences that enable students to explore theory and apply it with heightened criticalness.
Instructional games have disseminated rapidly, although the literature contains few reports
about the benefits resulting from this teaching method (BARDON and JOSSERAND, 2009).
This can be attributed to the lack not only of conceptual schemes that allow for an
understanding of the educational process involved in the use of ludic activities but also of
comprehensive guidelines on how to develop and apply engineering content in games
(especially that specific to Production Engineering) (LEWIS and MAYLOR, 2007). These
authors identified a set of more than 500 types of games that can be used in teaching activities
(about 200 for teaching OM directly or indirectly).
Rossiter (2007) identifies several situations triggered by the application of games and
dynamics in the teaching and learning process, i.e., students become more motivated and
involved in the activities; there is clear evidence of the importance of group work and of
extended discussion; dedicated effort and concentration are higher than in conventional
theoretical lectures; and the rate of student absenteeism is low. The environment created
through games and group dynamics is a more positive one and students display pleasure in
developing this type of activity.
In the teaching-learning process, the main result achieved by using games is the learning of
specific techniques, possibly because the direct application of a technique is a challenge that
students face with greater gusto, since games represent an industrial context more accurately
than written and published content (LEWIS and MAYLOR, 2007).

Simulation

Process and business simulation, which dates back to the 1950s, involves applications ranging
from the production of technology and business to machinery and equipment and from sales
and marketing processes to production and business management (HAAPSALO and
HYVNEN, 2001).
Thavikulwat, apud Clarke (2009), describes simulation as an exercise that involves the reality
of an operation or transaction in an artificial environment. In other words, simulation allows a
system to be analyzed without interfering in its operation.
Simulation is the second most widely used technique in the area of Operations Management.
The use of simulation in manufacturing and business for over 60 years has resulted in
successful applications in numerous areas such as design, planning, control, resource
allocation, etc. An area that is currently receiving special attention, particularly in the
education and training sectors, is simulation games (JAHANGIRIAN et al., 2010).
For Mawdesley et al. (2010), simulation games give students an effective learning experience,
introducing concepts that are not easy to teach through traditional techniques. As Siddiqui,
Akhtar and Khan (2008) point out, simulation-based educational products offer a unique way
to reinforce concepts discussed in theoretical classes.
Apparently simulation and games are two different things: simulation is a simplified and
abstract model with rules, whereas games enable participants to enter a simulated
environment (LEWIS and MAYLOR, 2007). However, simulation allows the different
scenarios and situations created for a game to be modeled and applied in the same way, thus
complementing the environment experienced in the game and enabling students to better
understand the phenomena studied.

ICIEOM CIO 2013 Valladolid, Spain

Siddiqui, Akhtar and Khan (2008) emphasize the enormous potential of simulation-based
products as tools to augment student learning. In their classes they used a product that
simulates a supply chain, confirming the benefits of using this type of tool to enhance student
learning. Holweg and Bicheno (2002) point out the lack of understanding of processes that
take place along the supply chain, and the resulting distortions and overestimation in demand
forecasting and their implications for costs, inventory and lead times. To help students gain
this much needed understanding, they suggest the use of simulation games in Supply Chain
Management teaching.
For Siddiqui, Akhtar and Khan (2008), products based on simulation as a teaching tool create
a sense of competition among students, thereby heightening their motivation. These tools
provide a view of the dynamic behavior of real systems and, as an active learning technique,
allow for instantaneous visualization of the consequences of actions and strategies,
stimulating critical thinking and decision-making.
As Yeo (2005) points out, changes in the education process require students to play a more
active role in the process of acquiring knowledge. People learn more through participation,
which is developed by means of targeted activities. Simulation games fit into this context,
providing the benefits of these two important educational tools games and simulation.
This paper develops the idea of making a connection between games and computer
simulation, demonstrating this connection through a situation in which push and pull
production systems are compared.

Push vs. pull production

Basically, manufacturing systems can use two different approaches to production flow: push
production and pull production. In the former, manufacturing orders are issued at scheduled
time intervals and are based on projected demand, which may often differ from real demand.
This approach is employed because the company lacks independence to control market
demand; hence, this projected production is in the nature of anticipation from a more
optimistic viewpoint, or of speculation when seen from a more critical viewpoint (SHINGO,
1989).
Push production involves setting up buffer stocks between the stages of a manufacturing
process, whose effect is to isolate these stages from each other (Figure 01). The existence of
these buffer stocks is not fortuitous, for their purpose is to prevent potential problems, such as
the stoppage of a given workstation, from disrupting the activities of downstream
workstations, thus ensuring a certain degree of independence between the phases of the
process. However, this practice creates problems such as the maintenance and handling of
these buffer stocks, the need for their physical allocation, and the costs generated by these
activities (SLACK et al., 2001).
Conversely, in pull production, manufacturing orders are issued in response to a request
resulting from the sale of a product or the delivery of a part, which is also sent to the
subsequent workstation, as shown in Figure 02 (SLACK et al., 2001). In other words,
production begins only upon receipt of a confirmed order and is aimed at a market that
requires a rapid response from a wide variety of products (SHINGO, 1989).
Push production seeks efficiency by protecting itself against unforeseen disruptions
(breakdowns, delays, queues, etc.), whereas pull production reveals these problems and seeks
solutions to prevent them from compromising production. In pull production, the existence of
buffer stocks is seen as a big black cloak that conceals production problems (SLACK et al.,
2001).

ICIEOM CIO 2013 Valladolid, Spain

Proposed and applied dynamics

The aim of dynamics applied in the classroom was to illustrate the difference between push
and pull production. To this end, the students were asked to build a boat using as feedstock a
sheet of A4 printing paper. Each sheet of paper was used to build a paper boat. The students
began by sharing the manufacturing process at different stages and then determining the
number of workstations (which corresponded to the number of students in the classroom). A
boat was built to estimate the time and level of difficulties involved in each manufacturing
stage. The students then allocated the manufacturing stages to the workstations, balancing the
manufacturing time at each one based on these estimates. Each workstation was initially
operated by a single worker.
The construction was divided into 12 stages, which were grouped into five workstations.
Table 1 describes the stages (illustrated in Figure 3), workstations and time required to
execute each stage at each workstation.
The dynamic exercise was divided into four different scenarios, as follows. Scenario S-I
consists of a push production system which releases a batch of 5 sheets at 30-second intervals
and uses a carrier between the workstations. S_II also operates by the aforementioned system
but with a larger number of workstations in some stages, changing to a cell layout and
eliminating the carrier between workstations. S_III operates by the pull production system,
but without a starting batch at the workstations. S_IV is the same as S_III except that it
operates with a starting batch of one part at each workstation.
Production scenarios 1, 2 and 4 were evaluated for a period of ten minutes and scenario 3 for
five minutes. The results described in Tables 2 to 5 correspond to the values obtained at the
end of the evaluated period.
In the first scenario (S_I), the construction of the boat by push production was evaluated
considering the five workstations, as described in Table 1, plus a Quality Control (QC) center
located after WS_5 to inspect the end product. A carrier was used in scenario S_I to move the
lots of semi-finished product between different workstations, which were distributed in a
functional layout, as illustrated in Figure 4 (section 7). The raw material was released in
batches of five units at 30-second intervals and was processed at the workstations, also in lots
of 5 units.
After 5 units were processed at a workstation, the carrier delivered them to the next
workstation. After delivering each lot, the carrier returned to the raw material release point to
wait for a new request. It should be noted that the flow of materials (Figure 4) resulting from
the layout adopted was very disordered, involving several crossovers and returns of the
carriage. Table 2 lists the performance indicators of scenario S_I.
Table 1: Steps involved in building the paper boat (with a sheet of A4 paper)
Step
Description
Workstation
1

Fold the sheet in half

Fold it in half again, creating a crease

Fold the flaps diagonally with their

edges touching the center crease

Fold flap 1

Fold flap 2

Fold corner 1

Fold corner 2

Open, flatten, and fold into a square

Fold back edge 1

10

Fold back edge 2

11

Open to form a balloon

Time

WS_1

52

WS_2

55

WS_3

209

WS_4

74

WS_5

74

ICIEOM CIO 2013 Valladolid, Spain

12

Open again to form a boat

As Table 2 indicates, 20 production orders were released but only one order was completed,
i.e., only five boats, indicating low productivity. Of this total, 80% were rejected by the QC,
i.e., manufacturing quality required improvement. Moreover, the work-in-process (WIP) at
workstations 1 and 3 was 40 and 27 units, respectively. Therefore, the students considered
that workstations 1 and 3 were the systems bottlenecks.
On the other hand, workstations 4 and 5 showed, respectively, 5 and 0 WIP units, which may
indicate underutilization of these workstations. In this scenario, the carrier was found to be
underused at the beginning of the period under analysis and immediately after moving from
one place to another to meet requests.
Table 2: Performance indicators of S_I
Indicators

Values

No. of released orders

20 (100 sheets)

No. of completed orders

No. of finished products

No. of rejected products

Work-in-process (per workstation)

92 (40+20+27+5+0)

Bottlenecks

WS_1 and WS_3

Based on the results, i.e., low productivity, high QC rejection, and high WIP at workstations
(especially at workstations 1 and 3), the students suggested creating scenario 2 (S_II) to
evaluate the following modifications: (i) layout changed from functional to cell layout, (ii)
elimination of the carrier, and (iii) double the number of workers at WS_3. Figure 5 (section
7) illustrates the new layout.
It should be noted that, in this case, the materials flow is simpler and more direct, without
crossovers or returns. Modifications (i) and (ii) were made to optimize the process flow, since
workstations located closer to each other eliminate the need for a carrier. Modification (iii)
was proposed to reduce the WIP at WS_3 and increase the flow of units to WS_4 and WS_5,
since these two workstations were found to be idle much of the time while waiting to process
the next batch. No changes were made at WS_1. It should be noted that the WIP at WS_1
could be reduced if the rate of production orders were reduced.
After being processed at WS_5, all the finished products were evaluated by QC. Table 3 lists
the performance indicators obtained for S_II. The manufacturing times at each workstation
changed slightly in relation to S_I, i.e., 8.60, 9.60, 14, 13.80 and 11.60, respectively, for
workstations 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The evaluation of scenarios 3 and 4 were based on these same
times.
This new configuration, S_II, improved productivity significantly when compared to S_I:
three production orders were filled, i.e., three times more boats (15 boats completed in S_II
compared to 5 in S_I). Quality also improved, i.e., the rejection rate dropped from 80% to
60%.
However, from the standpoint of WIP the change produced a negligible result: in S_I there
were a total of 92 units, while in S_II there were 90. Nevertheless, a change was observed at
WS_3, whose WIP decreased from 27 to 15 units. This decrease was justified by the fact that
an additional worker was allocated to this workstation. It should be noted that WS_4 and
WS_5 ended with five units of WIP, which might indicate a decrease in the idleness of these
workstations. However, no definitive conclusions could be drawn by analyzing only the final
number of WIP.
Table 3: Performance indicators of S_II

ICIEOM CIO 2013 Valladolid, Spain

Indicators

Values

No. of released orders

20 (100 sheets)

No. of completed orders

No. of finished products

15

No. of rejected products

Work-in-process (per workstation)

90 (50+15+15+5+5)

Bottleneck

WS_1

Because productivity increased but the

WIP remained high, the teacher suggested the
creation of a new scenario (S_III) to evaluate pull production, aiming to reduce the WIP. In
addition, the QC center was removed from the end of the line and QC inspections were now
done at each workstation in order to reduce the final product rejection rate. The orders were
placed at 15-second intervals and production was analyzed for a period of five minutes. In this
new configuration, the production orders became unitary (batch size = 1).
Table 4 lists the performance indicators of S_III at the end of five minutes (simulation). The
analysis period was shorter because an evaluation of this scenario in a brainstorming session
by the students indicated the high idleness rate of the workstations in this setup (especially
workstations at the end of the line), leading them to devise modifications to solve this
problem.
Table 4: Performance indicators of S_III
Indicators

Values

No. of released orders

20 (20 sheets)

No. of completed orders

No. of finished products

No. of rejected products

Work-in-process (per workstation)

Bottleneck

After analyzing the production for five minutes, the students observed improvements in WIP
and quality, i.e., no queue of semi-finished products (due to the production system adopted
pull production) and a zero rejection rate. In addition, since the system had shifted to pull
production, the number of released orders was reduced by 80%.
On the other hand, the students observed workstation idleness at the beginning of the process.
The reason for this idleness was that, in the pull production mode, when the first order
arrived, WS_5 had no products to deliver. It therefore sent an order to WS_4, whose situation
was the same, and which in turn sent an order to WS_3, and so on up to the point of release of
raw material. During this time, all the workstations were idle, waiting for the first delivery to
begin working. When the order arrived at WS_1, it processed the part and sent it on to WS_2,
which performed its task and passed the part on to WS_3, and so on successively. In this
scenario, the workstations were idle while waiting to receive the part to be processed.
To eliminate the initial idleness at the workstations, several changes were suggested, resulting
in the creation of Scenario 4 (S_IV), in which a buffer stock of one unit was created at each
workstation. The same settings as those of S_III were used in S_IV, with the exception of the
buffer stock (used only at the beginning.) The production orders were unitary, as in S_III.
Table 5 shows the performance indicators of S_IV.
Table 5: Performance indicators of S_IV
Indicators

Values

No. of released orders

40 (40 sheets)

No. of completed orders

24

ICIEOM CIO 2013 Valladolid, Spain

No. of finished products

No. of rejected products

Work-in-process (per workstation)

Bottleneck

The production volume in S_IV was approximately 70% higher than in S_III (considering the
14 units produced in 10 minutes in S_III) and product quality was maintained (only one reject
out of a total of 24 units).
The main difference between scenarios S_III and S_IV was in workstation idleness. Because
all the workstations in S_IV started with a buffer unit, they all began working at the same
time when the first order was placed, thus eliminating the time spent in waiting for the part to
reach the workstation to be processed. In S_IV, the number of manufacturing orders was
double that of S_III because the simulated time was also twice as long.
With this dynamic exercise, the students sought solutions to improve production using the
concepts previously studied, which enabled them to gain a better understanding of the
differences between push and pull production.

Computational simulation allied to the dynamic exercise

To complement the experience gained in the classroom through the dynamic exercise, the four
scenarios evaluated were simulated using the Arena version 12.0 software, which allowed for
the following:
calculate performance measures (other than those measured from the dynamic
exercise). Calculating these measures would have been far more laborious without the
help of the software (it should be noted that the measures obtained from the dynamic
exercise correspond to the values found at the end of the period analyzed in the
computational simulation);
evaluate performance measures while the system was in operation;
calculate minimum, average and maximum performance indicator values;
perform the simulation with multiple replications, which would have taken much
longer in the dynamic exercise;
use animation to better visualize the scenario in question;
have a quick view of the different scenarios evaluated for longer periods.
The scenarios evaluated with the simulation model correspond to the scenarios evaluated in
the dynamic exercise: S_I push production and functional layout, S_II push production
and cell layout; S_III pull production; S_IV pull production with initial buffer.
Figures 4 and 5, respectively, illustrate the functional layout (S_I) and cell layout (S_II, S_III
and S_IV). S_I and S_II involved the push production system, while S_III and S_IV involved
pull production. As explained in section 6, the QC in S_III and S_IV was removed and quality
inspections were performed at each workstation.
The four scenarios were evaluated using triangular distribution, considering the value
determined in the dynamic exercise as mode, and a 30% decrease and increase (chosen
arbitrarily) for minimum and maximum values. Table 1 lists the values used as mode in S_I.
The values used as mode in S_II, S_III S_IV were the same as those used in the dynamic
exercise of S_II (section 6). Ten replications of each simulated scenario were performed. It
should be noted that the time required to perform ten replications of the simulated model was
about 15 seconds.
In Figures 4 and 5, queues alongside workstations correspond to WIP and queues immediately
below workstations represent finished products at the workstation waiting to complete a 5unit batch for transfer to the next workstation.

ICIEOM CIO 2013 Valladolid, Spain

In Tables 6 and 7, column WS indicates the workstation; the others columns correspond to
measures for S_I and S_II (Table 6) and S_III and S_IV (Table 7). In Table 6, the columns
Queue (No.) Avg and Max lists the average and maximum number of parts in the queue;
column WIP indicates the total amount of WIP at the end of the simulation; column Queue
(t) Avg and Max indicates the maximum and average time spent in the queue; and column
Percent of Time Worked indicates the amount of time (in %) the worker actually spent
working. The lines Total system time, Production time and Queue time indicate,
respectively, the total time the product spent in the system (production plus queue), the
production time, and the queue time required to produce one production order (a 5-unit
batch). All the values represent the average of the ten replications performed.
Table 6: Performance indicators for simulated S_I and S_II
S_I
WS

Queue (No.)
Avg

Max

WIP
Final

Queue (t)
Avg
Max

23.1

47

43

137.9

286.6

3.1

35.3

82.5

14.4

35

34

187

0.5

27.4

0.3

30.8

No. of filled orders (average)

S_II
Queue (No.)
Avg
Max

WIP
Final

Queue (t)
Avg Max

99.9

17.2

36

35

103

207

Percent
of Time
Worked
100

89.8

5.0

13

12

45.7

110.4

92.7

359.2

79.8

1.0

10.7

31.1

62.6

65.6

21.8

7.3

21

21

88.6

187.5

77.9

66.1

12.8

1.2

23.0

54.1

56.9

Use
(%)

No. of filled orders (average)

Total system time

516.7

Total system time

Production time

103.0

Production time

Queue time

395.7

Queue time

5
366.6
67.5
299.0

Table 7: Performance indicators for simulated S_III and S_IV

WS

S_III
Percent of Time Worked

S_IV
Percent of Time Worked

1
2
3
4
5

58.0
62.7
44.2
85.5
70.8
No. of filled orders (average)
Total system time
Production time
Queue time

57.4
63.7
46.2
92.0
77.7
No. of filled orders (average)
Total system time
Production time
Queue time

7.2
334.3
57.7
276.7

8
368.5
57.6
310.9

As Table 6 indicates, in S_I, idleness at workstations 4 and 5 far exceeded that at workstations
1, 2 and 3. With the cellular layout (S_II), the level of occupation of these workers was much
higher, especially at WS_4, where worker occupation was on average three-fold higher than
in S_I. On the other hand, the level of occupation at WS_3, which had two workers in S_II,
was much lower. Note that the average queue at WS_3 decreased drastically, i.e., from 14.4 to
1, as a result of the increase in the number of workers at this workstation. Another significant
change was in the average production time: 103'' in S_I compared to 67.5" in S_II. Moreover,
the production volume also increased significantly, i.e., 5 orders in S_II compared to 1 order
in S_I. Note that the average queuing time in these two scenarios was almost four-fold longer
than the average production time. Table 7 presents the results of S_III and S_IV (cellular
layout and pull production).
The production volume in S_3 and S_4 was 36 and 39.9 boats, respectively, indicating an
increase in filled orders when compared to S_I and S_II. In addition, the average production

ICIEOM CIO 2013 Valladolid, Spain

time decreased by about 10 seconds in comparison to S_II. Table 7 shows that working with
an initial buffer of 1 unit (S_IV) caused the average idleness at WS_4 and WS_5 to decrease.

Analysis

The dynamic exercise enabled the students to test the knowledge they had acquired earlier in
theoretical classes and to experience situations found in business practice. They displayed
involvement in the proposal of solutions and the identification of actions aimed at solving
bottleneck, quality and WIP-related problems. They showed surprise when the results of the
performance of each successive scenario were evaluated, for elements such as transport,
poorly designed layout, etc., which proved to significantly affect the progress of production,
had not been taken into account at the beginning of the dynamic exercise.
Another important aspect teamwork was highly valued by the students. All the students
participated and sought to contribute to the experience gained during the systems operation,
as well as their individual knowledge. A dynamic exercise not only enables students to make
use of knowledge assimilated through different disciplines but is also highly motivating.
The computer simulation and dynamic exercises favored experimentation and decisionmaking. In addition, they gave the students an opportunity to test their knowledge and express
their points of view.
The dynamic exercise allowed some of the systems performance indicators to be estimated.
On the other hand, in computer simulation many results are calculated (which would be quite
difficult to collect during the dynamic exercise). In this example, the simulation
complemented the experience the students gained through the dynamic exercise. Both of these
teaching-learning methods can contribute to augment student motivation, enabling them to
experience real situations in which they can apply previously acquired theoretical knowledge.

Final Considerations

Starting from a discussion on the teaching of OM and how to motivate students to learn OM,
the latest teaching methodologies PBL, Cooperative Learning, and Collaborative Learning,
for example can be applied to engineering education. In this context, games, dynamic
exercises and simulations have also proved to be very useful tools for developing students
knowledge.
Practical experience, real or simulated, elicits different perceptions that cannot be induced
through theory alone. In this case, which compares push and pull production, it is evident that
actions often assumed to be the most suitable the duplication of workstations, for instance
do not always produce the best results.
With regard to computational simulation, this tool strengthens dynamic exercises by enabling
experimental situations to be repeated several times with results very similar to those obtained
in practice. Moreover, it allows for faster implementation and evaluation of variations of
possible solutions, without requiring the creation of new dynamic exercises.
Student involvement in dynamic exercises and computational simulations is reflected in their
interest in assimilating fundamental concepts that enable them to search for solutions to
production problems. The creation of professionals with greater critical and participatory
skills requires involvement and an active role in the process of professional education.

References
Bardon, T.; Josserand, E. (2009) Why do we play the games? Exploring institutional and
political motivations. Education + Training, v.51, n.5/6, pp. 460-475.

10

ICIEOM CIO 2013 Valladolid, Spain

Benjamin, C.; Keenan, C. (2006) Implications of introducing problem-based learning in a
traditionally taught course. Engineering Education: Journal of the Higher Education
Academy Subject Centre, v.1, n.1, pp 1-5.
Brandon-Jones, A.; Queenan, C. (2010) Past powerpoint: engaging students in operations.
Lecture presented at POMS Conference 2010, Vancouver Canada.
Clarke, E. (2009) Learning outcomes from business simulation exercises. Education +
Training, v.51, n.5/6, pp. 448-459.
Curland, S.R.; Fawcett, S.L. (2001) Using simulation and gaming to develop financial skills
in undergraduates. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, v.13,
n.3, pp. 116-119.
Holweg, M.; Bicheno, J. (2002) Supply chain simulation a tool for education, enhancement
and endeavour. International Journal of Production Economics, n.78, pp. 163-175.
Jahangirian, M.; Eldabi, T.; Naseer, A.; Stergioulas, L. K.; Young, T. (2010) Simulation in
manufacturing and business: a review. European Journal of Operational Research, 203, pp.
113.
Lewis, M.A.; Maylor, H.R. (2007) Game playing and operations management education.
International Journal of Production Economics, n.105, pp.134-149.
Magil, J.; Roy, S. (2007) Chips for everyone: developing creativity in engineering and initial
teacher education. Engineering Education, v.2, n1pp. 40-46.
Mawdesley, M.; Long, G.; S.Al-jibouri, Scott, D. (2010) The enhancement of simulation
based learning exercises through formalised reflection, focus groups and group presentation.
Computers & Education, pp.19.
Rossiter, J.A. (2007) New games for use in lectures to improve student learning.
International Conference on Engineering Education ICEE 2007, Coimbra Portugal, pp. 16.
Shingo, S. (1989) A study of the Toyota Production System from an industrial engineering
viewpoint. Productivity Press Inc., 296p.
Siddiqui, A.; Khan, M.; Akhtar, S. (2008) Supply chain simulator: A scenario-based
educational tool to enhance student learning. Computers & Education, 51, 2008, pp. 252
261.
Slack, N.; Chambers, S.; Johnston, R. (2001) Operations Management. Pearson Education
Ltd., Essex UK, 747p.
Werth, E.P. (2009) Student perception of learning through a problem-based learning
exercise: an exploratory study. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &
Management, v.32, n.1, 2009, pp. 21-37.
Yeo, R. (2005) Problem-based learning: lessons for administrators, educators and learners.
International Journal of Educational Management, v.19, n.7, 2005, pp. 541-551.
Yeo, R. (2007) (Re)viewing problem-based learning: an exploratory study on the perceptions
of its applicability to the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, v. 22, n. 4, 2007, pp.
369-391.

11