Innovation Award Finalist From Worst to First : The Anatomy of an Innovative MBA Decision Science Course

The original version of the EMBA Decision Science course was a simulation game in which teams using faculty-developed decision support systems competed to maximize stock price. The course’s goals were to develop effective decision makers and provide a survey of decision science tools. Although we made course improvements over the years, we never achieved the former goal and rarely achieved the latter goal. The course suffered from four weaknesses. First, the simulation game was too complex and used outdated technology. It was almost impossible to determine what factors influenced the game’s yardstick— stock price. Furthermore, the game was so complex that there was little time for decision science topic content. Worse still, we were using DOS-based decision support systems several years after the introduction of Windows 3.1. Second, the simulation course was in the second quarter of a six-quarter program and thus came too early in the program. A simulation game with wider scope might have made sense for the program’s capstone course. Third, because of the complexity involved, students used but did not build models—even though decision support modeling was (and is) the department’s central focus. Finally, the course omitted logic and creativity from the decision-making process. As a result, EMBA students rated the course as the least valuable after the quarter’s end and upon exit interviews at graduation. Figure 1 displays the average perceived course value by students under two instructors along a one (no value) to fivepoint scale (outstanding value). Note several important features. First, the course’s value varied from 2.8 to 3.8. A rating of 2.8 to 3.0 placed the course in the 10th to 20th percentiles in terms of perceived value for all graduate core courses in the business school curriculum. During that period the course achieved the only sub-3.0 coursevalue ratings in the EMBA program and three of five 3.0-3.5 course-value ratings. Second, the course’s value remained low even though two different and very effective teachers taught the course. In fact, the instructors’ ratings in the course were in the 4.0 to 4.3 range, so the problem was not with the instructors but with the course’s content. Harvey J. Brightman is Regents Professor of Decision Sciences at Georgia State University. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts in management science in 1970. He is the author of five textbooks and has published over 70 articles in the fields of problem solving, computer-based model building, decision support systems, and teaching for critical thinking. He has consulted with Armco Steel, ARCO, The Institute for Management Studies, IBM, Georgia Power, and the Centers for Disease Control among others. Dr. Brightman was selected as the 1984 College of Business Alumni Distinguished Professor. He has also received the CBA award for teaching and for service. Dr. Brightman was chosen the Alumni Distinguished Professor for Georgia State University in 1992. In 1994 he received the Dennis Grawoig Distinguished Service Award from the Decision Sciences Institute. In 1998 Dr. Brightman was one of three faculty in the state of Georgia that received the Regents’ Teaching Excellence Award. Dr. Brightman is a past president and a Fellow of the Decision Sciences Institute. hbrightman@gsu.edu