Undergraduate SCM programs prepare future practitioners for a volatile, yet more capable and technology-intensive field, but the design and revision of curricula remain underexplored. This study examines the factors driving curriculum structures and updates, as well as whether academic programs align with practitioners’ expectations. In light of institutional theory, we explore how coercive, mimetic and normative pressures shape program design and legitimacy while balancing differentiation.
We employ a single embedded case study. A targeted content analysis of US undergraduate SCM curricula mapped common structures and informed sampling and the interview protocol. We then conducted semi-structured interviews with academic program directors and industry hiring leaders. Data were triangulated and analyzed through iterative, abductive coding using institutional theory as a sensitizing lens.
All three isomorphic pressures influence curricula, but industry's normative forces drive meaningful change. While coercive (e.g. accreditation) and mimetic (e.g. benchmarking) pressures signal legitimacy, they are often procedural. Programs oriented toward employability risk homogenization. Persistent gaps in communication and other soft skills remain despite strong coverage of analytics. Program directors can navigate tensions using experiential learning and advisory engagement as key levers.
This study employs institutional theory through an actor-centric examination of undergraduate SCM curriculum design, revealing the context-specific impacts of coercive, mimetic and normative pressures. Normative industry pressures dominate decision-making, while accreditation and rankings function primarily as baseline thresholds. The study offers insights into how programs balance legitimacy with mission-driven distinctiveness, thereby informing academic–practitioner collaboration.
