From Classroom to Consulting

Supply chain degrees aim to prepare students for working in the industry through theoretical concepts, supplemented by structured case studies and simulated projects. While these approaches build strong analytical foundations, they often simplify real-world challenges, which are far more  complex than any textbook exercise. During my internship at Miebach, I was able to apply what I had learned at university to real projects while taking practical experience back to the classroom. 

Studying supply chain and analytics in the United States introduced me to a market that is relatively standardised, data-rich, and focused on scale. In contrast, completing my internship in the United Kingdom with Miebach and working across European projects introduced me to the much more dynamic and unpredictable environment of the professional world. This contrast showed me how academic preparation translates into practice and how geography shapes fundamental supply chain decisions. The projects explored in a classroom are typically built around clear objectives and structured inputs, with the goal of analysing data and producing an optimal solution. In consulting, problems are rarely this clearly defined. At Miebach, project scopes often evolved as new information emerged, and data frequently required validation before meaningful analysis could begin. The challenge shifted from solving problems to identifying them.

I experienced that first-hand during a centre of gravity analysis for a European-based company. The initial dataset provided by the client had multiple gaps and inconsistencies. In cases where customers had multiple locations, latitude and longitude data were incorrectly aggregated, distorting results. Resolving these issues required additional time and reinforced that even core modelling inputs cannot be assumed to be reliable. Working across Europe introduced an additional layer of complexity. In a classroom setting in the US, the work often assumed a unified market with consistent infrastructure and regulations. In professional settings in the actual market, projects require navigating multiple countries, each with distinct transport networks, labour conditions and regulatory environments. As a result, solutions are  far less standardised and requires greater flexibility.

Trade-offs in supply chain decisions also become more complex in practice. For example, in warehouse location planning, regions with lower labour costs may appear attractive from a cost perspective but can also face significant labour availability constraints. 

What I found more challenging than expected was ensuring outputs were both accurate and practical. University work often rewards precision, while consulting requires solutions that can be implemented effectively within real-world constraints.

Teamwork in consulting differs significantly from university group work. Academic projects often involve dividing tasks, whereas consulting requires continuous collaboration. Working across Miebach’s strategy, engineering and digital teams required continuous coordination, while recognising that each function contributes different expertise throughout a project. Effective teamwork outside the classroom depends on maintaining alignment and clear communication, even when responsibilities are not fully shared. Exposure to international project teams further reinforced the importance of clear communication across regions. Communication was just as important externally with clients as it was internally. Regular project calls, often several each week, focused on both major decisions and smaller operational details to maintain alignment across all stakeholders. Even minor clarifications helped prevent larger issues later in the project. Client interaction highlighted another gap between theory and practice. In academic settings, clients are assumed to have clear objectives and complete operational knowledge. In reality, this is not often the case. Projects involving material flow analysis and concept design showed that direct observation often revealed insights not immediately visible from the data. Physical layouts, operational constraints and site-specific factors all influenced outcomes in ways that required interpretation beyond datasets alone.

The transition from a US based academic environment to working on European consulting projects showed me that while the academic knowledge I gained at university laid a solid foundation, the gap between theory and practice is shaped by the complexities of real world implementation. While university provides essential analytical tools, consulting requires adaptability, collaboration and an awareness of regional differences. Having experienced both environments, I now see academic theory from a different perspective. My internship has shown me how analytical knowledge can be adapted to solve real world supply chain challenges and has given me a much clearer understanding of what a career in consulting truly involves.