Gaming Simulation as a Science of Design Approach

Abstract

Klabbers (2006) has pointed out that the diversity of gaming simulation approaches and applications is partly related to the fact that researchers, designers and facilitators who are contributing to the field of gaming simulation find themselves in a dual position. Actors in gaming simulation may represent two distinct branches of science: the design sciences and the analytical sciences. In this article we discuss different forms of applications of gaming simulation. We describe a specific simulation game, SysTeamsChange, as a case example to show how a single game artifact can be used for a variety of facets within the science of design approach.

1 Types of Gaming Simulation Applications

In literature on gaming simulation we find different types of gaming simulation applications that can be grouped into the following categories (Kriz 2017):

• I. Traditional academic research is directed at extending domain-specific knowledge by using simulation games as experimental environments and behavioral labs. The analytical science perspective uses games and simulations as scenarios to empirically test, justify and develop theories in specific domains. The main focus is on creating universal and context independent knowledge (e.g. Klabbers 2009; Kriz 2009).

• II. The science of design perspective puts an emphasis on the usability of simulation games. Here, games and simulations themselves are studied with the aim of supporting and evaluating their development and use in practical contexts (e.g. Greenblat and Duke 1975). The main focus is on dealing with an interdisciplinary and practical approach to simulation game design (as science, art and craft) with local knowledge and unique problems or challenges. Design-in-the-small (Klabbers 2006) produces gaming simulations (gaming artifacts) as interventions and interactive learning environments. Used with that goal in mind, they contribute to the design-in the-large process of socio-technical systems (e.g. for change management and organizational development). In practice, simulation games refer to a large number of different approaches. These include: computer simulation, behavior-oriented role plays with or without computer-assisted simulation, hands-on board games, but also more recent approaches such as digital and non-digital educational games, game-based-learning, and web-based simulation games. Also significant are those areas currently discussed with reference to buzzwords such as serious games and meaningful play. Nowadays these terms also describe the educational use of games with 3D video technology (sometimes games that were originally created for entertainment purposes).

  • IIa. Many applications of gaming simulation fall into the category of education and training simulation games. To use simulations and games as instructional and educational methods has a long tradition (e.g. Crookall et al. 1988; Kriz and Brandstätter 2003). Here simulation games are for example used as experiential teaching and learning methods in order to foster knowledge acquisition, development of skills and competencies, understanding of complex relationships and especially facilitating simulation games to train performance of dangerous tasks in a safe learning environment. The focus of applications in this category is very often on the individual learning outcome of simulation games.

  • IIb. Gaming Simulation has another long history in applications that are used for concrete simulation and game-based policy interventions (e.g. Duke 1974; Duke and Geurts 2004). Simulation games support the testing and evaluation of alternative strategies and courses of action. Gaming Simulation in this tradition may lead to a better understanding and handling of interests from different stakeholders. The focal point in this category is less on individual learning, and instead, much more on collective learning and support of real decision-making within groups of actors and stakeholders.

  • IIc. Increasing importance can be found in the use of gaming simulation as a core method of design of complex socio-technical systems (e.g. Kriz 2003). Meijer (2015) pointed out that often a concrete need of a client exists for organizational (re)design and/or for the innovation and improvement of a system. Simulation and gaming applications in this category may be used as a specific step in the change process, for example as an intermediate test in the (re)design of organizational rules and structures, workflow processes, performance and human factors.

2 Gaming Simulation as Method for Understanding and Changing Systems

Public policy makers and leaders of organizations increasingly face difficult problems and highly complex situations and dynamics. Unfortunately, abilities and strategies of leaders to deal with complex dynamic systems have not improved to the required extent. Leaders and managers fail to handle the complexity of a modern world in crisis, and they are not dealing with limited resources in a sustainable and humane way. Many decision makers do not take into account the interconnectedness of systems processes and have difficulties integrating knowledge from various scientific disciplines. Leaders and managers need methods they can use to make complex system dynamics understandable, support problem solving and decision making, investigate the long-term and side effects of decisions, develop and explore alternative change strategies for possible better futures, and create learning organizations (Kriz and Manahl 2016).

Gaming simulation methods have the potential to fulfill these needs and to contribute to the transformation of organizations and other real-life systems. Already Duke (1974) pointed out the need for gestalt and “multilogue” communication in dealing with complex systems. Duke detailed why and how gaming simulation supports the holistic understanding of complex systems and the decision-making process for policy makers in different contexts. Modern approaches of gaming still refer to these fundamental concerns and arguments (Duke and Kriz 2014; Meijer et al. 2014; Kikkawa 2014). For example, Tsuchiya (2012) discusses principles for organizational transformation by using a combination of policy gaming, game design, and system dynamics modeling. Klabbers (2009) describes the science of design perspective (see above) that puts an emphasis on an interdisciplinary and practical approach to simulation game design as a science, art, and craft that builds on local knowledge and the unique problems or challenges of a specific social system.

In addition to system dynamics modeling, agent-based modeling and social simulation are combined with the classical approaches of gaming simulation (Deguchi 2004; Kaneda 2012). These modern forms of hybrid gaming simulation are especially promising when used as a group model-building methodology (Fischer and Barnabé 2009) to solve real-life problems together with different stakeholders.

3 Methodology of Gaming Simulation

Gaming Simulation is the simulation of the effects of decisions made by players who assume the roles and represent the interests of real-life actors, with the latitude to act these roles out being subject to specific rules (Klabbers 2009; Rizzi 2014). Therefore, despite their diversity and variety, all simulation games contain three fundamental elements (Klabbers 1999).

3.1 Simulation and Resources

A model is a description or representation of a (real) system and/or process that can help to understand how the system and/or process works. A simulation game is a model that is used to simulate an existing real system and/or process (Klabbers 2009, p. 24). With the aid of a simulation, it is possible to replicate and investigate system processes that could or would not be carried out in real life. These processes include simulations of military maneuvers, disaster situations, or pilot training in flight simulators. Simulation games thus offer an opportunity to make the best possible use especially of limited resources and to make the long-term effects of decisions tangible and transparent. Simulation games encourage holistic, interconnected thinking and systems understanding.

3.2 Roles and Actors

Beside simulation, role-playing is an integral element of simulation games. In every real-life system (e.g., an organization), the actions of different people or stakeholders with different interests, information, and perspectives are always interrelated. It is precisely this interaction that simulation games replicate. In the game, the players assume the roles of real-life actors. They have a certain freedom how they fill the role and interpret the situation. With modern concepts of hybrid simulation games, real human actors can also interact with simulated actors.

3.3 Game and Rules

A game is an activity involving one or more players who assume roles while trying to achieve a goal. Rules determine what the players are permitted to do – including their interactivity, communication, and feedback – or define constraints on allowable actions. The rules may also impact the available resources (Klabbers 2009, p. 24). As early as the 1930s, Johan Huizinga characterized humans as “Homo ludens” and saw games as a fundamental human achievement. Unlike pure play such as a soccer match or a poker game, the simulation game serves to represent reality. Therefore, the frequent bias against simulation games – that they are merely play or that gaming is related to gambling – is unfounded. Simulation games use gaming forms (e.g., role play, rule-based play) to simulate real-life systems.

Figure 1 illustrates gaming simulation’s use of games to simulate system dynamics. Game artifacts are designed as an abstract qualitative and/or quantitative model of a reference system of the real world (i.e. design-in-the-small). The play and debriefing of the game are exercises that allow participants to practice behavior and experience the effects of their decisions in order to understand and transform the simulated system and to implement transformations in the real system (design-in-the-large) in the future. Players represent actors of the reference system and interact while playing different roles, applying rules, and utilizing resources.

Fig. 1.

(based on Klabbers 2009; Duke 1974).

Building blocks of games and real systems

Figure 2 shows the perspective of gaming simulation as a process. A part of the existing situation of reality is selected as a reference system for the designed simulation game. The final aim is to change systems structures and processes. To carry out design in the large in the real world, a simulation game (including a specific game scenario) as a dynamic model of reality is created. In the design part of the process, a simulation model is created. This model defines the relationship between systems elements and gaming elements.

Fig. 2.

(based on Kriz 2003 and 2012).

Process of gaming simulation

The designed game is applied through facilitation. To play the game means to use a game artifact (form) to simulate (function) systems processes. Debriefing is conducted to enhance the learning process (see below) and to apply newly gained insights, knowledge, and skills within the design in the small aimed at changing reality, i.e. design in the large. In this part of the process, known as facilitation and debriefing, a didactic model is applied (Kriz 2010). This model defines how the game is used with a specific target group and within a specific context.

In the secondary phase of debriefing, referred to meta-debriefing, an evaluation is required to encourage players to further reflect on the linkages between design in the small and design in the large and to measure profits of changes in reality. In this part of the process (evaluation), an evaluation model is defined. This model defines how the potential effects of the game are investigated and how and why the game works in given contexts of use (Kriz and Hense 2006; Hense and Kriz 2008). By inviting stakeholders and opinion leaders to participate in the design process, their contributions as agents and actors are more naturally accepted. Participating in the design, play, and debriefing allows the players to take part in the design-in-the-small process while ultimately contributing to the next phase of the social system processes’ design-in-the-large.

4 Case Example SysTeamsChange® - A Game for Change Management and Leadership

The simulation game SysTeamsChange® (Kriz et al. 2014) is constructed on a modular basis and takes two to five days depending on the stipulated training requirements (Kriz and Hansen 2006). The three to six participants slip into the roles of a team of consultants or a “change agent team” (it is being possible to have several teams playing in parallel), and they have to make joint decisions, which refer to the development of a simulated organization. While doing so they receive not only substantiated background information about ways and means of intervening but also about typical problems (resistance, dealing with power, etc.) that can occur in an organizational development process.

Considering the state of development of the simulated actors concerned, their degree of motivation and forms of resistance, the “right” measures have to be planned and implemented, keeping budget constraints in mind. Overall the actors being simulated should be accompanied from the shock phase, over the stage of rational insight and emotional acceptance through to the integration of the change (due to an underlying seven step model of psychological change phases). The simulation game is flexible, because every action and practice module can be chosen as reinforcement as the team thinks fit, and further customized actions and modules can also be integrated into the gaming simulation model. If required, the features of the organization from which players come can also be built into the gaming simulation model and the simulation.

4.1 SysTeamsChange® - Design-in-the-Small of the Game Artifact

In general, we follow an approach described by Klabbers already in the 1970s. He argued that interactive gaming simulation is an integration of a computer simulation, human-computer simulation, and gaming. Klabbers also proposed a three-stage model of simulation game development (Klabbers et al. 1979, pp. 118–120):

• Stage 1: Development of a simulation model (with a focus on simulation and analysis of quantitative aspects of socio-technical systems);

• Stage 2: Embedding the simulation model in an interactive (computer assisted or computer simulated) simulation (with additional focus on more qualitative individual aspects of human behavior in coping with complex systems, strategy development, and decision making);

• Stage 3: Embedding the interactive simulation in a game (with additional focus on group dynamics and communication in policy formation and organizational learning).

For the design of the game artifact we include different modeling techniques, e.g. multi-relational cause-and-effect structures (feedback loop diagrams), behavior-over-time diagrams, graphical functions diagrams, policy structure diagrams (Vennix 1996; Sterman 2000). SysTeamsChange® is based on system dynamics models such as games like Ecopolicy by Vester (1994) or Fish Banks and Stratagem by Meadows (1993, 1985).

Although several researchers have proposed frameworks for the optimal design and structure of simulation games (e.g., Greenblat 1988), Duke and Geurts (2004) proposed a very structured process of design with a total of five phases (and 21 steps). This is the approach we used also for the design of SysTeamsChange®:

• 1. Setting the stage for the project

• 2. Clarifying the problem – Define both the focus and the scope

• 3. Designing the Simulation Game – Create a blueprint for the simulation game

• 4. Developing the Simulation Game – Complete the rule of ten test runs

• 5. Implementation

We start with an initial approximate clarification of the simulation game’s objectives and target groups. During this stage of problem clarification and problem formulation a small interdisciplinary project team is formed that can contribute different perspectives for the “defining of the macro problem”. System analysis and model construction are next and include the selection of appropriate content and the analysis and definition of the systems and system elements to be simulated. This serves to explore the problem environment and to integrate relevant factors and relationships into the model. Another key aspect is the graphic visualization of the system elements and their interrelationships through charts, schematics, and cause-and-effect (feedback loops) diagrams. This visualization of the problem environment is also important because it shows the limitations of the simulation model.

For the design of the game artifact we define the reference system. Here we also select relevant theories and concepts that deal with aspects of the reference system (for SysTeamsChange® e.g. theories and research studies on change management, organizational development, leadership, resistance etc.) and select adequate case studies from real life situations. Besides the relationship to real case studies and research results, SysTeamsChange® has a theoretical basis, since approximately 50 current theories about organizational development and leading change with their cross-connections are simultaneously simulated. These theories and research studies can be then possibly processed with additional modules for reinforcement and can be used in extensive debriefing processes with the participants.

SysTeamsChange® is based upon 50 theories/concepts, they include for example:

• The learning organisation (e.g. Senge 1990)

• The theory of diffusion of innovation (e.g. Rogers 1983)

• The phase models of organisational development (e.g. Kotter 1996)

• Resistance (e.g. Cummings and Worley 2005)

• The various psychological phases of dealing with change (Kübler-Ross and Kessler 2005)

• Team-Competence and Systems-Thinking (e.g. Kriz 2003; Kim 1993)

• Leadership and Change Management (e.g. Kotter 1996; Goleman 1998)

The developed system model is transferred into computer simulation models (using different simulation software programs). We facilitate a continued meta-debriefing within the design process. Since simulation is only one aspect of a simulation game, a concrete game method has to be. Following the steps proposed by Duke and Geurts (2004), a blueprint is then created. The blueprint includes identifying both the actors and the concrete roles of the players. Rules need to be determined to define the players’ scope for action and decision-making. We decide which resources the players can use during the simulation game, either concretely or symbolically, and how this will happen. Additionally, the chronological sequence (steps of play) of the simulation game needs to be considered. The accounting system must also be decided and should be used to record system changes and the course of the game. Features of scenarios include specific starting situations (states of system elements), defined momentum of system elements, defined events that are to happen independently of players’ decisions, and defined actions that can be triggered by players (e.g., by measures determined by decisions). Ultimately, all these necessary definitions feed into the development of a system components/gaming elements matrix; a systematic overview of the game structure that illustrates how the system components and interrelations are represented as gaming elements and their relations (gaming elements include rules, roles, events, and so on).

During the next step – the concrete development or building of the simulation game – a simulation game prototype is created, tested, and modified. prototype game is conducted and tested with different target groups and experts for five to ten iterations of testing and further development. Once again, many different aspects play a role, from assessing the adequacy of the model’s contents, to the graphic design, to the technical evaluation. In our didactic approach the design of simulation game prototypes uses a hybrid combination of role-play, tangible game pieces and boards, and computer simulation based on system dynamics and agent-based modeling. In the final analysis, it is about constantly optimizing the simulation game. Then, the finished simulation game is ready for use.

SysTeamsChange® can be classified as multi-modal medium, a tactile board game with a board, figures and further symbols, in combination with a computer simulation (web-based cloud solution). The core elements are:

• An initial story or a game scenario quickly leads the participants into the game events and results in motivated role adoption. Using immediate feedback texts the story is then continued on the basis of the players’ decisions. The game stays generic enough for the participants to easily project their own experience of topics that arise with change into the simulation, so that these can be experienced again and relived and actively exchanged with the team members.

• The various simulated groups of actors are presented in various colors on the edge of the board (e.g. red for the management, orange for the special policy departments, yellow for the secretaries, green for the administration and distribution, blue for production, lilac for support, grey for the customers, black for suppliers). Every simulated actor is given a name and a function and in this way the business areas are further defined and differentiated (e.g. in the production by the manager, over the foreman and worker up to the apprentice. At the same time, a worker is a member of the works council, etc.).

• On the edge of the board there are also squares on which the simulated actors can move. For this purpose, there are figures in the appropriate colors in order to symbolize each individual simulated actor. Circular segments on the board illustrate a total of seven psychological phases of internal change progress of the simulated participants that is directly shown on the board. It is an aim of the game that the simulated actors move from the edge (shock phase) towards the middle and then into the center circle (integration). The physical appearance of the actors is also illustrated as comic figures in an information sheet.

• As well as the psychological progress and the overcoming of resistance, the progress of the organization in reshaping itself is also shown. Whenever particular milestones of a change process are attained, the players receive a ring that is stuck on a post. Depending on the organizational development that underlies the gaming simulation, up to 7 rings can be gained.

• Tokens symbolize the limited resources of the simulated organization. Only a limited number of resources – time, money, etc. – may be spent per round and every action costs resource points).

• Depending on the version, the 40 to 50 actions and means of possible intervention (and their description, costs, etc.) for the change process are printed on big cards. For those taking part there are pin boards on which to pin the cards and then cluster them in a meaningful way that reflects their categories and in order to be able to plan interventions in the course of time.

• All the team players’ decisions are documented on paper decision sheets. For those conducting the gaming simulation a computer program is available to evaluate the game in which the current actions and the actors selected for this purpose are entered and that calculates and automatically produces and prints out the appropriate feedback. These are not deterministically but dynamically generated and are based on changeable probabilities and agent-based-simulation. The players can take this feedback to their boards and evaluate them as a group, and in the case of successful interventions they can move the simulated actors towards the center of the board.

• The participants do not react with the computer program directly, so that they communicate more intensely with each other. They sit round the edge of the board and in this way, they have eye to eye contact when speaking. The board and the other elements are the focus of attention. The tactile elements lead in both senses of the word to a better “grasp” of the connections. The immediate feedback, the progress made by the simulated actors on the board and the visible increase in the number of rings on the posts supply cognitive orientation and have at the same time a motivating function.

The simulation game is available in three variations: “Business” for change processes in enterprises, “School” for use in school reform and “Health” for organizational development in hospitals. In addition to a standard version with low or medium complexity it is possible to add another dimension of specific leadership modules. Here more different actions can be selected (up to 100), the number of simulated actors and networks can be increased, and it is more difficult to move actors due to a more detailed simulation of different levels of resistance. The main extension is that for every action several different proposals are given for selection on how to carry out a certain action. These proposals are corresponding with different leadership styles and models (e.g. Goleman 1998). In the debriefing different approaches can be compared in relation to theories of change and leadership (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.

SysTeamsChange® with some of its elements in action (student group of the FHV university).

4.2 SysTeamsChange® - Design-in-the-Large with the Game Artifact

Referring to the classification scheme of gaming simulation application types (see above) SysTeamsChange® falls mainly into the category II (science of design perspective). However, the simulation game can also contribute to the analysis of science perspective (category I). We have started an evaluation study based on an evaluation approach earlier described by Kriz and Hense (2006) and recently used in Kriz and Auchter (2016). On the one hand, this approach falls in the IIa category, because it deals with optimization of instructional elements of gameplay for educational purposes and results have practical implications for the design of educational games. On the other hand, we research specific elements of theories from motivational psychology and educational psychology. The results of quantitative experimental studies can lead to implications for theory building within the field of instructional psychology. Clearly, such an application type of SysTeamsChange® bridges the gap to the use of gaming for the purpose of the analytical sciences (category I). A game like SysTeamsChange® can be also taken as a case example for the application of decision-making simulation games in teaching management skills in order the enhance simulation game theory (e.g. as done by Wardaszko 2013).

One of the main target groups of SysTeamsChange® are students and using the game within university curricula. The gaming simulation is used by universities and technical universities in many ways. Depending on the target group the focus varies. Whereas, for example, in the Bachelor course of the Technical University of Vorarlberg specific theoretical aspects and their interaction plays a major role, in the Executive HR Master of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich the simulation is employed with a greater degree of complexity. This specifically reflects the roles of the HR managers and top managers taking part and is due to the specific problems encountered during the many years of their professional experience. All different forms of application in the university context obviously fall into the category IIa (design science approach for education and training).

Another prime example for the use of SysTeamsChange® in the category IIa are tailor-made manager and leadership training programs within companies and organizations. Here the simulation game is facilitated mainly in internal workshops with managers at the same level in the hierarchy. A classical approach is to run through all the higher managers up to a pre-established level of the hierarchy – e.g. first and second management level in a large Austrian insurance company as a general internal further education program. The simulation game is also suitable for the training and further education of consultants or trainers, coaches or change agents who accompany organizational advisory processes in order to support organizational change professionally.

Besides top managers, the gaming simulation is used for personnel and change managers from companies, such as a worldwide Dax industrial company and one of the largest international reinsurers. With this approach the focus of the reflection in the debriefing is from the perspective of the actual role in the company and one’s own pattern of behavior. Personal transfer reflections are carried out with those taking part that serve to check and improve their approach in setting up change processes. The systematic formation of change processes and the knowledge of change tools and methodologies, the perception of and the dealing with the resistance and motivation of those participating and the analysis of the systematic connections of a learning organization are here the possible components of the reflection, which can possibly be continued by coaching.

SysTeamsChange® can also be used in the intersection of application type IIa with categories IIb and IIc. Clients that use the simulation game find it interesting as an intervention method. Here the simulation game is facilitated for planning or implementing change. Often the game is successfully used if it is the goal to prepare and support managers and steering committee teams in real organizational (re)design processes.

In a Swiss school in the canton of Zurich as well as in a large German insurance company the gaming simulation was carried out with managers and change organization teams. As a result, the steering committee members for the school development were better prepared for their role as change agents, and in the insurance company managers are now further qualified for leading the change (category IIa).

Furthermore, after facilitating SysTeamsChange® a thorough debriefing and tailor-made reflection modules were made on impending changes in the organization and conclusions drawn and decisions made about specific steps conducive to change. In the school this then led to the accompaniment of the planning and the implementation of the school development process. In this way SysTeamsChange® has an impact for creating a shared understanding, real policy and decision making in organizational development projects (category IIb). For this type of post-simulation utilization, the emphasis is on the analysis of own processes and instruments and the diversion of fresh aims and strategies for the organization in question. By means of the gaming simulation there is a new awareness of the room for manoeuvre available and there arises a sort of “road map”, a common understanding and a common language based on the experience with the simulation. Mental models and perspectives are exchanged and brought into a common shared vision with specific change ideas for the own organization. In this way SysTeamsChange® supports collective learning and real decision-making within groups of participating actors and stakeholders.

In such change situations effective management procedures and communication policies are necessary to minimize negative effects and resistance. Through the application of the game effective strategies and change project workflows can be tested and change management systems can be improved (categories IIb and partly IIc). In the case of the insurance company the complete internal standard process for accompanying change processes was analyzed, redefined and realigned. In this way SysTeamsChange® was partly used as method of design-in-the-large and supported organizational innovation and improvement (category IIc).