Background. Our world today is made up of complex, socio-technical systems like large infrastructure systems, global logistic chains and information networks. Simulation games represent one way to enable participation and governance of such systems.
Aim. The current study explores the development of mental models and shared experiences of professionals and students through a simulation game.
Method. The simulation game SIMPORT-MV2 focused on the development of a new port area in the Port of Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Insights in the perceived development of mental models were measured through questionnaires and through observations in the debriefing. Likewise, observations in the debriefing were obtained for measurements of shared experiences.
Results. Results showed that participants perceived positive learning on their declarative, procedural and strategic knowledge (mental model) about the port project. A significant difference was found for both the overall perceived knowledge and the strategic knowledge between students and professionals. Furthermore, qualitative findings showed that players are enabled to probe designs of, to gain insights into, and to develop an understanding of complex systems in a safe environment through shared experiences.
Conclusions. This study shows that it is possible to design a simulation game that represents such a complex socio-technical system based on a layered approach of agent, network and system behavior.
BarreteauO. (2003). The joint use of role-playing games and models regarding negotiation processes: Characterization of associations. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 6(2), 1-20.
2.
BekebredeG. (2010). Experiencing complexity: A gaming approach for understanding infrastructure systems (NGI Infra PhD thesis series on infrastructures. PhD thesis TU-Delft). Enschede, The Netherlands: Gildeprint Drukkerijen.
3.
BekebredeG. (2012). Serious gaming for understanding complex systems. In SchwägeleS.ZürnB.TrautweinF. (Eds.), Planspiele – trends in der Forschung Rückblick auf den Deutschen Planspielpreis 2011 (pp. 111-131). Norderstedt, Germany: Books on Demand GmbH.
4.
BloomB. S.EngelhartM. D.FurstE. J.HillW. H.KratwhohlD. R. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay.
5.
Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE.ConverseS. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In CastellanN. J. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp. 221-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
CapraF. (1997). The web of life: A new synthesis of mind and matter. London, England: Flamingo.
7.
CrutchfieldJ. P. (1994). Is anything ever new? Considering emergence. In CowanG.PinesD.MelznerD. (Eds.), Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity XIX. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 479-497.
8.
De BruijnJ. A.HerderP. M. (2009). System and actor perspectives on sociotechnical systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, & Cybernetics: Part A Systems and Humans, 39, 981-992.
9.
DongA.KleinsmannM. S.DekenF. (2013). Investigating design cognition on the construction and enactment of team mental models. Design Studies, 34(1), 1-33.
10.
DukeR. D. (1974). Gaming: The future’s language. New York, NY: SAGE.
11.
DukeR. D. (1980). A paradigm for game design. Simulation & Gaming, 11, 364-377.
12.
DukeR. D.GeurtsJ. L. A. (2004). Policy games for strategic management: Pathways into the unknown. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Dutch University Press.
13.
EndsleyM. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37, 32-64.
14.
FariaA. J. (2001). The changing nature of business simulation/gaming research: A brief history. Simulation & Gaming, 32, 97-110.
15.
GarrisR.AhlersR.DriskellJ. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33, 441-467.
16.
GentnerD. (2001). Spatial metaphors in temporal reasoning. In GattisM. (Ed.), Spatial schemas in abstract thought (pp. 203-222). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
HarteveldC. (2012). Making sense of virtual risks: A quasi-experimental investigation into game-based training. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
18.
HollandJ. H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
19.
JenningsN. R. (2000). On agent-based software engineering. Artificial Intelligence, 117, 277-296.
20.
KimD. H. (1998). The link between individual and organizational learning. In KleinD. A. (Ed.), The strategic management of intellectual capital (pp. 41-62). Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
21.
KlabbersJ. H. G. (2006). The magic circle: Principles of gaming & simulation (Vol. 1). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
22.
KlimoskiR.MohammedS. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor?Journal of Management, 20, 403-437.
23.
KrizW. C. (2003). Creating effective learning environments and learning organizations through gaming simulation design. Simulation & Gaming, 34, 495-510.
24.
KrizW. C.ManahlW. (in press). Understanding and changing systems through hybrid simulation game design methods in educational contexts. In KanedaT.KanegaeH.ToyodaY.RizziP. (Eds.), Hybrid simulation and gaming in the network society (pp. 1-16). Tokyo, Japan: Springer.
25.
LeeD. B. (1973). Requiem for large-scale models. Journal of American Planning Association, 39, 163-178.
26.
LeeD. B. (1994). Retrospective on large scale urban models. Journal of American Planning Association, 60, 35-40.
27.
LoJ. C.MeijerS. A. (2013). Measuring group situation awareness in a multi-actor gaming simulation: A pilot study of railway and passenger traffic operators. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 57th Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA. 30 September - 4 October.
28.
LuhmannN. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
29.
MarksM. A.SabellaM. J.BurkeC. S.ZaccaroS. J. (2002). The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 3-13.
30.
MatthieuJ. E.HeffnerT. S.GoodwinG. F.SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273-283.
31.
MaturanaH. R.VarelaF. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
32.
MayerI. S. (2009). The gaming of policy and the politics of gaming: A review. Simulation & Gaming, 40, 825-862.
33.
MeijerS. A. (2009). The organization of transactions: Studying supply networks using gaming simulation. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Academic Publishers.
34.
MeijerS. A. (2015). The Power of Sponges: Comparing High-Tech and Low-Tech Gaming for Innovation. Simulation & Gaming, this issue, 512-535.
35.
Mitleton-KellyE. (2003). Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on organisations: The application of complexity theory to organisations. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
36.
MohammedS.FerzandiL.HamiltonK. (2010). Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model construct. Journal of Management, 36(4), 876-910.
37.
PetersV.VisserG.HeijneG. (1998). The validity of games. Simulation & Gaming, 29, 20-30.
RidolfiG.MooijE.CorpinoS. (2012). Complex-systems design methodology for systems-engineering collaborative environment. In CoganB. (Ed.), Systems engineering—Practice and theory. New York, NY: INTECH. Retrieved from http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/32616.pdf
40.
RieberL. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(2), 43-58.
41.
RouseW. B.Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE. (1992). The role of mental models in team performance in complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 22, 1296-1308.
42.
RouseW. B.MorrisN. M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 349-363.
43.
SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ. A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 471-499.
44.
SalasE.StoutR.Cannon-BowersJ. (1994). The role of shared mental models in developing shared situational awareness. In GilsonR. D.GarlandD. J.KoonceJ. M. (Eds.), Situational awareness in complex systems (pp. 297-304). Daytona Beach, FL: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Press.
45.
SchwenkC. R. (1988). The cognitive perspective on strategic decision making. Journal of Management Studies, 25, 41-55.
46.
SengeP. M. (1992). Mental models. Planning Review, 20(2), 4-44.
47.
SIMPORT-MV2. BekebredeG.MayerI. S.WarmerdamJ.KnepfléM. (2007). Delft: TUDelft (PO box 5015, 2600 GA, Delft, the Netherlands).
48.
ThriftN. (1999). The place of complexity. Theory, Culture & Society, 16(1), 31-69.
49.
Van den HoogenJ.MeijerS. (2015). Gaming and Simulation for Railway Innovation: A Case Study of the Dutch Railway System. Simulation & Gaming, this issue, 489-511.
50.
Van der LeiT. E.BekebredeG.NikolicI. (2010). Critical infrastructures: A review from a complex adaptive systems perspective. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures, 6, 380-401.
51.
Von BertalanffyL. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York, NY: George Braziller.
52.
Von BertalanffyL. (1975). Perspectives on general systems theory: Scientific-philosophical studies. New York, NY: George Braziller.
53.
WalbyS. (2007). Complexity theory, systems theory, and multiple intersecting social inequalities. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 37, 449-470.
54.
WaldropM. M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. London, England: Viking.
55.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
56.
ZhouQ. (2014). The princess in the castle: Challenging serious game play for integrated policy analysis and planning (NGI Infra PhD thesis series on infrastructures. PhD thesis TU-Delft). Enschede, The Netherlands: Gildeprint Drukkerijen.
