Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

The convergence of information technology (IT) and operational technology (OT) in physical assets offers significant benefits but also presents challenges, particularly in aligning the lifecycles of IT and physical assets. A review of 24 serious games related to asset management and rail revealed a research gap in synchronising the separate IT and OT lifecycles, highlighting the need for a serious game specifically addressing this issue. Consequently, a serious game has been developed to educate professionals on lifecycle alignment within IT/OT convergence.

Aim

This study aims to iteratively design and evaluate an artefact, the IT/OT Railway Game, to address IT/OT convergence challenges, with an emphasis on understanding the potential of IT/OT lifecycle alignment, assessing strategies, and applying them in a simulated railway context.

Method

The game was developed using the Design Science Research Methodology (DSRM) and evaluated using the Framework for Evaluation in Design Science (FEDS). Four design iterations and three evaluation cycles were conducted, with 118 participants across 14 sessions. The evaluation focused on playability, game mechanics, and achievement of intended learning outcomes.

Results

The study designed and evaluated a serious game to educate practitioners on IT/OT lifecycle alignment. A three-step evaluation assesses playability, game mechanics, and learning outcomes to measure learning effectiveness. Findings show a measurable improvement in participants’ knowledge and ability to apply IT/OT lifecycle alignment strategies in practice. Furthermore, the study suggests that participatory design can be used not only in serious game development but also as a learning strategy.

Conclusion

The IT/OT Railway Game demonstrates the potential of serious games as practical tools for addressing sociotechnical challenges, such as IT/OT lifecycle alignment. While developed for the railway industry, its principles are transferable to other sectors. Future research should explore its adaptability and effectiveness in broader industrial and academic contexts.

Keywords

lifecycle alignment IT/OT convergence design science research information technology case studies simulation/gaming railway serious game design

Introduction

Industrial control systems, such as programmable logic controllers (PLCs) and relays, historically operated physical assets in isolation. Today, these systems are increasingly connected via information technology (IT) systems, offering benefits such as cost savings, improved reliability, enhanced adaptability, and reduced (Ehie & Chilton, 2020; Govan Kuusk et al., 2013; Hehenberger et al., 2016). However, these benefits come with challenges, including software-related failures that can disrupt operations. In this study, IT refers to hardware and software for managing, while operational technology (OT) encompasses hardware and software ensuring asset functionality (Gartner, 2021a; 2021b). Their growing interconnection, known as IT/OT convergence, is reshaping industrial sectors worldwide and introduces lifecycle alignment challenges that this research seeks to address (Garimella, 2018; Kuppusamy & Mariappan, 2021).

IT/OT convergence introduces not only technical challenges but also sociotechnical ones, as lifecycle misalignment spans technology, organisational structures, and decision-making processes. These interdependencies require solutions that address both technical complexity and human collaboration.

Identify Problem & Motivate

While IT/OT convergence promises efficiency and adaptability, its success depends on aligning the distinct lifecycles of IT systems, OT systems, and physical assets. These lifecycles differ markedly in duration, evolution speed, and management practices. Figure 1 illustrates these differences: IT components typically follow short upgrade cycles driven by rapid technological innovation, whereas physical assets often operate over decades under stable conditions. OT systems, positioned between these domains, introduce additional complexity.

Figure 1.

Typical differences between the lifecycles of IT and the physical asset that IT is part of. Based on experiences with train systems in the Netherlands, adapted from Van Dongen (2015).

These differences are aggravated by organisational silos, where IT and OT responsibilities fall under separate domains with differing priorities and governance structures. The result is a persistent misalignment that complicates decision-making, leads to sub-optimal asset management strategies, and increases the risk of operational disruptions. Digitalisation initiatives, which increasingly depend on IT/OT convergence to expand capacity, enhance reliability, and improve energy efficiency (European Commission, 2011; Scordamaglia, 2019), further amplify these challenges. Addressing them requires more than replacing physical devices with digital counterparts; it demands integrated lifecycle management approaches (Kuppusamy & Mariappan, 2021; Schäfer et al., 2024).

These issues are not merely theoretical. In the Dutch railway sector, software-related failures within converged IT/OT environments have caused rolling stock breakdowns, delays, and stranded passengers (Bremmer, 2024; Nu, 2019; Peters, 2024). Such incidents underscore the importance of developing improved lifecycle management methods across IT, OT, and physical assets to ensure reliability and safety in critical infrastructure.

Asset Management in Converged Environments

Managing these interdependent lifecycles is not only a technical, but also an organisational challenge, particularly for asset management functions traditionally focused on physical assets. Asset management has historically overseen and maintained equipment, buildings, and infrastructure across their lifecycles. However, IT/OT convergence complicates this task because assets, OT, and IT components now have increasingly interdependent lifecycles. Furthermore, IT and asset management departments often pursue different goals and priorities. Comparable challenges appear in business-IT relationships. Strategic alignment can move IT from a support role to a source of competitive advantage (Henderson & Venkatraman, 1990). Achieving this alignment requires executives to share goals and commit to common strategies (Reich & Benbasat, 2000). In converged environments, misalignment between physical assets, OT, and IT lifecycles leads to sub-optimisation and decision-making difficulties (Pieriegud, 2018). Successful management of IT/OT-converged assets, therefore, requires balancing financial, technical, and organisational considerations (Hehenberger et al., 2016; Kraeling & Fletcher, 2017; Murray et al., 2017; Singh, 2021) and aligning lifecycles across departments (Kok, Martinetti, et al., 2024). This alignment is critical to ensure reliability, cost-effectiveness, and resilience in increasingly digitalised industrial environments.

Literature Review

To explore practice-oriented solutions for these alignment challenges, we briefly reviewed serious games in asset management and railway contexts. The scan identified 11 games primarily focused on asset management and 13 on railway operations. Asset management games typically target skills such as balancing cost, risk, and performance (Asset Management Academy, n d; Hermans, 2022; Kuipers, 2016; Pouwer, n d; ROBAMCI, n d; Van Breda et al., 2023), strengthening collaboration and communication (KWR, 2023; Ogink, 2025; Van den Boomen et al., 2012), simulating real-world dilemmas (den Heijer et al., 2023), and advancing data-driven asset management (Ogink, 2025). They also emphasise selecting a few strategic actions, sequencing them appropriately over time, and assessing risks that may affect their success (Hodkiewicz, 2015).

Similarly, railway-focused games cover infrastructure maintenance (Alderliesten et al., 2019; Rajaonah et al., 2018), capacity management (Kortmann & Sehic, 2010; Lebesque et al., 2020; Meijer, 2015; Meijer et al., 2012), resilience against threats (Soroudi et al., 2022), service logistics (Parada Puig, 2015), and disruption handling (Clegg et al., 2023). Some use VR to enhance operational safety and situational awareness (Rail XR Solutions, n d; Robinson, 2024), while others address recruitment and talent assessment through problem-solving and planning scenarios (Alhadeff, 2017) or support infrastructure planning and station development (Mayer et al., 2010). Across these domains, serious games serve as interactive tools to build knowledge, awareness, and teamwork, with developers ranging from academic institutions to industry organisations. However, none of these games explicitly address IT’s role within asset management or emphasise awareness of lifecycle alignment between IT and OT, highlighting a research gap this study seeks to fill.

Given this gap, it is essential to consider why serious games are an appropriate approach for addressing lifecycle alignment challenges in IT/OT-converged environments. Serious games encourage learning by simplifying complex content, clarifying goals and their significance, and providing timely feedback (Krath et al., 2021). Evidence from educational contexts shows that serious games can improve comprehension, manage system complexity, and offer interactive learning experiences (Bayeck, 2020; Meijer et al., 2012), enhance social interaction (Garcia et al., 2020), and support exploration of multi-actor problems with competing goals (Hoysala et al., 2013). Moreover, serious games frequently outperform traditional instruction in knowledge retention (Riopel et al., 2019), with board games yielding significantly higher knowledge attainment than non-game conditions (Gauthier et al., 2019). Finally, gamification is generally regarded positively by participants (Henry et al., 2024).

Research Question and Hypothesis

Existing serious games in asset management and railway contexts do not address IT/OT lifecycle alignment, leaving a gap in tools that foster cross-domain understanding and decision-making. To address this gap, we developed the IT/OT Railway Game, a serious game designed to improve decision-making around IT/OT alignment within asset management in a digitised railway context.

The game aims to build connection and mutual awareness between IT and asset management domains, helping players recognise where IT and OT are separate, where coordination is necessary, and how differing lifecycle dynamics (e.g., slower-changing OT versus faster-changing IT) influence decision-making. Throughout this study, we use the terms “IT and OT alignment” and “alignment of IT with the physical asset lifecycle” interchangeably, as IT systems typically interface with physical assets through OT.

The following research question guides this study:

What effect does the IT/OT Railway Game have on participants’ knowledge of aligning IT and OT systems’ lifecycles?

Based on prior evidence that serious games enhance learning and collaboration, we hypothesise:

Playing the IT/OT Railway Game will increase participants’ knowledge of IT/OT lifecycle alignment, positively affecting their ability to apply it.

Methodology

The methodology adopted in this study is illustrated in Figure 2. This method uses the Design Science Research Methodology (DSRM) (Peffers et al., 2007) to guide the process, with the Framework for Evaluating Design Science (FEDS) (Venable et al., 2016) to evaluate the game concepts. In this study, continuous evaluation is employed according to FEDS, which involves evaluation after each iteration. Because of this continuous evaluation, no further assessment or evaluation is performed after step 4 of DSRM, as expected when DSRM is performed without FEDS.

Figure 2.

Research methodology, adapted from Peffers et al. (2007) and Venable et al. (2016).

Design Objectives

The primary objective of a serious game is to present situations, exercises, and challenges that enhance each individual’s learning capacity (Pashler et al., 2008). Therefore, the goal of this study is:

To create a learning environment to learn about the lifecycle alignment of IT/OT convergence assets. They learn about the topic by doing, rather than merely reading or hearing about it.

To achieve this goal, the following intended learning outcomes (ILOs) have been identified. These ILOs are based on semi-structured interviews with practitioners. The ILOs are mapped on three different levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Armstrong, n d; Bloom, 1956). ILO1 is on the second level of the taxonomy, indicating an understanding of the material. ILO2 is at the fifth level of the taxonomy and involves assessing ideas and materials. ILO3 is on the third level of the taxonomy and focuses on applying information in new situations. After playing the game, the participant can:

• ILO1 – L2 Understand - After playing the IT/OT Railway game, the player will understand the concept of IT/OT lifecycle alignment within the lifecycle of physical assets.

• ILO2 – L5 Evaluate - After playing the IT/OT Railway game, the player can evaluate IT/OT lifecycle alignment strategies during decision-making in the lifecycle of physical assets.

• ILO3 - L3 Apply - After playing the IT/OT Railway game, the player can practically apply IT/OT lifecycle alignment in everyday business situations.

Design, Demonstration and Evaluation

As mentioned, the design, development and evaluation of the artefact created in this study were iteratively conducted using the DSMR process and evaluated using FEDS.

The following three steps were followed during the game design process.

1. Prototype design by the researchers

2. Demonstration session(s) with future players

3. Evaluation of the results

The result is a game design concept or game iteration. Since we underwent multiple development cycles, several concept versions of the game were created, ultimately leading to the final game design. During these sessions, the researchers made observations, see (Kok et al., 2026).

In each game iteration, we will reflect on the following aspects:

1. Did we achieve the learning goals and relevant design objectives, and how can we further improve?

2. What did this iteration contribute to the final design?

When using DSRM, the artefact and design decisions should be evaluated (Sonnenberg & Vom Brocke, 2012). Therefore, we have selected FEDS of Venable et al. (2016) for the design evaluation of this study, as FEDS is specifically designed for this purpose. In this study, a combination of formative and summative evaluation was used, with the former focusing on improving the design of an artefact, e.g., assessing the game’s playability. The summative evaluation assesses the effectiveness of the artefact, e.g., how well it conveys the intended learning outcomes (ILOs).

The initial evaluations aimed to assess the game’s playability and mechanics through a technical evaluation, as the game must function properly before its learning objectives can be evaluated. Then the focus shifted to evaluating learning objectives. A more naturalistic evaluation is desired when the focus is on assessing the learning objectives. FEDS suggests four different evaluation strategies. Based on the outcomes of this section, a human risk and effectiveness evaluation strategy appears to be the most suitable for this study.

Concept Game Design

During the development of the IT/OT railway game, four game design concepts and three evaluation iterations were done. Initial iterations focused on balancing IT visibility and realistic revenue generation. Subsequent iterations refined the mechanics and validated the learning goals through technical and naturalistic evaluations. The focus of this paper is on the significant iterations. There have also been minor changes between each iteration; for example, removing a typo on a card. These minor changes are not explained in this paper. An overview of the different game iterations and the corresponding validation tools is shown in Figure 3. In the sections below, these different iterations are elaborated upon.

Figure 3.

Overview of the different game iterations and evaluations.

Game Design [Concept 1]: Initial Design

A first iteration of the artefact was created to demonstrate its value, building upon an existing game (Parada Puig, 2015). Four practitioners from a railway company were interviewed through semi-structured interviews for the initial prototype design. Based on the results of these interviews and the researchers’ experience, a basic prototype of the game was created (Kok et al., 2024Kok, Moerman, et al., 2024).

This basic prototype was the first design concept of the game, demonstrating the value of IT. In this game concept, players can play one of four different roles. These roles are operations manager, asset manager, maintenance manager, and financial manager (Martinetti et al., 2017; Parada Puig, 2015). The goal of this iteration was to demonstrate the learning goal that IT requires management, as it also needs maintenance, and that it can generate additional revenue. In this iteration, two essential additions were tested: the IT maintenance facility card and a separate IT card that showed the specific costs, revenues, and maintenance requirements of IT.

Evaluation [Concept 1]: Evaluation of Playability

Evaluation concept 1 was the initial evaluation that consisted of observations during gameplay, an individual post-game questionnaire for each player, and a plenary evaluation. The focus of this evaluation was on the playability of the game and increasing awareness that IT needs to be managed. Playability centres on the user experience and how enjoyable and intuitive the game is (Olsen et al., 2011).

The result of this iteration showed that the game provided a pleasant experience to play. However, to better balance the game, the following four aspects were identified as areas for improvement. First, unplanned maintenance occurrences should be simplified as they currently require a too complex dice roll. Second, there should be less focus on logistical aspects, as the game is about increasing awareness that IT needs to be managed, rather than focusing on logistics. Third, installing IT should not increase the capacity to transport passengers, as is currently the case. Last, IT is now very visible; it should be more hidden to better reflect reality. In the subsequent evaluation iteration, the focus should be on evaluating the game mechanics.

Game Design [Concept 2]: Balancing Gameplay

The game’s first iteration was a pleasant experience, but it did not function as intended. Therefore, the focus of this second iteration is on balancing the various game mechanics more effectively.

The second iteration, therefore, has three goals. First, to address unbalanced gameplay, as unplanned maintenance was overly complex, and there was too much focus on logistics. Second, to ensure that income could only be earned by transporting passengers, rather than through IT. Last, IT elements should be less visible in the game to reflect reality.

In this second iteration, the following six additions contributed to the final design: first, a new game board was introduced to facilitate gameplay, along with combined train and IT cards that are used to conceal IT on the backside of the cards. Second, a new flow card is introduced to facilitate gameplay. Third, the IT asset manager was added as a new role for the players, together with an accompanying asset management board to visualise the IT lifecycle. Fourth, a first version of chance cards to facilitate unplanned maintenance is introduced. Fifth, a first version of a revenue sheet is introduced to simplify the calculation of expenses and revenues. Last, from this iteration onwards, only trains can generate revenue.

Evaluation [Concept 2]: Evaluation of Game Mechanics

In this second evaluation iteration, we sought feedback on how to enhance the robustness of the game mechanics and determine if these mechanics effectively support the intended gameplay.

The outcome of this second evaluation was that players felt the game materials were low-quality, mainly because they were made from basic printing paper. The players made several suggestions on how to improve the game materials. Additionally, they noted that the game board design was unclear, as it was misaligned with the asset management boards. Furthermore, the names of the stations used in the game were confusing with the train names, as both ended with the same letters, such as A, B, and so on. Lastly, the stations were scattered around the game board, while the stations were presented from top to bottom within the asset management boards. This misalignment made it confusing to follow the distinct steps within the game for each train and to calculate the revenues in the final step.

A new questionnaire should be developed to evaluate intended learning outcomes in the next evaluation iteration.

Game Design [Concept 3]: Functional Prototyping

In the second iteration, the players questioned the quality of the game mechanics and recommended better alignment of the game board with the AM boards. Therefore, in this third iteration, we aimed to enhance the visual appeal and user experience of the game mechanics. Additionally, considerable effort was invested in aligning the game board with the asset management boards to improve gameplay.

The following additions were made during this third iteration to improve the gameplay of the final design. The game board and game flow card were updated to better align with the AM board. Furthermore, the game materials were improved to better support the gameplay. For example, the train/IT cards are bigger and plasticised for better readability.

Evaluation [Concept 3]: Evaluation of ILOS

This third evaluation concept focused on assessing the learning objectives to gain insight into how effectively the game helps participants achieve them. The knowledge of the participants is evaluated by self-assessment with an online questionnaire. Every participant was asked to complete the same pre- and post-game questionnaire. The pre- and post-game questions are also equal, and they use a five-point Likert scale. Using this before-and-after comparison, we could evaluate the game’s impact on the learner’s assumed knowledge development.

The questionnaire explains the three intended learning outcomes (ILOs) of the game and asks questions on:

1. The current knowledge of the different ILOs.

2. The backgrounds of the players.

The questions were tested during a game session with 11 industry professionals. After this test, another 11 groups, and a total of 63 people, played the game. A total of 62 participants have completed the pre-questionnaire. However, 2 participants had a data correction, and 7 participants were manually removed from the dataset:

• Two respondents had errors in their unique numbers. These numbers were corrected based on their work experience (40310 pre-number incorrect & 80109 pre/post number incorrect)

• One respondent did not agree with their data being used and thus was removed.

• Six respondents only filled in the pre-questionnaire and were excluded from the dataset. During the session on 20-11-2024, two people left during gameplay; therefore, the post-questionnaire was not completed.

After data cleaning, 55 participants completed both pre- and post-questionnaires. Analysis of the results, as shown in Table 1, shows that the mean scores for all questions improved after the intervention, suggesting a positive impact. The variability and confidence intervals suggest more consistent post-intervention results. Overall, there is a clear positive trend, showing the effectiveness of the intervention. A dataset containing the pre- and post-questionnaire data is available on a data repository, see Kok et al., 2026.

Table 1.

Summary of Pre- and Post-game Questionnaire Results per Question.

	Mean pre	Mean post	Diff.	STD-pre	STD-post	Var.-pre	var.-post	Conf. int. pre	Conf. int. post	T test
ILO1 - After playing the IT/OT railway game, the player will be able to understand the concept of IT/OT lifecycle alignment within the lifecycle of physical assets.
1. I understand the difference between the life cycle of IT and the life cycle of an asset.	4.07	4.23	0.16	0.69	0.74	0.47	0.54	4.07 ± 0.18	4.23 ± 0.40	0.349
2. I can name common challenges in the alignment between the IT lifecycle and the lifecycle of an asset.	3.58	4.14	0.56	0.81	0.70	0.64	0.48	3.58 ± 0.21	4.14 ± 0.38	0.361
3. I Understand the difference between managing IT and managing an asset during its life cycle.	3.63	4.22	0.59	0.86	0.58	0.73	0.33	3.63 ± 0.23	4.22 ± 0.31	0.175
ILO2 - After playing the IT/OT railway game, the player will be able to evaluate strategies for IT/OT lifecycle alignment during decision-making in the lifecycle of physical assets.
4. I can substantiate how I would adjust maintenance planning and execution to properly align the IT lifecycle with that of an asset.	2.88	3.90	1.02	0.88	0.61	0.77	0.37	2.88 ± 0.23	3.90 ± 0.33	0.601
5. In our asset management strategy, I can substantiate how the IT and asset life cycle should align.	3.05	4.00	0.95	0.89	0.64	0.78	0.40	3.05 ± 0.24	4.00 ± 0.34	0.611
6. When defining the maintenance scope for an asset, I can argue why it makes sense to align the IT and asset lifecycle.	3.58	4.24	0.66	0.81	0.52	0.64	0.26	3.58 ± 0.21	4.24 ± 0.28	0.175
ILO3 - After playing the IT/OT railway game, the player will be able to practically apply IT/OT lifecycle alignment in everyday business situations.
7. I am able to define actions to align the lifecycle between IT and an asset in my daily work.	2.97	3.68	0.71	0.84	0.74	0.70	0.54	2.97 ± 0.22	3.68 ± 0.40	0.370
8. I can give real-life examples of the benefits of aligning the lifecycle of IT and an asset.	3.40	4.00	0.60	0.96	0.57	0.91	0.32	3.40 ± 0.25	4.00 ± 0.31	0.725
9. I have practical knowledge for addressing the alignment between the IT lifecycle and the asset lifecycle.	2.88	3.80	0.92	0.98	0.64	0.94	0.40	2.88 ± 0.26	3.80 ± 0.34	0.550

Game Design [Final]: Accessibility Improvements

From several game sessions, it has become apparent that the current colour scheme is not ideal for people with colour blindness. Therefore, another game iteration was made to improve this aspect. The most significant change was adding text to the orange and green magnets to clarify the type of maintenance they refer to.

Final Game Design

In this final game design, the goal for participants is to transport the requested passenger capacity per station. For this, sufficient trainsets should be available, taking into account both planned and unplanned maintenance of the trainsets and the IT systems included. Additionally, suitable maintenance facilities should be available to perform the necessary maintenance.

Roles Within the Game

During the game, participants assume one of the following five roles of a rolling stock operating company. Participants must decide from their perspective, and each role is associated with a specific game component.

1. The operations manager (OM) oversees the operation of the train fleet, ensuring the appropriate capacity is available when needed, and guides the team through the various steps of each round.

2. The maintenance manager (MM) oversees the maintenance facilities. They must ensure that the right facilities are available to maintain the different types of trains.

3. The OT asset manager (OT AM) is responsible for maintaining each train type. They need to decide on the different OT lifecycles and communicate which maintenance is coming.

4. The IT asset manager (IT AM) is responsible for maintaining the IT assets on board each train type. They need to decide on the different IT lifecycles and communicate the kind of maintenance that is forthcoming.

5. The financial manager (FM) oversees the financial aspects of the operation. They should support the team in deciding between various investment options.

Game Mechanics

The game is played in rounds consisting of four different steps.

• Step 1: Invest – Players can invest in trainsets (OT), IT systems, or maintenance locations.

• Step 2: Planned Maintenance – Players perform planned maintenance on OT and IT systems in accordance with their respective maintenance schedules.

• Step 3: Unplanned maintenance – Players simulate unplanned maintenance by rolling the dice and drawing a card.

• Step 4: Calculate Revenues – Players calculate revenue by accounting for passenger revenue, logistics costs, and planned and unplanned maintenance costs.

Steps 1-4 are summarised in a flowchart to assist the players during the game; see Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Game flowchart.

The Game Board

The game board consists of three stations and four maintenance locations, as shown in Figure 5. The stations are named Green, Yellow, and Blue. Maintenance locations are at different points along the tracks and are indicated by a spanner icon. The different types of maintenance locations are train service or software update (yellow), wheel repair (orange), overhaul or hardware upgrade (green), and train repair or firmware update (blue). Players can place train cards on the tracks available at the various stations. These trains transport passengers. Next to each station, the required capacity per round is shown by an icon depicting three people.

Figure 5.

Game board.

Asset Management Boards

Two asset management boards are available, one for the OT AM (Figure 6) and one for the IT AM (Figure 7). The OT AM board gives an overview of the upcoming maintenance activities of each train type on the game board. Likewise, the IT AM board gives an overview of each train type’s upcoming IT maintenance activities on the game board.

Figure 6.

OT asset management board.

Figure 7.

IT asset management board.

Train Cards

There are 20 different train cards divided into five different subseries. The front of these cards displays the train type’s capacity, lifecycle, and price (Figure 8). On the back, the lifecycles of the corresponding IT systems are described (Figure 9).

Figure 8.

Train card front, OT lifecycle.

Figure 9.

Train card back, IT lifecycle.

Maintenance Facility Cards

There are four different maintenance locations available (Figure 10). First, it is possible to have the trainsets serviced and the software updated at each station. Second, there are three specific maintenance locations.

1. Wheel maintenance: This involves re-profiling the wheels.

2. Train maintenance and firmware update: Here, regular maintenance of the trainsets can be carried out, and IT firmware can also be updated.

3. Overhaul and hardware upgrade: OT overhaul can be performed here, and IT hardware can be replaced.

Figure 10.

Maintenance facilities on the game board.

NB. It is also possible to conduct complex fault analysis at these three locations. If new maintenance facilities are needed, they can be purchased from the “New Maintenance Facilities Card”, if available (Figure 11).

Figure 11.

Overview of new maintenance facilities that can be acquired.

Unplanned Maintenance Cards

There are 12 unplanned maintenance cards available. Four cards relate to IT, four to OT, and four are generic unplanned issues; see Figure 12 for example.

Figure 12.

Example of an unplanned maintenance card.

Discussion

This study investigated how the IT/OT Railway Game influenced participants’ understanding of IT/OT lifecycle alignment and their ability to apply these concepts in practice. The outcomes of this study supported the hypothesis that engaging with the game would enhance knowledge and practical application, as participants demonstrated improved mean scores across all questions related to the intended learning outcomes (ILOs). These findings indicate a positive effect of the intervention.

Arnab et al.’s (2015) LM-GM model links learning objectives to game mechanics, ensuring players learn through interaction rather than external content. In the IT/OT Railway Game, mechanics encouraged interaction and helped participants grasp the broader impact of IT integration on managing physical assets. While we simplified some elements for playability, these choices still supported core learning mechanisms and contributed to positive outcomes, showing how LM-GM balances engagement with meaningful learning.

The evaluation of the game followed an iterative approach, combining formative and summative assessments to ensure both playability and learning effectiveness. Formative evaluations, often qualitative, were conducted throughout development to refine game mechanics, playability, and educational content, while the final evaluation used quantitative measures of intended learning outcomes (ILOs). This approach aligns with Olson et al. (2011), who advocate integrating usability, playability, and learning assessments across the development cycle. They emphasise that testing using both qualitative and quantitative methods helps maintain functional balance and optimise educational effectiveness. The continuous feedback loop adopted in this study reflects these principles, contributing to improvements in game mechanics and learning outcomes.

A participatory design approach further strengthened the game’s relevance by involving stakeholders from IT and OT domains as co-designers (Ampatzidou & Gugerell, 2019). While the primary goal was to create an effective learning tool, reflections from the co-design process suggest that co-creation itself offered valuable learning opportunities, enabling deeper engagement with lifecycle alignment concepts.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

While the IT/OT Railway Game showed positive learning outcomes, several design simplifications limit its comparison to real-world IT/OT environments. First, participants were assigned a shared goal, which promoted collaboration but reduced realism, as organisational settings often involve conflicting priorities that influence decision-making. Second, the game allows participants to view each other’s actions (for example, IT and OT managers can view each other’s schedules). While this transparency enhances coordination, it differs from the operational silos typically observed in practice. Third, the game mechanics did not consistently link deferred IT maintenance to system failures. Such maintenance delays are closely associated with increased risk, and this relationship was underrepresented in the simulation.

These design choices reflect Harteveld’s (2011) Triadic Game Design framework, which emphasises a need for balance between reality, meaning, and play in serious games. Simplifications of the IT/OT Railway game improved playability and engagement, strengthening the “play” dimension. The “meaning” dimension remained intact by keeping objectives and mechanics purposeful, relevant, and applicable to participants’ work. However, simplifying complexity and unpredictability in real IT/OT environments reduced the “reality” dimension.

Although the IT/OT Railway Game was developed specifically for the railway sector, the challenges it addresses, such as lifecycle alignment and cross-domain collaboration, are relevant across various industries. Preliminary testing with non-railway professionals and engineering students provided positive feedback, suggesting the game’s potential for broader applicability. Future research should examine the game’s effectiveness in other industrial contexts and academic environments, explore design variations that introduce conflicting objectives and reduced transparency to better simulate organisational dynamics, and finally explore the potential of participatory game design as a dual-purpose tool for both development and learning. Thereby, advancing serious game research and fostering stakeholder engagement.

Conclusion

This study aimed to enhance understanding of IT/OT lifecycle alignment by developing and evaluating the IT/OT Railway Game - a serious game created using Design Science Research Methodology (DSRM) and evaluated using the FEDS framework. A review of 24 asset management and railway games identified a research gap in synchronising the separate IT and OT lifecycles, underscoring the need for a serious game to address this issue. By iteratively refining the game based on playability, game mechanics, and intended learning outcomes (ILOs), the study demonstrated that playing the game improved participants’ knowledge retention and their ability to apply lifecycle alignment concepts in a simulated railway context.

The findings confirm the potential of serious games as practical tools for addressing sociotechnical challenges, such as IT/OT lifecycle alignment. Participatory design not only supported game development but also proved valuable as a learning approach, and while the game targets rail, its principles are transferable to other sectors, suggesting broader applicability.

The limitations include simplified representations of real-world complexity and assumptions about the impact of IT maintenance. Future research should test the game in other sectors and further explore participatory design as a learning strategy.

Overall, this study advances knowledge of serious games in railway and asset management, offering a practical and engaging approach to enhance learning and collaboration in today’s digital environments.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank all the participants who helped develop and evaluate this game. Additionally, we would like to thank Holland High Tech and NS for their funding of this research. The funders did not influence the writing of this research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Arno Kok is employed by the Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS).

Funding

Financial support was provided by Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS) and by Holland High Tech with a PPP surcharge for research and development in the top sector HTSM.

Ethical Considerations

An ethical review was not required for this study as all data were collected anonymously and no identifiable personal information was used. The research was conducted in accordance with relevant institutional guidelines. Informed consent was obtained as described in the dedicated section.

Informed Consent

At the start of each session, the study’s objectives and procedures were explained to participants. At the beginning of each questionnaire, participants were reminded of their voluntary participation in the study. Additionally, explicit informed consent was obtained from each participant at the start of each questionnaire. Although this level of consent was not strictly required, it was implemented to ensure transparency.

Arno Kok

Alberto Martinetti

Data Availability Statement

Alongside this article, the dataset will be published on the 4TU data storage server (see Kok et al., 2026).

Author Biographies

Arno Kok received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in mechanical engineering from Twente University, Enschede, The Netherlands, in 2008 and 2011, respectively. Currently he is pursuing a Ph.D. degree in asset management and maintenance engineering. Since graduation, he has specialized in reliability, availability, maintainability, and safety (RAMS) engineering. He currently works as a Reliability Engineer at NS’s Revision and Overhaul facility in Haarlem, The Netherlands. His research focuses on design for maintenance, system integration, IT/OT convergence, and asset management within the railway industry.

Alberto Martinetti (1985) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Design, Production and Management (DPM) at the University of Twente. He leads the group of Humanitarian Engineering positioned in the DPM Department. Alberto holds an MSc in Geo-resources and Geo-technologies Engineering (2009) and a PhD in Safety and Health (2013) both achieved at the Polytechnic of Turin. Alberto focused his research for years on Maintenance Technology before moving forward with the new challenge in Humanitarian Engineering Design (appropriate and sustainable technological interventions for short- and long-term scenarios). In January 2024, he was selected as a member of the IRDR Young Scientist Programme of UN DRR. Alberto has published more than 90 publications in international peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

Jan Braaksma received the master’s degree in business and ICT and the Ph.D. degree in economics and business. He is currently an Adjunct Professor and the Manager of the Chair of Asset Management and Maintenance Engineering, University of Twente. He is the Director of the WCM Summer School part of World Class Maintenance. He has worked for the University of Groningen (RuG) and the Dutch Defence Academy (NLDA). His research focuses on asset management and maintenance engineering with special attention for sustainable asset management, asset life cycle planning, systems integration, and design for Maintenance.

References

Alderliesten

Valečkaitė

Salamon

N. Z.

Balint

J. T.

Bidarra

(2019). MainTrain: A serious game on the complexities of rail maintenance. In Gentile

Allegra

Söbke

(Eds.), Games and Learning Alliance (pp. 82–89). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11548-7_8

Alhadeff

(2017, December 9). Recruitment serious games to catch the attention of elite students. https://www.seriousgamemarket.com/2017/12/recruitment-serious-games-to-catch.html

Ampatzidou

Gugerell

(2019). Participatory game prototyping – balancing domain content and playability in a serious game design for the energy transition. CoDesign, 15(4), 345–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2018.1504084

Armstrong

(n.d.). Bloom’s Taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved September 16, 2024, from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/

Arnab

Lim

Carvalho

M. B.

Bellotti

de Freitas

Louchart

Suttie

Berta

Gloria

A. D.

(2015). The LM-GM framework for Serious Games Analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 391–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12113

Asset Management Academy . (n.d.). Asset Management Challenge. Retrieved August 27, 2025, from: https://www.assetmanagementacademy.com/asset-management-challenge/

Bayeck

R. Y.

(2020). Examining board gameplay and learning: A multidisciplinary review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming, 51(4), 411–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878119901286

Bloom

B. S.

(1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Longman.

Bremmer

(2024, February 18). NS-paradepaardje ‘de wesp’ blijkt hoofdpijntrein: 99 treinen besteld, slechts acht daarvan rijden. AD.Nl/Algemeen Dagblad. https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/ns-paradepaardje-de-wesp-blijkt-hoofdpijntrein-99-treinen-besteld-slechts-acht-daarvan-rijden∼a730a56a/

10.

Clegg

Orme

Petridis

(2023). Developing a serious game for rail services: Improving passenger information during disruption (PIDD). Information, 14(8), 464. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14080464

11.

den Heijer

Podt

Bosch-Rekveldt

de Leeuw

Rijke

(2023). Serious gaming for better cooperation in flood defence asset management. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 16(3), e12910. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12910

12.

Ehie

I. C.

Chilton

M. A.

(2020). Understanding the influence of IT/OT Convergence on the adoption of Internet of Things (IoT) in manufacturing organizations: An empirical investigation. Computers in Industry, 115, 103166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2019.103166

13.

European Commission . (2011). Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system (No. 52011DC0144). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0144

14.

Garcia

Pacheco

Méndez

Calvo‐Manzano

J. A.

(2020). The effects of game‐based learning in the acquisition of “soft skills” on undergraduate software engineering courses: A systematic literature review. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28(5), 1327–1354. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22304

15.

Garimella

P. K.

(2018). IT-OT integration challenges in utilities. 2018 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Computing, Communication and Security (ICCCS), 199–204. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCCS.2018.8586807

16.

Gartner . (2021a). Definition of Information Technology (IT)—Gartner Information Technology Glossary. Gartner. https://www.gartner.com/en/information-technology/glossary/it-information-technology

17.

Gartner . (2021b). Definition of operational technology (OT)—Gartner information technology glossary. https://www.gartner.com/en/information-technology/glossary/operational-technology-ot

18.

Gauthier

Kato

P. M.

Bul

K. C. M.

Dunwell

Walker-Clarke

Lameras

(2019). Board games for health: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Games for Health Journal, 8(2), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2018.0017

19.

Govan Kuusk

Koronios

Gao

(2013). Overcoming integration challenges in organisations with operational technology. ACIS 2013 Proceedings, 121, 16. https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2013/121

20.

Harteveld

(2011). Triadic Game Design: Balancing Reality, Meaning and Play. Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-157-8

21.

Hehenberger

Vogel-Heuser

Bradley

Eynard

Tomiyama

Achiche

(2016). Design, modelling, simulation and integration of cyber physical systems: Methods and applications. Computers in Industry, 82, 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2016.05.006

22.

Henderson

J. C.

Venkatraman

(1990). Strategic alignment: A model for organizational transformation via information technology. In Transforming organizations. Oxford University Press.

23.

Henry

Arnab

(2024). On the pre-perception of gamification and game-based learning in higher education students: A systematic mapping study. Simulation & Gaming, 10468781241271082. https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781241271082

24.

Hermans

(2022, May 19). Ivy Global lanceert serious game Asset Management Experience. https://blog.ivyglobal.eu/blog/ivy-global-lanceert-serious-game-asset-management-experience

25.

Hodkiewicz

(2015). Designing Snakes and Ladders: An analogy for asset management strategy development. Simulation & Gaming, 46(5), 455–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878115590208

26.

Hoysala

Palavalli

B. M.

Murthy

Meijer

(2013, June). Designing energy policy through the indian energy game. 44th Annual Conference of International Simulation And Gaming Association (ISAGA). https://fieldsofview.in/publications/energy-game/

27.

Kok

Martinetti

Braaksma

(2024). The impact of integrating information technology with operational technology in physical assets: A literature review. IEEE Access, 12, 111832–111845. IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3442443

28.

Kok

Martinetti

Braaksma

(2026). Data belonging to “Understanding IT and OT Lifecycle Alignment challenges and opportunities: Design and Evaluation of a Serious Railway Game”. (Version 1.0) [Xls; pdf]. 4TU.ResearchData. https://doi.org/10.4121/7024fbca-7211-4937-b47d-060b1acb8c3e

29.

Kok

Moerman

Haanstra

Martinetti

Braaksma

(2024). A serious maintenance management game for decision-making on digitized railway assets. Procedia CIRP, 122, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2024.01.001

30.

Kortmann

Sehic

(2010). The Railway Bridge Game – usability, usefulness, and potential usage for railways management. In Beran

Murff

(Eds.), Proc. 41st Annual Conf. Of the Int’l Simulation and Gaming Association (ISAGA’2010) (pp. 31–38). Eastern Washington University Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265726371_The_Railway_Bridge_Game_-_usability_usefulness_and_potential_usage_for_railways_management

31.

Kraeling

Fletcher

(2017, November 21). Railroad assets: Information and operational (IT/OT) convergence. Ausrail plus 2017, Rail’s Digital Revolution. https://discovery.ntroknowledge.com.au/permalink/61NTRO_INST/rf5apo/alma9952466709464

32.

Krath

Schürmann

von Korflesch

H. F. O.

(2021). Revealing the theoretical basis of gamification: A systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games and game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 125, 106963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963

33.

Kuipers

(2016). Serious game “confrontatie met de praktijk”. UT-Nieuws, (8). https://www.utoday.nl/news/63389/Serious_game_confrontatie_met_de_praktijk

34.

Kuppusamy

Mariappan

(2021). Integration of operation technology (OT) and information technology (IT) through intelligent automation in manufacturing industries. In Shafik

Case

(Eds.), Advances in Transdisciplinary Engineering. IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/ATDE210050

35.

KWR . (2023, November 29). Serious gaming versterkt de samenwerking binnen assetmanagement. KWR. https://www.kwrwater.nl/actueel/serious-gaming-versterkt-de-samenwerking-binnen-assetmanagement/

36.

Lebesque

van Meijeren

de Boer

Kosterman

(2020). Serious Gaming for logistics (Nos. 18–10285). TNO. https://publications.tno.nl/publication/34636855/4LDpcC/tno-2020-serious.pdf

37.

Martinetti

Parada Puig

J. E.

Oude Alink

Thalen

Van Dongen

L. A. M.

(2017, June 21). Gamification in teaching maintenance engineering: A dutch experience in the rolling stock management learning. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Higher Education Advances. Third International Conference on Higher Education Advances. https://doi.org/10.4995/HEAD17.2017.5332

38.

Mayer

Meijer

Nefs

Gerretsen

Dooghe

(2010). Gaming the interrelation between rail infrastructure and station area development: Part 2 - insights from the serious game ‘SprintCity’. Next Generation Infrastructure Systems for Eco-Cities, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/INFRA.2010.5679218

39.

Meijer

(2015). The power of sponges: Comparing high-tech and low-tech gaming for innovation. Simulation & Gaming, 46(5), 512–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878115594520

40.

Meijer

Mayer

I. S.

van Luipen

Weitenberg

(2012). Gaming rail cargo management: Exploring and validating alternative modes of organization. Simulation & Gaming, 43(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878110382161

41.

Murray

Johnstone

M. N.

Valli

(2017). The convergence of IT and OT in critical infrastructure. In Valli

(Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th Australian Information Security Management Conference (pp. 149–155). Security Research Institute (SRI), Edith Cowan University. https://doi.org/10.4225/75/5A84F7B595B4E

42.

nl.

(2019, February 20). “Nieuwe sprinter van NS kampt met storingen en valt vaak uit”. https://www.nu.nl/binnenland/5752206/nieuwe-sprinter-van-ns-kampt-met-storingen-en-valt-vaak-uit.html

43.

Ogink

(2025, January 14). Serious game DGAM (in ontwikkeling)—Meerdere scenario’s | WCM vector. https://www.wcmvector.com/DGAMbijRWS/topics/serious-game-dgam-ontwikkeling-meerdere-scenarios

44.

Olsen

Procci

Bowers

(2011). Serious games usability testing: How to ensure proper usability, playability, and effectiveness. In Marcus

(Ed.), Design, User Experience, and Usability. Theory, Methods, Tools and Practice (Vol. 6770, pp. 625–634). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21708-1_70

45.

Parada Puig

J. E.

(2015). Serviceability of passenger trains during acquisition projects [PhD, University of Twente]. https://doi.org/10.3990/1.9789036538671

46.

Pashler

McDaniel

Rohrer

Bjork

(2008). Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x

47.

Peffers

Tuunanen

Rothenberger

M. A.

Chatterjee

(2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302

48.

Peters

(2024, September 2). Software gerelateerde storingen Nieuw Materieel—Maximo Analyse (Internal document No. 850110750). NS Treinmodernisering.

49.

Pieriegud

(2018). Digital transformation of railways (No. 978-83-950826-0-3; p. 58). Department of Transport - SGH Warsaw School of Economics. https://shift2rail.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/DIGITAL_TRANSFORMATION_RAILWAYS_2018_web.pdf#page=54

50.

Pouwer

(n.d.). Asset Management Game. AssetPouwer. Retrieved August 27, 2025, from https://www.assetpouwer.nl/images/website/en/Asset_management_game_product_sheet.pdf

51.

Rail XR Solutions . (n.d.). Rail XR Solutions. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from https://realseriousgames.com/rail

52.

Rajaonah

Sarraipa

Carnevale

Lebbar

Mestiri

Faure

Abed

(2018). E-learning training in railway engineering. 2018 IEEE 16th World Symposium on Applied Machine Intelligence and Informatics (SAMI), 000067–000072. https://doi.org/10.1109/SAMI.2018.8323988

53.

Reich

B. H.

Benbasat

(2000). Factors That Influence the Social Dimension of Alignment between Business and Information Technology Objectives. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 81–113. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250980

54.

Riopel

Nenciovici

Potvin

Chastenay

Charland

Sarrasin

J. B.

Masson

(2019). Impact of serious games on science learning achievement compared with more conventional instruction: An overview and a meta-analysis. Studies in Science Education, 55(2), 169–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2019.1722420

55.

ROBAMCI . (n.d.). Serious game – ROBAMCI. Retrieved September 1, 2025, from https://www.robamci.nl/referentie-item/serious-game/

56.

Robinson

(2024, July 12). Training is a serious game. Global Railway Review. https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/article/175137/training-is-a-serious-game-railway/

57.

Schäfer

Waclawek

Riedmann

Binder

Neureiter

Huber

(2024). IT/OT Integration by Design. INCOSE International Symposium, 34(1), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/iis2.13150

58.

Scordamaglia

(2019). Digitalisation in railway transport (PE 635.528; p. 12). European Parliamentary Researsch Service (EPRS). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2019/635528/EPRS_BRI(2019)635528_EN.pdf

59.

Singh

(2021). Big data, industry 4.0 and cyber-physical systems integration: A smart industry context. Materials Today: Proceedings, 2nd International Conference on Manufacturing Material Science and Engineering, 46, 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.170

60.

Sonnenberg

Vom Brocke

(2012). Evaluations in the science of the artificial – reconsidering the build-evaluate pattern in design science research. In Peffers

Rothenberger

Kuechler

(Eds.), Design Science Research in Information Systems. Advances in Theory and Practice (Vol. 7286, pp. 381–397). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29863-9_28

61.

Soroudi

Gordan

Carrol

McCrum

Pilla

(2022). A sustainable GIS-based serious game approach to improve railways resilience. In Pombo

(Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Railway Technology: Research, Development and Maintenance: CCC 1 (p. Paper 27.18). Civil-Comp Press. https://doi.org/10.4203/ccc.1.27.18

62.

Van Breda

I. M.

Jooste

J. L.

Hummel

(2023). A gamified learning approach using systems modelling for understanding the effects of asset management decision-making. In Smart, Sustainable Manufacturing in an Ever-Changing World (pp. 537–550). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15602-1_39

63.

Van den Boomen

Duifhuizen

Staverman

(2012, June 18). The Management Game Asset Management. Third International Engineering Systems Symposium CESUN 2012. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305279712_The_Management_Game_Asset_Management

64.

Van Dongen

(2015). Asset management: A maintenance engineer’s view. International Journal of Performability Engineering, 11(2), 181–197.

65.

Venable

Pries-Heje

Baskerville

(2016). FEDS: A Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.36

Understanding IT and OT Lifecycle Alignment Challenges and Opportunities: Design and Evaluation of a Serious Railway Game

Abstract

Background

Aim

Method

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Introduction

Identify Problem & Motivate

Asset Management in Converged Environments

Literature Review

Research Question and Hypothesis

Methodology

Design Objectives

Design, Demonstration and Evaluation

Concept Game Design

Game Design [Concept 1]: Initial Design

Evaluation [Concept 1]: Evaluation of Playability

Game Design [Concept 2]: Balancing Gameplay

Evaluation [Concept 2]: Evaluation of Game Mechanics

Game Design [Concept 3]: Functional Prototyping

Evaluation [Concept 3]: Evaluation of ILOS

Game Design [Final]: Accessibility Improvements

Final Game Design

Roles Within the Game

Game Mechanics

The Game Board

Asset Management Boards

Train Cards

Maintenance Facility Cards

Unplanned Maintenance Cards

Discussion

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Considerations

Informed Consent

Data Availability Statement

Author Biographies

References