Posted by Martin Schaffernicht <martin@utalca.cl>
Hi,
yesterday I played the ""beer game"" with a small group of students (three
groups of 2 each), and they produced much less oscillatino than what I'd
seen before (usually the groups I have are larger). By day 25 they had
understood by themselves that the instabilities came from their own
decisions to order very large or very small quantities.
Now I wonder if there may be a connectin between the number of group
members and performance in this game.
Has someone made similar observations?
Thanks,
Martin Schaffernicht
Universidad de Talca
Chile
Posted by Martin Schaffernicht <martin@utalca.cl>
posting date Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:02:02 +0200
Group size and beer game results
-
- Junior Member
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
-
- Junior Member
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Group size and beer game results
Posted by ""Bob Cavana"" <Bob.Cavana@vuw.ac.nz>
hello Martin,
i have played the 'beer game' with students in small groups (ie 6 students) in
New Zealand but my experience is that it is much more interesting for the
students (and instructor!) to have 2 groups of 3 students (rather than 3 groups
of 2 students).
Generally with one extra decision maker in the supply chain between the 'retailer'
and the 'factory' it is sufficient to generate the types of dynamics (although not
as volatile) as seen in the more traditional 4 'decision makers' game (ie with a
retailer -- wholesaler -- distributor -- factory).
all the best,
Bob
Dr Bob Cavana
Victoria Management School
Victoria University of Wellington
New Zealand
Posted by ""Bob Cavana"" <Bob.Cavana@vuw.ac.nz>
posting date Fri, 12 Aug 2005 16:12:32 +1200
hello Martin,
i have played the 'beer game' with students in small groups (ie 6 students) in
New Zealand but my experience is that it is much more interesting for the
students (and instructor!) to have 2 groups of 3 students (rather than 3 groups
of 2 students).
Generally with one extra decision maker in the supply chain between the 'retailer'
and the 'factory' it is sufficient to generate the types of dynamics (although not
as volatile) as seen in the more traditional 4 'decision makers' game (ie with a
retailer -- wholesaler -- distributor -- factory).
all the best,
Bob
Dr Bob Cavana
Victoria Management School
Victoria University of Wellington
New Zealand
Posted by ""Bob Cavana"" <Bob.Cavana@vuw.ac.nz>
posting date Fri, 12 Aug 2005 16:12:32 +1200
-
- Junior Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Group size and beer game results
Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
""Natarajan R C cnutraj mail.tapmi.org"" <system-dynamics@VENSIM.COM> writes:
>> It will be interesting for those who use beer game, to test what happens
>> if the game is played in two phases: Phase 1 of rounds 1 to 20 and phase
>> 2 (starting completely afresh) again from rounds 1 to 20, with differing
>> patterns of variations in consumer demand between two phases. Is there a
>> learning effect? I presume there should be.
Nat,
It's been quite a few years, but I did run a variation on the beer game
once. In an attempt to avoid having them learn mostly of their own
incompetence, I designed a workshop to help them see that
experimentation (simulation) could be their friend.
After the traditional first phase, in which several complained that they
failed miserably because of the rules of the game (these were
manufacturing types who knew about supply chains), I let them craft
their own rules over lunch. The only constraint was that they had to
use the same boards and process, but they could change ordering rules
all they wanted.
Of the two groups in this workshop, only one came up with new rules, so
we ran a phase 2 with one team and the rest of us observing. With their
new ordering rules, the results they got were embarrassingly _worse_
than in phase 1!
After all the joking and embarrassment, they did, I think, learn the
benefits of trying out new processes on a simulator rather than on the
organization!
Bill
- --
Bill Harris http://facilitatedsystems.com/weblog/
Facilitated Systems Everett, WA 98208 USA
http://facilitatedsystems.com/ phone: +1 425 337-5541
Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
posting date Fri, 12 Aug 2005 10:03:16 -0700
""Natarajan R C cnutraj mail.tapmi.org"" <system-dynamics@VENSIM.COM> writes:
>> It will be interesting for those who use beer game, to test what happens
>> if the game is played in two phases: Phase 1 of rounds 1 to 20 and phase
>> 2 (starting completely afresh) again from rounds 1 to 20, with differing
>> patterns of variations in consumer demand between two phases. Is there a
>> learning effect? I presume there should be.
Nat,
It's been quite a few years, but I did run a variation on the beer game
once. In an attempt to avoid having them learn mostly of their own
incompetence, I designed a workshop to help them see that
experimentation (simulation) could be their friend.
After the traditional first phase, in which several complained that they
failed miserably because of the rules of the game (these were
manufacturing types who knew about supply chains), I let them craft
their own rules over lunch. The only constraint was that they had to
use the same boards and process, but they could change ordering rules
all they wanted.
Of the two groups in this workshop, only one came up with new rules, so
we ran a phase 2 with one team and the rest of us observing. With their
new ordering rules, the results they got were embarrassingly _worse_
than in phase 1!
After all the joking and embarrassment, they did, I think, learn the
benefits of trying out new processes on a simulator rather than on the
organization!
Bill
- --
Bill Harris http://facilitatedsystems.com/weblog/
Facilitated Systems Everett, WA 98208 USA
http://facilitatedsystems.com/ phone: +1 425 337-5541
Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
posting date Fri, 12 Aug 2005 10:03:16 -0700
-
- Junior Member
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Group size and beer game results
Thank you for your response.
Intuitively, I feel that when we play the game in two phases (without
prompting the participants about changing the rules and such), those
teams that face greater demand-turbulence in phase-I should be able to
handle turbulence in phase-II better than the others. It'll be
interesting to test this hypothesis. In one of my earlier experiments
(three years ago) I saw a pattern when I played 40 weeks...though I saw
the turbulence in the second phase (week 21-40) smaller than the first,
this could also be attributed to the inventory that was already
accumulated during the phase-I which was available in phase-II. So, I am
looking at it afresh.
I shall revert to you with my findings in due course.
Regards
Nat
Posted by ""Natarajan R C"" <cnutraj@mail.tapmi.org>
posting date Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:25:56 +0530
Intuitively, I feel that when we play the game in two phases (without
prompting the participants about changing the rules and such), those
teams that face greater demand-turbulence in phase-I should be able to
handle turbulence in phase-II better than the others. It'll be
interesting to test this hypothesis. In one of my earlier experiments
(three years ago) I saw a pattern when I played 40 weeks...though I saw
the turbulence in the second phase (week 21-40) smaller than the first,
this could also be attributed to the inventory that was already
accumulated during the phase-I which was available in phase-II. So, I am
looking at it afresh.
I shall revert to you with my findings in due course.
Regards
Nat
Posted by ""Natarajan R C"" <cnutraj@mail.tapmi.org>
posting date Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:25:56 +0530
-
- Junior Member
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Group size and beer game results
Posted by John Sterman <jsterman@MIT.EDU>
Martin Schaffernicht wonders whether group size matters to the degree
of instability seen in the beer distribution game. There is no
research I know of that tests this hypothesis. Many other factors
may be varying besides group size (or collinearly with group size)
such as time pressure, degree to which questions are answered by the
facilitator, ability of participants to observe others, etc.
However, there is a growing set of studies in which the game is run
under tightly controlled conditions, usually in a computer
implementation, including controls on information availability,
instructions, incentives, and so on. This work shows supply chain
instability, including the characteristic oscillation, amplification,
and phase lag as one moves up the supply chain, remains robust over a
wide range of demand patterns, subject experience, and learning
opportunities.
As an example and for citations to the relevant literature, see
ORDER STABILITY IN SUPPLY CHAINS: COORDINATION RISK AND THE ROLE OF
COORDINATION STOCK by Croson, Donohue Katok and Sterman, available at
http://web.mit.edu/jsterman/www/Order_stability.html
In addition, several papers on the game were presented at the recent
system dynamics conference, including one by Rogelio Oliva and Paulo
Goncalves and one by Gokhan Dogan.
John Sterman
Posted by John Sterman <jsterman@MIT.EDU>
posting date Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:42:41 -0400
Martin Schaffernicht wonders whether group size matters to the degree
of instability seen in the beer distribution game. There is no
research I know of that tests this hypothesis. Many other factors
may be varying besides group size (or collinearly with group size)
such as time pressure, degree to which questions are answered by the
facilitator, ability of participants to observe others, etc.
However, there is a growing set of studies in which the game is run
under tightly controlled conditions, usually in a computer
implementation, including controls on information availability,
instructions, incentives, and so on. This work shows supply chain
instability, including the characteristic oscillation, amplification,
and phase lag as one moves up the supply chain, remains robust over a
wide range of demand patterns, subject experience, and learning
opportunities.
As an example and for citations to the relevant literature, see
ORDER STABILITY IN SUPPLY CHAINS: COORDINATION RISK AND THE ROLE OF
COORDINATION STOCK by Croson, Donohue Katok and Sterman, available at
http://web.mit.edu/jsterman/www/Order_stability.html
In addition, several papers on the game were presented at the recent
system dynamics conference, including one by Rogelio Oliva and Paulo
Goncalves and one by Gokhan Dogan.
John Sterman
Posted by John Sterman <jsterman@MIT.EDU>
posting date Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:42:41 -0400