Ventana software support forum

Kjeld & Syeds question led me to ask what the difference is between models
for the exploratory stage of strategy development and management training.
The key, I think, is that in strategy development you may not have a good
model of the system, probably because you dont understand the loops in an
opponents head.

In this situation, exploratory modeling is useful to discover which loops
actually matter. Still, there is only so much one can do to to anticipate
the possible feedback loops in a model of a multiplayer system - e.g. the
electric utility competition George Backus just described. In this
situation, exploratory simulation-gaming may be more helpful. Its common
practice to test any simulation-game on real users many times in order to
identify missing feedback loops and other features of the system that
players may exploit.

No model-based exercises for the early stages of strategy development come
to mind, but I do know one (non-business) exercise thats commonly used for
"raising the awareness of the need for change." This is the Fish Banks
game, in which multiple teams of players run fishing companies, sharing a
common ocean. The usual outcome is catastrophic depletion of fish
resources. This gets people motivated to think seriously about resource
issues.

Theres a dark side to this kind of game, though. Its much easier for
participants to attribute the outcome to random or extreme behaviors by
other players. In the Fish game, it takes some operator skill to get
players to stop pointing fingers at one another and to start looking at the
system characteristics that led to collapse. Another drawback is that its
often tedious to play through a multi-role simulation more than once, so
people dont have a chance to learn from repeated exploration of the
system.

On another note, I found Norman Marshalls comments on simulation games to
be right on the money. Participants time and attention is very scarce
during a simulation game. If theres too much detail complexity (many
decisions or overused multimedia), players dont have time to appreciate
the dynamic lessons (delays, worse-before-better behavior, etc.) that were
presumably the reason for using a model.

There are some ways to get around this problem, though. One is to
distribute information and responsibility for decision making among several
different roles, so that no individual has to deal with everything at once.
Then you may be able to squeeze in a few extra decisions. Of course, this
introduces new communication challenges in the participants group process
that may not be central to point of the exercise.

Another possibility is to remove the computer from direct interaction with
the players, either by embedding the model in the mechanics of a board game
(i.e. the Beer Game) or by having a computer operator enter decisions and
generate reports.

______________________________________________________________
Thomas Fiddaman, PhD Candidate http://web.mit.edu/tomfid/www
MIT Sloan School of Management, System Dynamics Group
E60-355, 30 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA 02142
MIT: 617-253-3958 home: 603-497-2273 email: tomfid@mit.edu
______________________________________________________________

Jim Hines asked about multiplayer SD games. John Sterman mentioned the
Manufacturing Game a while ago on this thread, and Id like to comment
on this again.

The Manufacturing Game was developed at DuPont, based on their SD model
for plant maintenance. This SD model captured the learning from a hugh
benchmarking effort at over 150 plants worldwide, which were considered
the best of the best in manufacturing. The game was invented to give
people a hands on experience of what was learned first by the
benchmarkers who travelled to all of these places, and secondly by those
who developed the SD models to explain what the data meant from all of
these places. Instead of a correlational model that showed how 90
variables interacted, it was greatly simplified to a very small amount
of structure, sufficiently small to fit on the board game. The issues
of getting at the dynamics (not just detail complexity), allowing the
human behavioral issues to be prominant (communications, trust,
involving the heart and body, not just the cognitive), and focusing on
taking learning from the game into action immediately are at the heart
of why this particular multiplayer game is so powerful. I honestly
think that the SD community doesnt understand what a huge breakthrough
this game is.

The Manufacturing Game has been extensively tested. DuPont ran more
than 2000 people through it while Winston Ledet was still there, and
since he has left DuPont and become a consultant many thousands more in
other companies. Within BP over 1500 people have played the game.

This game must be played in the context of a two day learning
laboratory. The framing of it, and preparations are important. A
dialogue (sitting in a circle) starts the two days where people talk
about past experiences where a strongly held belief changed in their own
life, as context for the later input about the nature of paradigm
shifts. Following the reflective inquiry which starts the first day, a
one hour lecture is given about the benchmarking work at the 150 plants,
and what was learned. This is the cognitive input. Engaging the heart
and mind (both prior to the actual playing of the game) serves as setup
for getting players in the right mood to get the most out of the game.

The language we use in talking about the game is important. We treat
the game as a real world. It is a virtual world, but it is real. We
call the green poker chips "mechanics" and the blue chips "spare parts."
We call the game boards "your plant" and try to continually draw the
connections to real world, during the gameplay. This helps in
application of the learning later.

Following the gameplay, we think there must be a "soak time" where the
experiences of the game, in which players could do things they never
have been able to accomplish in real life (evolving from a reactive way
of working to a much more precise way of proacting) do battle in the
subconscious. We think during the overnight between days one and two,
the sleep process acts as a space for the creative tension to really
form. What I want (a proactive way of working, which I experienced in
the game), vs. what I know in my current reality (responding to daily
crisis) is suspended. The question is whether one can create in real
life what we were able to do in the game.

This is the main aspect of the reflective inquiry on the morning of day
2. The facilitation skill is to allow this to emerge and flow from the
participants, not by manipulating them, but by allowing it to just
emerge. It always does. It is a sort of "predicable miracle" that Joe
Jaworski writes about. Even hourly paid union workers who vowed to not
participate seem to be routinely engaged and able to make the shifts of
mind and behavior.

The rest of the second day engages the participants in applying the
essence of what came from the virtual world to their work environment,
via forming action teams (usually cross functional) to go after defect
inflows that lead to the failure events.

The key reason why this game is powerful is that is engages the full
person, the mind, the heart, and the body. I havent yet seen computer
games that can do this (the Learning Environment community may be able
to, but I havent yet seen one that is as powerful). The multiplayer
aspect is because in real life the tough problems of increasing plant
reliability, reducing cost, increasing production rates, improving
quality, etc are typically cross functional multiperson activities. The
virtual world serves as a practice field for these intact teams to work
on their real issues, even if they are not consciously aware they are
doing so in the beginning.

There is a lot more I could say, but Id close by offering to work
offline with anyone who wants to know more about how we are using this.
We have had a lot of people visit us over the past three years we have
been doing this, and Id be open to this as well, if youd want to come
and play and participate in the Manufacturing Game here in Ohio.
Winston Ledet also does public sessions in Houston.

Paul Monus
BP Oil Lima Refinery
419/226-2383
monuspa@olima.usaref.msnet.bp.com