Business & Management (B&M) Field Report
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Business & Management (B&M) Field
Report
AUTHOR Angelo Marco Luccini
CONTRIBUTORS Margarida Romero, Mireia Usart, Giusy Fiucci
Date 17/ 11 / 2013
Version 1.0
ABSTRACT Yearly report of SIG3.1. This document contributes to the main report of
WP3 (i.e. D3.3) by providing best practices related to the Business and
Management application field.Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Main findings ............................................................................................................................................. 5
1 Monitoring Serious Games ........................................................................................................................ 6
1.1.1 The DiG Simulation - Discovery, Innovation and Growth .......................................................... 6
2 Synthesis of Networking Activities ............................................................................................................ 8
2.1 Associate Partners ............................................................................................................................. 8
2.2 SIG Web page .................................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Events ................................................................................................................................................ 8
2.4 Proposals and Projects ...................................................................................................................... 8
2.5 Publications ....................................................................................................................................... 8
3 Best Practice and Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 9
4 Planning for year 4................................................................................................................................... 10
References ....................................................................................................................................................... 11Table of Figures No table of figures entries found.
List of Tables No table of figures entries found.
Executive Summary Introduction The main objective of third year activities in GaLA for any application field has been to validate the best practices and recommendations that have been identified and / or provided in the previous two years of the project. In particular, in Business & Management (B&M), the serious games effectiveness is always at the centre of the attention of organisations that use game-based learning strategy and applications to improve their performance through personnel’s competence development. Two case studies (EagleRacing and WhatADay) run as integrating part of a Company Specific Programme (CSP) at the INSEAD business school are fully detailed and discussed, whilst two other ones (MetaVals and HotBusiness) will be better detailed in the next edition of this document in Year 4 and are just referenced here through the related publications. In addition, a brand new serious game (DiG) to be released on the market next year (but already successfully tested in pilots with real users) has been described. Main findings Not surprisingly, the results emerging from the case studies and from the new serious games descriptions, confirm the main best practices and recommendations provided in the two previous years. In particular, often the complexity of the subject matter in B&M and the context provided by an executive education programme require a close tutoring of the participants through whole the learning experiences and this is typically done via facilitated workshops (be offline and F2C, or fully online, or even in a blended way, depending on the game design. Inherently related to this the realism of the learning experience whose ties with and relevance with respect to the working context are the best passport to grant, on the one hand, high engagement and, on the other hand, motivation to play. Both dimensions are preliminary, but not exhaustive conditions, for learning effectiveness and actual (beneficial) impact on users. Again, this approach is rooted into the learning cycle of Kolb’s experiential learning model (Kolb, 1984) as duly highlighted in the second year SIG3.1 report and in the D3.2 deliverable (the latter is particularly useful to link experiential learning, facilitated workshops and learner’s engagement as presented by Gagné, 1985, and Rogers and Freiberg, 1993). Unfortunately, despite what claimed in last year report, it was not possible to set up the case studies exactly as devised (see §”Plan for case studies” in last year B&M report) in order to gain insights on learning impact at level 3 of Kirkpatrick-Phillips learning evaluation model, since it was not possible to structure the learning experience in the framework of a more general educational programme due to “resistance” from the organisations involved. Hopefully, in the fourth year it will be possible to advance in this direction in a more coordinated way, in particular due to the fact that Post Game Learning Communities (PGLC) would be set up. Finally, technology-wise, it has been confirmed also from the analysis of the DiG serious game, that simplicity in terms of visual graphic interface is key aspect in order to reduce the cognitive load of serious games players and make them comfortable in focusing only on the already complex subject matter they deal with. The challenges related to virtualisation of the workshop structure and of the game design, that would follow a significant progress of Artificial Intelligence (AI) as devised in last year report are still unmet.
1 Monitoring Serious Games
The main activities related to Year 3 in the project have been mostly related to running and reporting of the
case studies that will be described in chapter §2 and on the description of new games that follows in this
section.
1.1.1 The DiG Simulation - Discovery, Innovation and Growth
Developer:
The DiG simulation was recently developed by Professor J.C. Larréché at INSEAD, Fontainebleau. It has been
inspired from previous research (his book “The Momentum Effect”, 2008) but is greatly benefitting of new
findings. It has been tested successfully in a number of corporations, operating in a variety of industries,
from heavy B2B to services and fast moving consumer goods, involving participants from more than 20
countries around the world. Professor Larréché directed the actual development performed by
KNOLSKAPE.
Year of release:
Expected in 2014 © Jean-Claude Larréché (Alfred H. Heineken Chaired Professor of Marketing, INSEAD) and
KNOLSKAPE.
Target audience:
Key managers and decision makers in firms whose strategic priority is customer-centric innovation and who
require appropriate management development to help them succeed.
Educational objective:
Creating the appropriate competencies, attitudes and behavior to power customer-based growth in
a business
Discovering how to increase value for current and future customers.
Exploring how to innovate using customer discovery initiatives and subsequently leverage customer
insights.
Categories
Customer centricity, consumer insights, innovation, sustained growth, team performance.
Description
In the DiG simulation, teams of 2 to 4 participants manage a firm in a fictitious context, far from their usual
business environment: the Magic Pen from 2020 to 2025. Their objective is to maximize earnings growth
over a period of 5 years. Placed away from their comfort zone, they have to discover customer insights, test
them, innovate with new offers, improve the customer experience, and implement market deployment
activities.
Points of Interest
Reconciling customer value and business value creation
The power and pitfalls of customer-based innovation
The dynamics of quality growth: building momentum
Nurturing of conception capabilities: from the discovery of customer insights to the design of
power offers
The rigor of execution capabilities: balancing actions for growth and profitability Ambidextrous skills for excellence in conception and excellence in execution
Team spirit and leadership.
Web page
Not available yet.
Contact
Email: Jean-Claude.Larreche@insead.edu
Cell: +33-680 48 41 51
The purpose of the DiG simulation is to develop specific leadership skills for business growth.
The DiG simulation is designed to be used in a one-half to one full day learning session, creating an exciting
and memorable experience. It is this memorable experience that impacts on competencies, attitudes,
behavior, and ultimately back on the job results. DiG is web-based and can be used in a multitude of
formats, including seminars, workshops, large conventions, or e-learning.
The setting is in the future, 2021. The teams of 2 to 4 participants have just been recruited as the new
leadership team of Inovink®, renowned for its revolutionary magicPen®. The founder Jim Shovel is getting
older and slowly distancing himself from the operations of the business. He wants the team to take the
company to the next level while respecting his key principles: “it is not pushing for growth that creates
great companies. It is the continuous symbiosis of consumer discovery and innovation that creates
efficient, sustained growth” and hence the name of the game: “Discovery, Innovation, Growth”.
The mission of the participants is to maximize value creation as measured by earnings growth, and the
team’s 5-year long-term incentive plan is based on that single objective.
DiG has been designed for easy use and does not require any computer knowledge. The simulation revolves
around a single screen illustrated below. Participants can investigate all variables by clicking on buttons in
the information or actions sections.
Simulation-based learning invokes the experiential learning cycle (Kolb, 1984), allowing participants to gain
both the awareness of a complex situation and the experience of resolving the situation; the simulation
allows them to experiment with various solutions to a problem in a safe environment, and the feedback
and reflection opportunities that a well-facilitated simulation experience provides ensure that participants
solidify their learning (Aldrich 2005; Begg, Dewhurst, and Macleod 2005; Faria 2001; Rogers 2003).2 Synthesis of Networking Activities
Mostly of the networking activities have been performed in terms of publications and of events
2.1 Associate Partners
N/A
2.2 SIG Web page
In the third year there have been 5 dynamic entries.
2.3 Events
SIG3.1 partners participated in the following events:
2.4 Proposals and Projects
N/A
2.5 Publications
Popescu, M., Romero, M., & Usart, M. (2013). Serious Games for Serious Learning Using SG for
Business, Management and Defence Education. International Journal of Computer Science
Research and Application. 3(1), 5-15.
Romero, M. & Usart, M. (2013). Desarrollo de las competencias de colaboración con el uso del
serious game MetaVals. Teoría de la Educación. Educación y Cultura en la Sociedad de la
Información, 14(1), 123-142 ISSN: 1138-9737
Romero, M. & Usart, M. (2013). Learning with the Support of a Digital Game in the Introduction to
Finance Class: Analysis of the Students' Perception of the Game's Ease of Use and Usefulness. In
Baek, Y., & Whitton, N. Cases on Digital Game-Based Learning: Methods, Models, and Strategies.
doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-2848
Romero, M. (2013). Game Based Learning MOOC. Promoting Entrepreneurship Education.
Elearning Papers, Special Edition MOOCs and Beyond, 33, 1-5.
Romero, M. & Usart, M. (2013). Time Factor in the Curriculum Integration of Game-Based Learning.
In Sara de Freitas, Michela Ott, Maria Magdalena Popescu & Ioana Stanescu New Pedagogical
Approaches in Game Enhanced Learning: Curriculum Integration. doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3950-8
Romero, M. & Usart, M. (2013). The Impact of Students' Temporal Perspectives on Time-On-Task
and Learning Performance in Game Based Learning. International Journal of Game-Based Learning,
3 (1), 80-9
Publication in LNCS of the SGDA 2013 proceedings, sept. 2013 (Romero, M & Usart, M. "Serious
Games Integration in an Entrepreneurship Massive Online Open Course (MOOC)")
Conference paper for the 2nd GaLA Conference on SG, December 2013 (Usart, M. & Romero, M
"Entrepreneurship competence assessment through a GBL MOOC")3 Best Practice and Recommendations
The previous year best practices and recommendations are substantially confirmed.
Facilitation is required to face the complexity of B&M situations.
Realism is represented by the rate of resemblance to an actual working context.
The more complex is the simulated situation, the more the player can identify oneself as “in action”
in the workplace and see the intrinsic value of the learning experience.
Ability to freely experiment and test challenges, and to face realistic traps and biases is necessary
to raise players’ confidence and motivation.
Lowering down as much as possible the cognitive load that is not inherent to the subject matter
and the learning objectives.
Player’s engagement can be guaranteed only by the concurrent contribution of the previous points:
a sufficient level of realism and complexity for challenging the cognitive learning and for
recognizing the inherent actionability of the learning experience once back at work, the possibility
of making mistakes in a safe environment, the possibility of being explained what went wrong.
In addition to these points, it emerged also the pressing need of having access to the actual educational
design of the learning programme so that the learning impact can be evaluated more effectively over time
and go beyond the “superficial” level of the first two layers in Kirkpatrick-Phillips’ evaluation model.
The set up and implementation of PGLCs can certainly be of help, however, it is likely more an
organisational cultural barrier that has to be overcome in order to succeed in such a more refined analysis
of the learning impact of a serious game.4 Planning for year 4
For the next project year, the main objective will be to increase the number of case studies and of serious
games described in order to provide a broader validation of the best practices and recommendations
provide and to investigate whether new lessons learnt and new KPIs will emerge as well as whether new
learning objectives will be addressed in the B&M application field.
In particular, for what concerns the evaluation of the learning impact, SIG3.1 partners will try to act in a
twofold way:
1) to involve the organisations at an earlier stage so that the evaluation effort will become integrating
part of the learning design and trying to apply effectively the proposed structure of the case study
proposed at the end of the second year (see D3.2 for reference);
2) to benefit of the early results coming from the community of learners gathered around the
participants to the case studies here reported (EagleRacing and WhatADay) in what in D3.2 it was
called Post Game Learning Communities (PGLC), so that it will likely possible to gain insights on the
learning impact on the third level of the Kirkpatrick-Phillips model (Behaviour).
The results of the next round set of efforts will contribute to provide a more consistent set of final best
practices and recommendations that should drive the design and deployment of the serious games in the
B&M application field.References Aldrich, C. (2005). “Learning by doing: A comprehensive guide to simulations, computer games, and pedagogy in e-learning and other educational experiences”. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer-Wiley. Angehrn, Albert A. and Maxwell, Katrina (2009) “EagleRacing: Addressing Corporate Collaboration Challenges Through an Online Simulation Game”; Innovate, Journal of Online Education, Vol. 5, Issue 6, Aug/Sept 2009, retrieved at http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol5_issue6/eagleracing- __addressing_corporate_collaboration_challenges_through_an_online_simulation_game.pdf on 30 September 2012 Begg, M., Dewhurst, D. and MacLeod, H., (2005). “Game Informed Learning: Applying Computer Game Processes to Higher Education”. Innovate, Vol. 1 (6), http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=176. Faria, A. J. (2001). “The changing nature of business simulation/gaming research: A brief history”. Simulation & Gaming 32 (1): 97-110. Foreman, J. (2003). Next-Generation Educational Technology Versus the Lecture. Educause Review 38(4), 12–22. Gagné, R. (1985). “The Conditions of Learning”. (4th ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Kim, B., Park, H. & Baek, Y. (2009). Not just fun, but serious strategies: Using meta-cognitive strategies in game-based learning. Computers and Education, 52(4), 800 810. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). “Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels”. 2nd Edition, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc, San Francisco, 1998 Kolb, D. A. (1984). “Experiential Learning”, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall, pp. 20-38, retrieved at http://academic.regis.edu/ed205/Kolb.pdf on 30 September 2012 Lainema, T., and K. Lainema (2007). “Advancing acquisition of business know-how: Critical learning elements.” Journal of Research on Technology in Education 40 (2): 183-198. Larréché, J-C. (2008). “The Momentum Effect”. Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008. Nonaka, I. (1994). ”A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”. Organization Science 5 (1): 14- 37. Phillips, J. J., Pulliam, P., Wurtz, W., (1998). “Level 5 Evaluation: Mastering ROI.” Infoline. Popescu, M., Romero, M., & Usart, M. (2012). Using Serious Games in adult education- serious business for serious people - the MetaVals game case study-. ICVL Rogers, C. and Freiberg, H. J. (1993) “Freedom to Learn” (3rd ed.), New York: Merrill. Rogers, E. M. (2003). “Diffusion of innovations”. (5th ed.) New York: Free Press. Tao, Y.H., Cheng, C.J. & Sun, S.Y. (2009). What influences college students to continue using business simulation games? The Taiwan experience. Computers and Education, 53(3), 929-939.
You can also read
