IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/simgam/v49y2018i3p263-278.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interdisciplinary Approach to Complexity in Simulation Game Design and Implementation

Author

Listed:
  • Marcin Wardaszko

Abstract

Background . This article offers another look at the complexity in simulation game design and implementation. Although, the topic is not new or undiscovered the growing volatility of socio-economic environments and changes to the way we design simulation games nowadays call for better research and design methods . Aim . The aim of this article is to look into the current state of understanding complexity in simulation gaming and put it in the context of learning with and through complexity . Methodology . The nature and understanding of complexity are simultaneously field-specific and interdisciplinary. Analyzing understanding and role of complexity in different fields associated with simulation game design and implementation. Thoughtful theoretical analysis has been applied in order to deconstruct the complexity theory and reconstruct it further as higher-order models . Results and recommendations . This article offers an interdisciplinary look at the role and place of complexity from two perspectives. The first perspective is knowledge building and dissemination about complexity in simulation gaming . Second, perspective is the role the complexity plays in building and implementation of the simulation gaming as a design process .

Suggested Citation

  • Marcin Wardaszko, 2018. "Interdisciplinary Approach to Complexity in Simulation Game Design and Implementation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 49(3), pages 263-278, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:49:y:2018:i:3:p:263-278
    DOI: 10.1177/1046878118777809
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1046878118777809
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1046878118777809?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diehl, Ernst & Sterman, John D., 1995. "Effects of Feedback Complexity on Dynamic Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 198-215, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jan HG Klabbers, 2018. "On the Architecture of Game Science: A Rebuttal," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 49(3), pages 356-372, June.
    2. Jayanth Raghothama & Sebastiaan Meijer, 2018. "Rigor in Gaming for Design: Conditions for Transfer Between Game and Reality," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 49(3), pages 246-262, June.
    3. Yusuke Toyoda, 2020. "A Framework of Simulation and Gaming for Enhancing Community Resilience Against Large-Scale Earthquakes: Application for Achievements in Japan," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 51(2), pages 180-211, April.
    4. Willy C. Kriz & J. Tuomas Harviainen & Timothy C. Clapper, 2018. "Game Science: Foundations and Perspectives," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 49(3), pages 199-206, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Harvey, Nigel & Koehler, Derek J. & Ayton, Peter, 1997. "Judgments of Decision Effectiveness: Actor-Observer Differences in Overconfidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 267-282, June.
    2. Raizza Miranda & Markus Schwaninger & Alvimar Lucena & Ygor Logullo & Mischel Carmen N. Belderrain & Tereza C. M. B. Carvalho & Renato C. Sato, 2023. "Sustainable Amazon: A Systemic Inquiry with Native Populations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-24, May.
    3. Linda Argote & Sunkee Lee & Jisoo Park, 2021. "Organizational Learning Processes and Outcomes: Major Findings and Future Research Directions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5399-5429, September.
    4. Atun, Rifat A. & Lebcir, Reda M. & McKee, Martin & Habicht, Jarno & Coker, Richard J., 2007. "Impact of joined-up HIV harm reduction and multidrug resistant tuberculosis control programmes in Estonia: System dynamics simulation model," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(2-3), pages 207-217, May.
    5. Cleotilde Gonzalez & Jose Quesada, 2003. "Learning in Dynamic Decision Making: The Recognition Process," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 287-304, December.
    6. Mittone, Luigi & Morreale, Azzurra & Ritala, Paavo, 2024. "Initial conditions and path dependence in explorative and exploitative learning: An experimental study," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    7. Moxnes, Erling, 1998. "Overexploitation of renewable resources: The role of misperceptions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 107-127, September.
    8. Cronin, Matthew A. & Gonzalez, Cleotilde & Sterman, John D., 2009. "Why don't well-educated adults understand accumulation? A challenge to researchers, educators, and citizens," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 116-130, January.
    9. Repenning, Nelson P. (Nelson Peter), 1998. "The transition problem in product development," Working papers WP 4036-98., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    10. U Benzion & Y Cohen & R Peled & T Shavit, 2008. "Decision-making and the newsvendor problem: an experimental study," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(9), pages 1281-1287, September.
    11. John Hey & Tibor Neugebauer & Abdolkarim Sadrieh, 2009. "An Experimental Analysis of Optimal Renewable Resource Management: The Fishery," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(2), pages 263-285, October.
    12. Jing Xia & Wei Liu & Sang-Bing Tsai & Guodong Li & Chien-Chi Chu & Kai Wang, 2018. "A System Dynamics Framework for Academic Entrepreneurship," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-25, July.
    13. Faison P. Gibson, 2003. "Supporting Learning in Evolving Dynamic Environments," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 305-326, December.
    14. Birgit Kopainsky & Agata Sawicka, 2011. "Simulator‐supported descriptions of complex dynamic problems: experimental results on task performance and system understanding," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 27(2), pages 142-172, April.
    15. Wallander, Steven & Paul, Laura A. & Ferraro, Paul J. & Messer, Kent D. & Iovanna, Richard, 2023. "Informational nudges in conservation auctions: A field experiment with U.S. farmers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    16. Nelson P. Repenning, 2002. "A Simulation-Based Approach to Understanding the Dynamics of Innovation Implementation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(2), pages 109-127, April.
    17. S Howick & C Eden, 2004. "On the nature of discontinuities in system dynamics modelling of disrupted projects," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 55(6), pages 598-605, June.
    18. S Howick, 2003. "Using system dynamics to analyse disruption and delay in complex projects for litigation: can the modelling purposes be met?," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(3), pages 222-229, March.
    19. Schnier, Kurt E. & Anderson, Christopher M., 2006. "Decision making in patchy resource environments: Spatial misperception of bioeconomic models," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 234-254, October.
    20. Zizzo, Daniel John & Stolarz-Fantino, Stephanie & Wen, Julie & Fantino, Edmund, 2000. "A violation of the monotonicity axiom: experimental evidence on the conjunction fallacy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 263-276, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:49:y:2018:i:3:p:263-278. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.