IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/simgam/v49y2018i6p620-641.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Simulation Gaming Can Strengthen Experiential Education in Complex Infrastructure Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Lauren R. McBurnett
  • Margaret M. Hinrichs
  • Thomas P. Seager
  • Susan Spierre Clark

Abstract

Background Despite federal directives to strengthen the resilience of critical infrastructure systems, existing education programs have not kept pace with ambitious policy goals. As post-war infrastructure ages, it is increasingly necessary for graduates to master systems thinking to understand the complex and interdependent nature of infrastructure. Whereas in traditional physical science and engineering courses, learning would take place in laboratory exercises, the scale and criticality of infrastructure present obstacles to experimental and experiential learning activities. Aim This article describes the experience of an educational simulation game , called the LA Water Game , to teach management of ageing water infrastructure as a complex socio-technical system. Method A total of over 200 participants in 16 workshops completed an introductory lecture, experimental scenario development, experiential game play, and participated in reflective group discussion. Qualitative data was collected during game play and debriefing interviews and was used to assess participant learning outcomes. Results Participant feedback affirmed that simulation gaming can reinforce the experimental, experiential, and reflective phases of the Kolb Learning Cycle. Subjects displayed cognitive and affective engagement, intrinsic motivation, and often reported improved understanding of complex systems attributes, including interdependencies, feedback loops, nonlinearity, and stochasticity.

Suggested Citation

  • Lauren R. McBurnett & Margaret M. Hinrichs & Thomas P. Seager & Susan Spierre Clark, 2018. "Simulation Gaming Can Strengthen Experiential Education in Complex Infrastructure Systems," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 49(6), pages 620-641, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:49:y:2018:i:6:p:620-641
    DOI: 10.1177/1046878118767729
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1046878118767729
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1046878118767729?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. John D. Sterman, 1989. "Modeling Managerial Behavior: Misperceptions of Feedback in a Dynamic Decision Making Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 321-339, March.
    2. Sterman, John., 1994. "Learning in and about complex systems," Working papers 3660-94., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    3. Richard Bellman & Charles E. Clark & Donald G. Malcolm & Clifford J. Craft & Franc M. Ricciardi, 1957. "On the Construction of a Multi-Stage, Multi-Person Business Game," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 469-503, August.
    4. Sterman, John D., 1989. "Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 301-335, June.
    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. R. Cantelmi & G. Di Gravio & R. Patriarca, 2021. "Reviewing qualitative research approaches in the context of critical infrastructure resilience," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 341-376, September.
    2. Willy Christian Kriz, 2018. "Research of the Active Substance of Gaming Simulation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 49(6), pages 595-601, December.

    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. Oliva, Rogelio, 2003. "Model calibration as a testing strategy for system dynamics models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(3), pages 552-568, December.
    2. Hazhir Rahmandad & Nelson Repenning, 2016. "Capability erosion dynamics," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 649-672, April.
    3. Florian Kapmeier, 2020. "Reflections on developing a simulation model on sustainable and healthy diets for decision makers: Comment on the paper by Kopainsky," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 928-935, November.
    4. Gibson, Faison P., 2000. "Feedback Delays: How Can Decision Makers Learn Not to Buy a New Car Every Time the Garage Is Empty?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 141-166, September.
    5. Sarah Gerritsen & Sophia Harré & David Rees & Ana Renker-Darby & Ann E. Bartos & Wilma E. Waterlander & Boyd Swinburn, 2020. "Community Group Model Building as a Method for Engaging Participants and Mobilising Action in Public Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-12, May.
    6. Lee, Yun-Huei & Wang, Kung-Jeng, 2012. "Performance impact of new product development processes for distinct scenarios under different supplier–manufacturer relationships," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 82(11), pages 2096-2108.
    7. Yang, Y. & Lin, J. & Liu, G. & Zhou, L., 2021. "The behavioural causes of bullwhip effect in supply chains: A systematic literature review," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    8. Nicholas C. Georgantzas & Evangelos G. Katsamakas, 2008. "Information systems research with system dynamics," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 24(3), pages 247-264, September.
    9. Strohhecker, Jürgen & Leyer, Michael, 2019. "How stock-flow failure and general cognitive ability impact performance in operational dynamic control tasks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1044-1055.
    10. Langley, Paul A. & Morecroft, John D. W., 2004. "Performance and learning in a simulation of oil industry dynamics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 155(3), pages 715-732, June.
    11. David C. Lane & Birgit Kopainsky & David C. Lane, 2017. "‘Behavioural System Dynamics’: A Very Tentative and Slightly Sceptical Map of the Territory," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 414-423, July.
    12. Gogi, Anastasia & Tako, Antuela A. & Robinson, Stewart, 2016. "An experimental investigation into the role of simulation models in generating insights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 931-944.
    13. 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.
    14. Atkins, Paul W. B. & Wood, Robert E. & Rutgers, Philip J., 2002. "The effects of feedback format on dynamic decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 587-604, July.
    15. Lane, David C. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A., 2023. "Towards a behavioural system dynamics: Exploring its scope and delineating its promise," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(2), pages 777-794.
    16. Federico Cosenz & Guido Noto, 2016. "Applying System Dynamics Modelling to Strategic Management: A Literature Review," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 703-741, November.
    17. Leopold-Wildburger, Ulrike & Strohhecker, Jürgen, 2017. "Strategy map concepts in a balanced scorecard cockpit improve performanceAuthor-Name: Hu, Bo," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(2), pages 664-676.
    18. Howick, Susan, 2005. "Using system dynamics models with litigation audiences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 239-250, April.
    19. Hazhir Rahmandad & Rebecca Henderson & Nelson P. Repenning, 2018. "Making the Numbers? “Short Termism” and the Puzzle of Only Occasional Disaster," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1328-1347, March.
    20. Franco, L. Alberto & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A. & Leppänen, Ilkka, 2021. "Taking stock of behavioural OR: A review of behavioural studies with an intervention focus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(2), pages 401-418.

    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:6:p:620-641. 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.