L2C
Learning to Collaborate
D3.1 and 3.2 ACDT Framework, Simulation Scenarios
and Design and Prototypes (WP 3)
Albert Angehrn & Alicia Cheak, INSEAD and Paolo Petta, OFAI
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
1
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Structure of the Presentation
1.
2.
3.
4.
ACDT Framework
L2C Simulation Types
Simulation Scenarios
L2C Simulation Prototypes
•
•
•
•
•
Edusynergy
WorldTeam
Pit Stop Simulation
Eagle Racing Simulation
Intermediary Agent Simulation
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
2
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
ACDT Framework
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
3
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
ACDT Framework: Objectives
1.
The Framework provides structure for
designing, implementing and deploying
effective technology-enhanced learning solutions
based on advanced organisational simulation
games.
2.
Supports game designers and educators in the
selection and integration of behavioural
models for the design, development and
deployment of simulations addressing
collaboration dynamics.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
4
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
ACDT Framework: Key Components
1.
2.
3.
The Knowledge Harvesting phase which brings
together a number of collaboration-related
models and dynamics in six research areas,
The Modelling and Design phase which
consists of selecting models and dynamics
gathered in WP 1 toward the design of simulation
games targeting specific collaboration challenges,
and
The Deployment phase, which consists of the
implementation and diffusion of the simulations to
target users.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
5
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
ACDT Framework
Knowledge Har vesting and Integration
(Workpac kage 1)
Deployment
(Workpac kage 4)
Sim ulation modelling
and des ign
(Workpac kage 3)
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
6
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
ACDT Framework: Knowledge Harvesting
Phase
Underlying Foundations/Models:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Motivational and Cultural Dynamics
Knowledge Integration Dynamics
Technology-enhanced Workgroup Dynamics
Collaboration Management Competencies: Best/Worst Practice Cases
Learning Solutions addressing Advanced Collaboration Dynamics
Advanced Simulation & Agents Technologies
Analyzed at different levels:
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
7
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
ACDT Framework: Design Phase
Consists of a set of:
• Design and modelling guidelines
• Implementation guidelines
• Pedagogical guidelines
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
8
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
ACDT Framework: Deployment Phase
•
Disseminate and make L2C Simulation games available among
learners and players interested in competence development in the
area of collaboration.
•
Observe and evaluate of these learning experiences and
outcomes (related to Workpackage 6, Embedded, Continuous
Evaluation).
•
Further extend the effectiveness of the simulation-based
learning experiences as well as the usability and deployability of
the L2C Simulation Games prototypes, fine-tuning also the
technical and pedagogical guidelines (related to Workpackage 4,
Pilots and Prototyping Cycles).
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
9
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Simulation Types
COLLABORATION
Organisational
perspective
Group/Team
perspective
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
Individual/Interpersonal
perspective
10
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Three Simulation Types
Simulation Type
Focus
ODSimulations
Factors determining collaboration dynamics in different
organizational
contexts/cultures,
their
productive
or
dysfunctional manifestations in everyday organizational life, and
the possibility to influence such dynamics through managerial
action.
GT-Simulations Factors determining success or failure of collaboration in groups
or teams, their manifestation in the context of specific projects,
and the possibility to influence such group dynamics in group
contexts
IP-Simulations
Factors determining both motivation and capability to collaborate
at the individual level, their manifestation in inter-personal
exchanges/conversational contexts, and the possibility to
influence them through one to one interactions.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
11
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Key Collaboration Issues Targeted
Simulation type
Key questions addressed
OD-Simulations
 Which are the most typical “collaboration breakdowns” in
organizations?
 What are the different factors (e.g. aims, membership, power,
leadership, etc) that need to be considered and effectively
managed to give collaborations an advantage?
 Which characteristics of an organization can favour or hinder the
introduction of collaboration processes and systems?
 What are the ways to diagnose resistances to collaboration
processes and systems and problems and how to address
them?
 How do individuals at different levels in organizations articulate
resistance to collaboration processes and systems? What is the
source of these resistances, and how to address them?
 How to best diffuse collaboration processes and systems within
organizations?
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
12
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Key Collaboration Issues Targeted
Simulation type
Key questions addressed
GT-Simulations
 What are the challenges of collaboration in diverse and distributed
groups?
 What are specific barriers to communication, coordination and
collaboration?
 What are the challenges of different, conflicting or hidden aims in a
collaboration? How to manage these aims?
 How can “attributions” that we naturally do about the work and
behaviour of others lead to collaboration breakdowns?
 Which are the most frequent collaboration traps in cross-cultural
settings?
 Which attitudes towards knowledge sharing and which knowledge
integration competences are key to successful collaboration? How to
diagnose and intervene in case such conditions are not present in a
team?
 How can collaboration technologies be used effectively to support
collaboration in distributed teams?
 What are some unexpected or external events that occur that disrupt
team collaboration?
 What are strategies that can be used to overcome or recover from
these events?
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
13
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Different Team Interaction Modes Targeted
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
14
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Key Collaboration Issues Targeted
Simulation type
Key questions addressed
IP-Simulations
 How do un-collaborative attitudes manifest themselves in
individuals?
 How to diagnose these behaviours and best face them?
 What are the different consequences of un-collaborative
attitudes?
 Which are the motivational and competence factors underlying uncollaborative attitudes, and how to address them productively in
conversational settings?
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
15
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Simulation Scenarios
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
16
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Organizational Dynamics (OD) Simulation Scenario
Scenario 1
Imagine being put in charge of exploring the opportunities for increasing the
level and quality of collaboration within an educational institution (a
university) through implementing a set of collaboration systems and
processes. You will face the resistance of deans, faculty members,
administrative staff and other stakeholders protecting a not-so-collaborative
status quo dominating the reality of today’s educational institutions. The
experience will help you realize why collaboration is so hard in certain
organizational contexts and which factors might determine the success or
failure of managerial initiatives aimed at identifying and leveraging
collaborative synergies in organizations.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
17
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Group/Team Dynamics (GT) Simulation Scenario
Scenario 2
Imagine you are a member of a distributed and very diverse team
working on a complex business issue (involving a strategic decision to be
developed, taken, and implemented collaboratively). Without even
realizing it, you will experience how an initially collaborative context can
gradually degenerate into one where the different team members
gradually blame or accuse each other of incompetence, start ignoring
each other, or feel the need to focus their resources on competing rather
than looking for reachable win-win solutions. The experience will help
you realize why collaboration in teams, particularly when distributed
and diverse, is so difficult, and to identify factors which might improve the
chances of such teams and groups to collaborate in a more efficient and
effective way.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
18
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Group/Team Dynamics (GT) Simulation Scenario
Scenario 3
Imagine you are a member of a high performing team, tasked with
executing a highly coordinated, interdependent group activity.
Through the hands-on experience, you will be immersed in the
dynamics of team collaboration and the challenges of group work in
the presence of time and competitive pressures. The experience
will help you realize the key ingredients for high team performance
as well as typical team breakdown patterns that can emerge if certain
conditions are not in place.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
19
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Group/Team Dynamics (GT) Simulation Scenario
Scenario 4
Imagine you are a high-level decision maker of a race car company,
faced with the dilemma of making a number of decisions affecting the
financial future of your company. You are confronted with different
options, types of information, and conflicting opinions, which you will
have to analyze and manage properly in order to make the best decision.
In addressing such a situation you will be immersed in the dynamics of
collaborative decision making and the challenges to sound decision
making when emotions, alliances, perception, interpretation of
information, peer pressure, etc come into play. The experience will also
help you experience how collaboration in collocated teams can be
significantly improved with Synchronous Collaboration Technologies,
particularly when facing the challenges and pitfalls of collaborative
decision-making in teams and larger groups.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
20
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Interpersonal Dynamics (IP) Simulation Scenario
Scenario 5
Imagine you have been put in charge by your consulting firm of a difficult change
management mission in an organization. You will have to move to this organization and
stay there for 6 months, trying your best to achieve your mission. You are confident to
be able to succeed, but something is going to make it even harder: The CEO of the
organization has decided that in order to minimize disruptions, you are not going to
intervene directly within organizational staff. Instead, you will always need to interact
first with an “organizational contact”, an intermediary who has been put in charge of
working with you to implement all the decisions you will take (meet managers at the
organization, communicate and organize events, etc.). As you will soon realize,
collaborating with this contact will make things complicated, and you will wonder what
to do to increase both his motivation and capability to work with you towards the
achievement of your mission. The experience will help you realize what makes
collaboration difficult at the inter-personal level and how to diagnose and influence
an individual’s attitude and behaviour towards collaboration.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
21
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
22
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
EduSynergy
Addressing the Challenge of Adopting Collaboration Processes &
Systems in Higher Education Contexts
Key Features
• Intensive,
time-concentrated
learning
workshop of
experience (1/2 day
simulation run + debriefing)
• Learning from interaction with collocated
(or distributed) co-players sharing the
same "role"
• Learning from interaction with virtual
characters
• The player role is external (Collaboration
Agent) to the context with a mission to
fulfil within the context (e.g. to drive the
adoption
of
collaboration-related
processes and technologies)
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
23
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Collaboration Opportunity Domains
Collaboration in Higher Education Contexts is not as advanced as it
could/should be
COD 1. Student and student
COD 2. Faculty members across
different departments
COD 3. Between administration
groups
COD 4. Faculty and students
COD 5. School management and
faculty
COD 6. Administrative staff and
students
COD 7. Faculty and industry
representatives
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
24
SmallWorld Simulations – generic components
Generic Components:
Key difference from
traditional simulations
Key difference from
A realistic scenario
traditional games
A challenging mgmt mission
A set of believable characters
A range of managerial actions
A realistic dynamic (reflecting different
resistance forms, the impact of formal and informal
influence networks and cultural factors on the
innovation diffusion dynamics)
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
25
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Designing EduSynergy
Learning Objectives:
.
• Experience the challenge of trying to
successfully introduce and implement
Collaboration Processes and
Systems within organizations.
• Experience first-hand and try to
interactively address different forms of
resistance to collaboration in
organizational contexts, and the factors
determining such resistance.
• Try to dynamically influence the
attitudes of different virtual characters
through different strategies and
interventions
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
26
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Designing EduSynergy
Specific Learning Points
•
Experiencing the most typical “collaboration breakdowns” in
organizations.
•
Understanding the different “collaboration drivers” that need
to be considered and effectively managed to give
collaborations an advantage.
•
Understanding which characteristics of an organization can
favour or hinder the introduction of collaboration processes
and systems into an organization.
•
Learn how to diagnose and address different forms of
resistances to collaboration and their organizational roots.
•
Encounter how individuals at different levels in organizations
articulate resistance to collaboration processes and systems.
•
Understand how to best diffuse collaboration processes and
systems within organizations.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
27
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Designing EduSynergy
Embedding OD specific collaboration
dynamics
•
•
•
Created a list of statements of
resistances to collaboration for the
different virtual characters
Created a specific Simulation Mission
to reflect the challenge of introducing
collaboration processes and systems in
a higher education context.
Understanding Collaboration
Opportunities Domains
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
28
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Factors Affecting Collaboration
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identity
Ethics
Trust
Openness
Connectedness
Values
Status Quo Satisfaction
Pace of change
Individual motivations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
Financial considerations
Value added
Quality level and control
Effort
Technical barriers
Language barriers
Process
29
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
EduSynergy Statements of Resistance
Sources
Statements of resistance
Competitive knowledge practices
(knowledge hoarding vs open
exchange)
I'm not so sure about open sharing of information across departments. What's to ensure the other professors don’t claim ownership of my
ideas?
Complex mixture of aims at
collaboration, members’ own
organisation and individual
levels
I thought we had agreed that my singular priority for this and next year is to increase research output
Deferring responsibility
I agree with you, but you will never convince the others. I will only support the system if the others do so, too.
I don't understand the goal. I think my work is to contribute to my personal research.
All along you have been putting pressure on us to get additional accreditation. Are you saying we now have to shift priorities?
I'll let my secretary do this...
Contact my secretary.
I’ll start doing it tomorrow...
Failure to see added value
Collaboration is difficult and requires effort and unless I'm given a strong reason for it, I'd rather not get involved,
I am currently collaborating with my colleagues and I don't see why I need to use these technologies you propose. It just complicates things.
I will retire soon
Indifference
No statement at all (resistance by being passive)
Fear of change
What I see happening with the increasing use of technologies in the work place is the automation of higher education. Education is now
being commoditized with knowledge being transformed into commercially viable, proprietary products that could be owned and bought and
sold in the market. I just don't agree with this way of doing things.
Hidden or psuedo aims
Oh yes, I did read that we actually need a newer system and I agree that we should actually introduce the new system and forget about the
old one (NOTE: the character is only stating what he is expected to say but in fact is not interested or is secretly against such systems)
Identity
These virtual collaborations just don't fit into our school beliefs. It's the campus experience, with its rich social milieu, that's the best way to
educate students.
Imposed agenda
You need to run it by my manager first.
Lack of communication,
defensiveness
You say I'm not involved in projects…nobody asked me to get involved!
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
30
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
EduSynergy Statements of Resistance
Sources
Statements of resistance
Lack of initiative
You know I am very collaborative. I'm open if they come to collaborate with me.
Lack of trust
I'm not sure about working with the folks in the administrative department. They have their own agendas and we
have ours.
When I think of technology, I think of frustration and disappointment. It always sounds better on paper than in
reality.
Media richness
I've heard about these technologies before and believe me, a one on one meeting is better than communicating
through email anytime.
No training and poor support
Oh, I've had experiences with these systems before. They dump them on you and expect you to use them
immediately. I don't know what the hell I'm doing half the time. It's useless. I just don't get the purpose.
Poor communication plan
What collaborative system? This is the first time I've heard about this
(Negative) Prior experience
I'm sorry but I'm not going to do this. I have already seen so much effort on collaboration and it never worked!
Satisfaction with the status
quo
Things may work with them but not with us because we are special and have a different situation.
We do not need collaboration processes and systems. Things are working well as it is, we don't need to change
anything!
We are not going to change anything in our organization! Everything is working fine and especially relationships
among people! There is boss, just follow his strategy!
Time/resources/effort required
I do not have to spend time on collaboration because my agenda is already overwhelmed.
We do not have the financial nor the human resources to implement the collaboration processes and systems.
I don't have the time to learn a new way of doing things.
These systems and platforms cost time and money to implement and in the end, only a few people use them.
What's the point in investing in it?
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
31
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Deploying Edusynergy
•
EduSynergy
SIMULATION
•
•
1/2 to 1 day workshop
structure with intro, simulation
run and debriefing
Intensive collocated or
distributed experience
Simulation to be played in
teams of 3-5 players.
1/2 to 1 day session
INTRO
1/2 h to 1 h
TEAMWORK
1.5 h to 2.5 h
DEBRIEFING
1.5 h to half day
WORKSHOP
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
32
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
EduSynergy Implementation
Two Step Process
1.
Identification and selection of underlying models and dynamics
from the material gathered in Workpackage 1 to provide a first
set of collaboration, OD-specific dynamics to be modelled into
our first EduSynergy prototype.
2.
Programming of the selected collaboration components. In this
phase, Revolution code has been produced to provide flexible
Plug-Ins for EduSynergy (in view of easy feedback integration in
future prototyping cycles) supporting variations on the Mission,
Resistance articulations, and other added or extended simulation
components the players come in touch with during the
EduSynergy simulation.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
33
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Next Steps
•
Validate and prioritize list of learning points.
•
Adding additional dynamics (further translating the
models identified in WP 1 to dynamics).
•
Pilot test the prototype in continuous cycle of testing
and revision.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
34
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Edusynergy Demo
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
35
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
World Team Simulation
Addressing the Challenge of Team Collaboration in Diverse and
Distributed Environments
Key Features
• Intensive,
time-concentrated
learning
experience (1/2 day workshop of
simulation run + debriefing)
• Learning from interaction with collocated
(or distributed) co-players sharing the
same "role"
• No virtual characters with team dynamics
emerging from players themselves
• Member of a team, with a mission to fulfil
within the context (e.g. achieve a common
project objective)
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
36
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Designing the World Team Simulation
Learning Objectives
• Experiencing the challenge of trying to collaborate in a diverse and
distributed setting.
• Experiencing the emergence of group and team breakdowns that
can occur during the collaborative process.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
37
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Designing the World Team Simulation
Specific Learning Points
• Experience the challenge of different, conflicting or hidden aims and how to
manage these aims.
• Experience how “attributions” that we naturally do about the work and
behaviour of others can lead to collaboration breakdowns (vs highperformance teams).
• Understand what are the most frequent collaboration traps in diverse and
cross-cultural settings.
• Understand which attitudes, social and cognitive skills and competences are
key to successful knowledge sharing and creation and to successful
collaboration. Also, to diagnose and intervene in case such conditions are
not present in a team.
• Understand what are strategies that can be used to overcome or recover
from breakdowns in team collaboration.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
38
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Designing the World Team Simulation
MISSION:
Six teams, each representing different regional bank
headquarters of the international GloBank, to collaboratively come up with an
acquisition plan of 15 local banks for international expansion.
GROUP DYNAMICS:
Through the experience, teams may begin
to display non collaborative behaviours such as blame, accusation, frustration
and because of the absence of face to face interactions, negative
misattributions to the other teams’ choices, as well as refocusing resources
on competing rather than on looking for reachable win-win solutions.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
39
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Key Activities
•
•
•
Nominate banks for acquisition: Each team (HQ) to take turns to nominate a
bank from their list to the acquisition list.
Order the list of acquisition: Each team (HQ) to take turns to order the
acquisition list in terms of banks to be acquired first, second …. etc.
Alignment of objectives:
 Three teams will be given the following sequencing criteria: We should not
engage in acquiring consecutively two banks in the same region (Americas,
Eurasia, Far East).
 Three other teams will be given the criteria: We should not engage in
acquiring consecutively two banks of the same type (private, investment or
retail).
•
Distributedness challenge:
 Teams will have limited face to face interactions with one another (each
team will be situated in a configuration that minimizes contact with the other
teams)
 Limited communication will be allowed through the use of a chat function.
However, only a limited number of communication opportunities will be
allowed.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
40
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
41
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Additional Acquisition Criteria
When considering geographical proximity, in order to increase complexity, some
additional criteria that we will consider adding are:
 Choose fast growing areas, even if far from the Head Quarters
 Within these fast growing areas, choose the country with lower labor and administrative costs
 Within lower cost fast growing areas, choose the country with lower language barrier
 Within countries with lower language barriers, choose that with minimal cross-cultural
differences
When considering type of bank to be acquired, some additional criteria are:
 Choose a bank whose characteristics create income synergy with ones own bank, without



cost duplication
Avoid to create a bigger bank with massive labor redundancies in each area, with related
conflicts with Trade Unions about the downsizing of human re-sources
Choose fast growing banks within fast growing sectors (securities, investment banks, and so
on)
Choose important banks with a significant size, currently badly managed, in order to
reorganize them by enhancing efficiency and extending good management practices
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
42
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Deploying the World Team Simulation
•
World Team
SIMULATION
•
•
•
1/2 day session
1/2 day workshop structure
with intro, simulation run and
debriefing.
Intensive collocated or
distributed experience.
Simulation to be played in
teams of 3-5 players.
Controlled communication
opportunities among teams
during the simulation run.
INTRO
TEAMWORK
1/2 h
1/4 to 1 h
DEBRIEFING
1.5 h to 2 h
WORKSHOP
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
43
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
World Team Implementation
The prototype is currently implemented on top of the code of the
World Music Simulation, with a combination “Revolution” and
php.
The inclusion of the collaboration-specific contents and dynamics (like
chatting possibility and external interventions) identified and
selected by the partners has started taking place in a way which
allows players to:
(1) log in
(2) select their virtual team and access their game-specific
mission, and then
(3) operate collaboratively on their mission, with the possibility
for the facilitator to intervene remotely
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
44
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
World Team Additional Features for the
Next Prototyping Phase
Controlled communication between teams. Option will be to allow a restricted number of
online communication opportunities, which would require teams to choose carefully the
communications which will be of the most value to them. Teams may have a number of “social points”
to consume by selecting from a limited choice of communication activities.
An intervention component. To be used by facilitators and instructors to enter into the simulation
as a third party such as a representative from Top Management and introduce additional pressures by
ways of time pressure, agenda changes, coveted aims, spying/sabotage, etc. These unexpected
events ensure a certain level of challenge in the game experience by provoking additional
breakdowns.
World Team progress indicator. Unlike EduSynergy, the World Team simulation relies on
inciting relevant reactions within the teams, rather than demonstrating collaboration breakdown
phenomena within the simulation. What is needed is some sort of performance indicator, which shows
the extent to which the acquisition plan is in alignment with corporate strategy, or perhaps some
measure of progressing consensus.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
45
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Next Steps
•
•
•
•
•
•
Validate and prioritize list of learning points.
Adding additional dynamics and more complexity (further
translating the models identified in WP 1 to dynamics).
Produce and integrate a list of interventions (unplanned
events, pressures, changes to agenda, etc) + integration of
intervention functionality.
Integration of a feature for controlled communication points.
Integration of a progress indicator.
Pilot test the prototype in continuous cycle of testing and
revision.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
46
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
World Team Demo
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
47
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Eagle Racing Simulation
Addressing Group Decision Making with Synchronous Collaboration
Technologies
Key Features
• The opportunity for the learner to
experience directly the opportunities
and
limitations
of
deploying
synchronous
collaboration
technologies
to
improve
collaboration in teams (up to
relatively large groups).
• An series of cases supporting role
playing in complex collaboration
situations.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
48
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Designing the Eagle Racing Simulation
Learning Objectives
• The advantages and pitfalls of synchronous collaboration
technologies to support group decision making.
• The challenges to collaborative decision making, including
managing different points of view, emotional decision making,
biases, allegiances, interpretation and use of data, etc.
space
same
different
same different
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
time
49
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Designing the Eagle Racing Simulation
Specific Learning Points
• Dimensions and criteria to be taken into consideration when selecting
Collaboration Partners in such contexts.
• Insights from inter-organizational studies/experiences (e.g. about
success and sustainability of collaboration depending on the partners’
characteristics), particularly in complex and cross-cultural situations.
• Strength and weaknesses of collaborative team decision making.
• Best practices and theoretical model related to the deployment of
Synchronous Collaboration Technologies to enhance the performance
of teams and in larger group contexts.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
50
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Opportunities: Synchronous Collaboration
Technologies
• Enable multiparty participation in an organisational decision-making
process
• Support a range of decision-making sub processes such as idea
generation, facilitating participation, conflict management, and task
management.
• Advantages:
•
•
•
•
•
Broader participation (especially when anonymity is used)
Reducing dominance of the process by a few people
Parallel/simultaneous work
Provide structure and manage digressions and non-productive behaviours
Improve satisfaction with group process especially when group size increases
(Gray & Nunamaker, 1996; Jessup et al, 1990; Watson et al, 1988; DeSanctis
& Gallupe, 1987).
• Facilitate the processes of idea generation, problem finding; intellectual
choice and planning tasks (Watson et al, 1988).
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
51
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Key Features of Synchronous Collaboration
Technologies
Challenges:
• Potential for increased conflict and the sense of distance
among group members (Watson et al, 1988), especially when
GDSS is employed among distributed members.
• The option of anonymity within GDSS, and hence the removal
social constraints to communication, can result in users
displaying confrontational and negative behaviours such as
flaming (Jessup et al, 1990; Watson et al, 1988; Siegel et al,
1986).
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
52
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Challenges to Collaborative Decision Making
Addressed
Dilemma
Key question
Issues that may be addressed
Dilemma 1
Who to choose for
Partner?
Cultural conflicts:
•Jennifer (American, soft) detests Walther Schwartz
(German, cynical, facts-focused) who unsuccessfully
tries to charm her
•Jeep Van De Haar (Dutch, Bauer, business go getter)
and Sir Ralph Windfield (British aristocrat,
GoodBridge).
Ethical dilemma
Clash between Formal and Informal objectives
Character clashes
Dilemma 2
Race or don’t race?
Emotional vs. rational preferences
Acting on incomplete information
Differentiated information (formal vs. informal data)
Clash between formal and real responsibility
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
53
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Challenges to Collaborative Decision Making
Addressed
Dilemma
Key question
Issues that may be addressed
Dilemma 3
Comeback style?
Conflict between ”open sharing” and ”looking good”
Choice of spokesman(/woman)
Cultural conflicts revisited
Formal/informal communication processes
Afterthoughts
Cause and effect
The chaos nature of processes
Increased importance of principles and values in
increasingly chaotic environments (‘Enterprise 2.0
‘reference?)
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
54
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Designing the Eagle Racing Simulation
Addressing three different decision making dilemmas
•
•
•
Choice between two potential sponsors, Bauer or GoodBridge (financial and
reputation considerations)
Decision whether to race in an upcoming race or not (technical and financial
considerations)
Decision whether to share problems openly or circumvent the problem
(focus on the general risks of racing)
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
55
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Using ThinkTank, a Synchronous Collaboration
Technology http://72.3.220.186/thinktank/web/index.html
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
56
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Deploying the Eagle Racing Simulation
Eagle Racing
SIMULATION
DECISION-MAKING AND
DEBRIEFING
3-4 h
INTRO
• ½ day workshop structure with intro,
case study run and debriefing.
• Intensive collocated or distributed
experience, facilitated by
Synchronous Collaboration
Technologies
• Case study decision making to be
made in groups using SCT.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
1/2 h
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ThinkTank-supported Intro
Joint viewing of ER Multimedia Case Part 1
TT-supported Debriefing Part 1
Joint viewing of ER Multimedia Case Part 2
TT-supported Debriefing Part 2
Joint viewing of ER Multimedia Case Part 3
TT-supported Debriefing Part 3
Joint viewing of all ER results + SCT supported
debriefing of session result
Conclusions
3-4 h
WORKSHOP
57
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Implementing the Eagle Racing Simulation
•
A prototype of the different components and media which flow into
the Eagle Racing simulation has been developed and is available
for the pilot runs in an easily downloadable Flash format.
•
The Synchronous Collaboration Technologies we deployed in our
early internal prototype testing were GroupSystems and
ThinkTank (www.groupsystems.com) , as these two tools included
most of the functionalities required and experience with research
and deployment of such tools was already present within the
Consortium.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
58
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Implementing the Eagle Racing
Simulation
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
59
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Eagle Racing Demo
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
60
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Pit Stop Simulation
Addressing Collaboration Challenges in High Performance Teams
Key Features
• Pit stop change in Formula 1 teams as a
prime example of high level team
performance under strict time and
competitive pressures.
• Expose the players to a concrete context
in
which
high-performance
teams
operate- hands on experience with a pit
stop change.
• Translate their insights into change and
action within their own teams and
organizations.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
61
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Designing the Pit Stop Simulation
Learning Objectives
•
•
•
Learn about collaboration in a highly intensive personal experience
of success, of failure, of frustration, of lack of coordination, harmony,
etc.
Confront the collaboration patterns of their own teams with such an
“extreme” reference point can be potentially beneficial for teams (in
different organizational or inter-organizational contexts.
Aim at improving collaboration competences and performance in
contexts of high pressure (time, stress and competition).
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
62
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Designing the Pit Stop Simulation
Scenario
•
•
•
Four teams of three members each to undergo an observationtrial/practice- performance process of a simplified pit stop
experience conducted with an actual F1 car.
Teams learn the pit stop roles assigned to them, practicing these
roles and perform pit stop changes (for best overall time) as well as
against one other for the better time (best individual team time).
Conclude with a debriefing of the experience, using the pit stop
team as a metaphor for analyzing high performance collaboration
behaviours and practices within their organization.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
63
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Designing the Pit Stop Simulation
1.
Assign roles and perform pit stop activity: Pit stop change (involving
removing the nut, removing the old tire, inserting the new tire and
reinserting the nut.
2.
Experience crisis situations and enforced breakdowns: Complexity
is introduced through a number of crisis situations, which are designed
to destabilize team momentum and require that they think and act fast
in order to recover from these events.
3.
Back to management practices: discuss the challenges they faced
during the simulation run and to extend the discussion to team practices
within their own departments.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
64
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Assigning Roles and Responsibilities
Each team consists of three
members, each fulfilling one of
the following roles:
1. Handling the tire gun
2. Removing the old tire
3. Inserting the new tire
+ additional roles
• Lollipop Man (gives the go
ahead)
• Handling the jack
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
65
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Injecting Additional Stressors
Time: Both individual and group pit stop performance will be
timed and compared against one another.
Competition: Teams compete against one another to achieve the
fastest pit stop time.
Unplanned events: Two crisis situations have been integrated
into the current simulation, designed to introduce additional
pressures to the team experience. These situations include:
• The car stopping before or after the designated pit stop line
• Rapid and appropriate responses to different weather conditions
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
66
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Linking the Pit Stop to Management Practices
(1) Discussion on what makes high performing teams work and different types
of team collaboration patterns
Angehrn, 2006
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
67
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Linking the Pit Stop to Management Practices
(2) Underlying dynamics for team breakdowns
Reasons leading to each of the four patterns are discussed (drawing from models listed
in Section), with participants providing concrete examples from their own experiences.
(3) Key ingredients for performance under pressure
Angehrn, 2006
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
68
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Deploying the World Team Sim
•
World Team
SIMULATION
•
•
•
1/2 day session
1/2 day workshop structure
with intro, simulation run and
debriefing.
Intensive collocated or
distributed experience.
Simulation to be played in
teams of 3-5 players.
Controlled communication
opportunities among teams
during the simulation run.
INTRO
TEAMWORK
1/2 h
1/4 to 1 h
DEBRIEFING
1.5 h to 2 h
WORKSHOP
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
69
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Implementing the Pit Stop Simulation
The Pit Stop Simulation does not require, at least for the moment, any
software development effort.
The only software currently developed related to this prototype is a Time
Counter that was created for a test with Ferrari managers.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
70
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Intermediary Agent Simulation
Addressing the Challenges of Interpersonal Collaboration
Foundations and Key Features
•
Addresses collaboration challenges in a
one-to-one context
•
Interaction with a virtual Intermediary
Agent to collaboratively accomplish a
joint mission
•
The peer’s collaboration is necessary
•
Collaboration challenges include
•
issues of trust, power, and autonomy
•
impact of individual differences in
personalities and motivational or
cognitive abilities
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
71
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Designing the Intermediary Agent
Simulation
Learning points
•
•
•
Experience how un-collaborative attitudes manifest themselves in
individuals.
Diagnose these behaviors and how best to face them.
Understand
•
what are the different consequences of un-collaborative
behaviors and attitudes
•
what are the motivational, social and cognitive competence
factors underlying un-collaborative attitudes and behaviours
•
how to address them productively
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
72
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Current Status of IA Prototype
All the components except from the Brain Module have been
implemented by the INSEAD/CALT Team using a combination of php and
Revolution (like for the implementation of the other prototypes).
The current version of the prototype includes the key Modules of the
Agents (except for the Brain Module, which is being developed by OFAI):
•
•
•
•
A Message-passing Architecture supporting the dynamic interaction
(via the Internet) of the different Agent modules developed, and enabling
to flexibly plug in Brain Modules like the one under development at OFAI).
A User Interface Module which connects directly the Agent to the
simulation.
A simple Basic Agent Brain Module (BABble) developed in Revolution
and able to interact real-time with the simulation and the players.
The current implementation supports testing of simple interactions as well
as control of the Brain Module by a human operator (real Human Brain).
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
73
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Architecture of Current Prototype
•
•
•
A coordination module enables the communication between the simulation game, the
scene and the IA’s brain by implementing specific policies for information exchange
and coordination.
It guarantees the independence of each component and allows the customisation of
the communication channels between the components
It affords implementation of different methods of communication.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
74
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
The Agent Prototype
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
75
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
The Agent User Interface
Graphical User Interface
• User activity controls
• Dialogue moves
• Information presentation
• Virtual Character
• Dialogue moves
• Expressive behaviour (in
the next phase)
• Further Props (next
phase)
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
76
Basic Agent Brain module (“BABble”)
• Simple Mechanism to reply to Questions and Statements
• Own ”Preference Structure”
– Likes <Agent, Virtual Character>  {0,1 2}
• Awareness of Relationships among Virtual Characters
– Reports_To <Virtual Character, Virtual Character>  {0 1}
– Friend_Of (Virtual Character, Virtual Character)  {0,1}
• Dynamic Attitude towards Collaboration (DAC)
–
–
–
–
Non-Collaborative (Agent’s preference structure prevails)
Limitedly Collaborative (motivation, but no competence)
Collaborative
Super-Collaborative (proactive value-adding initiatives)
• DAC determines if own (Agent) or User Preference gets precedence
• DAC transitions happen over time (assuming increased collaboration motivation
and competence).
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
77
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Intermediary Agent Demo
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
78
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Next Steps:
Design and Implementation of the Agent Brain
Module
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
79
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Next Steps
Mapping underlying IP dynamics theories to simulation
• Considerations
• Technical limitations of the user interface (interaction
possibilities)
• Available models of believable interaction
• Restrictions from the overall scenario setting
•
•
•
•
Heterogeneity of player population
Available playing time
Learning goals
Content of briefing and debriefing sessions
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
80
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Next Steps
Mapping underlying IP dynamics theories to simulation
• “Trust Building Cycle” (Vangen & Huxham, 2003) chosen as main
reference for the development of the first prototype version
• Initial phase
• Forming of expectations
• Agreement on collaboration aims
• Installation of risk management
• Permanent sustenance
• Management of dynamics
• Management of power imbalances
• Nurturing of collaborative relationships
• Small wins strategies for bootstrapping
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
81
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Next Steps
Player mission
To succeed with their mission, the player needs to deliberate about, select,
and implement interaction strategies at the instrumental mission-oriented
and social levels, so as to enhance and secure the IA’s degree of
collaborativeness – its disposition to be collaborative.
The IA demonstrates different “degrees of collaborativeness”, affected by
interactions with the player, reflecting both positive and negative effects of
the player’s respective choices.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
82
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Next Steps
Player-Agent interactions
• Mission oriented moves
• These are interactions available to the player to request the implementation of
initiatives in the underlying simulation
• The initiatives subsequently actually enacted by the IA in the simulation game
may or may not be compliant with the player’s request
• Social interactions
• The player can attempt to modify (for better or worse) the collaborative stance
of the IA
• Social interactions, such as an invitation to lunch, may influence the values of
some parameters controlling the behaviour of the agent (e.g. the level of trust)
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
83
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Next Steps
Technical Foundations
• Building on and significantly extending elements already embedded
occasionally/for particular contexts of very limited scope in existing
simulation games such as EIS or EduChallenge
• Pieces of motivating (or distracting) feedback, typically anonymous
• Key characters that players depend from and need to build a collaborative
relationship with
• Novel aspects
• Clean modularisation
• IA as persistent autonomous direct peer
• Clean semantic interface to underlying simulation game class
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
84
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Architectural Design and Implementation
Key constituents of the Intermediary Agent (IA) simulation
• The Player’s Mission requiring the collaboration of the IA, realised with
the underlying Simulation Game providing a well-defined context of play
• The Coordination Module governing flows of information and control
• The Scene of the graphical user interface including the Virtual Character
representing the IA
• The IA’s Brain, including partial operationalisations derived from models of
selected IP Collaboration Dynamics
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
85
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
The Scene /The Brain
Cyclic structure of interaction
• Utterance-based
• Dynamic, branching story-based choice of utterance moves
• Cycle phases
• Selection of next initiative (optional suggestions by agent)
• IA’s coping with player’s choice of initiative: supporting, resisting
Player’s coping with IA’s reactions: complying, arguing, overpowering,
withdrawing
• IA’s implementing of an initiative
• IA’s appraisal of results and related coping
Player’s coping with subjectively appraised results and IA’s reactions
• Persistent options
• Purely social interaction, affecting relationship
• Dialogue management to move to next stage of cycle or next cycle
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
86
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
The Brain
Key components
• Appraisal process model
• Backbone providing overall behaviour
• Personality parameters and Preferences for (subjectively) consistent
biases
• Concerns (subjective goals)
• Coping strategies and internal/overt behaviours
• Integration of partial collaboration dynamics theories
• Memory
• Player model
• Interaction history
• Appraisal frame
• Built over local interaction cycle history up to submission of an
initiative
• Used to subjectively evaluate and react to the outcome
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
87
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Current Status of IA Prototype Design
• Trust Level as first operationalised concept
• Affected by appraisal outcomes
• Mapped to degree of collaborativeness
• Trust-related internal appraisal frame parameters
• Responsibility for implemented initiative
• Trust Change Tendency reflects local social interaction history
• Collaborative behaviour of the IA is direct consequence of the
value in the IA’s trust parameter, affecting
• Selection of suggested initiatives
• Resistance to/support of player’s choice of initiative
• Direct or altered implementation of the initiative requested by the
player
• Complete/partial reporting of an initiative’s outcome
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
88
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Current Status of IA Prototype
• Conceptual scenario design completed (INSEAD, OFAI, AlphaLabs)
• Conceptual technical design completed at macro and micro levels (OFAI)
• First supporting pieces of theory identified (ACDT harvesting)
(OFAI, OU, SU, SCIL; further input by Alba, UCSC; UniCredit pending)
• First prototype version of the Brain inspired by the trust building cycle
(OFAI, theory partners)
• Stand-alone Brain module with well-specified interfaces (OFAI)
• Local direct integration with underlying simulation game for testing (OFAI)
 integration of Brain module in Agent Current Prototype
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
89
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Intermediary
Agent Simulation
Game Flow
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
90
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
General Architecture of the IP-Collaboration Prototype
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
91
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Architectural Design and Implementation
Issues
The Intermediary Agent (IA) has two separate components:
•
The IA’s Brain, which includes operationalisations derived from models of
some selected IP Collaboration Dynamics obtained from deliverable D1.1 in
the ACDT method’s Knowledge Harvesting exercise and its representation as
a Virtual Character in the Scene of the graphical user interface.
•
Player’s mission in the game, which is to influence the collaborative attitude
and behaviours of the IA.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
92
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
93
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Experiences to date with Actual Users
Users
Prototype
Run 1
13 Ferrari Managers
Pit Stop
Run 2
27 Ferrari Managers
Pit Stop + World Team
Run 3
32 DFH Managers
Eagle Racing
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
94
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Experiences to date with Actual Users
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
95
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Experiences to date with Actual Users
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
96
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
OD specific
objectives
GT specific
objectives
Knowledge/understanding of
the potentials and risks of different interventions
the factors influencing collaborative behavior (such
as different cultures, values, attitudes, different
stakeholders, technology use)
advantages of collaboration among groups
technology use
Attitudes
empathy towards others' reactions
Skills
decision making
plan and implement interventions
manage diversity
Knowledge/understanding of
relevant projet phases and corresponding knowledge
processes (World Team)
characteristics of high-performance teams (Pit Stop)
project team roles (Pit Stop)
reward structures (Eagle Racing)
technology use (Eagle Racing)
Attitudes
good-natured collaboration
tolerance towards other cultures (Eagle Racing)
openess towards different technologies (Eagle
Racing)
Skills
coordination skills
collaborative problem-solving
stress tolerance
usage of ICT (World Team)
leadership skills (World Team)
diagnosis skills (Pit Stop)
ICT skills (Eagle Racing)
IP specific
objectives
Knowledge/understanding of
consequences of uncollaborative behaviour
the factors influencing collaborative behavior
(such as different cultures, values, attitudes,
different stakeholders, technology use)
Attitudes
critical reflection
continuous learning
Skills
decision making
coordination skills
stress tolerance
Core Learning Objectives (relevant for all simulations)
Knowledge/Understanding of:
the importance of trust
collaborative goal setting and shared meanings
typical sources of collaborative breakdowns
Skills to be developed:
communication skills (e.g. listening skills, articulation skills, giving feedback)
conflict management skills etc.
perceive others' emotions, motives and intentions
Attitudes targeted:
reflectiveness
openness
sensitivity
patience
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
97
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Summary of Next Steps
• Continuous design work to be conducted on Prototypes: Start
translating the work partners have done (identification of relevant
models/dynamics) into specific simulation dynamics (things which
should/could happen during the simulations)
• Continuous implementation Work to be done on Prototypes
• Production of Pedagogical Material (User, Facilitator) associated
with Prototype and to support the pilot runs
• Publications
• Dissemination Actions and Tools
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
98
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Targets/Plan for Third Semester:
Activity
WP
Resp. Partner
Agent Brain Module Implementation
4
OFAl
Integration of Brain Module in Agent Prototype
4
INSEAD and AlphaLabs
Specification of New Dynamics for Simulation
Prototypes (Detailed Scenarios)
4
All
Implementation of New Dynamics in Simulation
Prototypes
4
INSEAD and Alphalabs
Fine-tuning of Pedagogical Material for Simulation
Prototypes
4
All
Further development of L2C Knowledge Community
site
4
FVA
Pilot Runs
4
All
Evaluation of Users Feedback from Pilot Runs
6
UCSC
Production of Effective Communication Material
7
MeTis
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
99
L2C Simulation Games Prototypes Design (WP 3)
Thank You for Your Attention
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
100