COSIGA - A Simulation Game
for Concurrent Engineering/
NPD Training
Dr Johann Riedel & Prof Kulwant S Pawar
Centre for Concurrent Enterprising
School of Mechanical, Materials, Manufacturing Engineering &
Management
University of Nottingham, UK
Johann.Riedel@Nottingham.ac.uk
www.cosiga.com
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
The COSIGA
Project
Helsinki University
of Technology
Universität Bremen
University of Nottingham
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
Concurrent Engineering -What is Needed
 Support for the practice of CE
 Knowledge about how to do CE:
– How to really work in parallel
– How to co-operate
– How to work in a distributed, multinational, multi-cultural environment
 Communication and social skills
 Continuous Professional Development
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
Educational Simulation Games - Advantages
Exploit the potential of gaming
Experience instead of just to perceive
Games motivate, make curious, are
attractive, entertain
Productive diversion from daily routine work
Immediate feedback about actions
Real life allows no errors, but simulation
does
Yield good learning results
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
Target users
Universities who apply
COSIGA to teach
–
–
–
–
product design
team work
management
CE
Industrial companies who
apply it for training all
disciplines of their:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
engineers
designers
design engineers
industrial engineers
managers
product / project managers
marketing
purchasing
finance
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
The COSIGA game
Preconditions
CE is widely accepted as good engineering
practice
Many companies practice CE
Many methods, tools, systems are used
Focus: management perspective
What is missing?
No engineers and practitioners’ viewpoint
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
The COSIGA Game
COSIGA - A Concurrent Engineering
Simulation Game
an internet based multimedia simulation
game
using internet & telecommunications
to interact as a team
in a product development scenario
in a Concurrent Engineering environment.
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
Game Set-Up
Project Manager
(e.g.France)
INTERNET
(e.g. United Kingdom)
Production Manager
(e.g. Finland)
Purchase Manager
Marketing Manager
Designer
(e.g. Germany)
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
Simulation & Communication
simulation game
communication module
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
The Players
Team role-play game
– Project Manager
– Marketing Manager
– Designer
– Production Manager
– Purchasing Manager
5 players per game
One player per computer
Communication Means (email, video
conferencing, IRC Text chat & telephone)
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
COSIGA - The Game
Product Design scenario (a truck)
– well-known, catchy and universal
Simulates product design process - from market
specification to production
Specify the product, design product, configure
factory & produce
BUT: Match Market demands & Production
constraints
– product specification & design versus:
– production processes, production constraints
– purchased components (specification, quantity, quality,
supplier), stock levels
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
Designer
Project Manager
The Factory
Analysing the Benefits
Three Pronged Approach:
Situational Awareness: Physical &
Virtual Collocation
Cognitive Analysis of Impact on
Players’ Thinking/ Learning
Analysis of Communication Pattern
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
Physical-Virtual Collocation
Experimental Setup
E
N
T
R
A
N
C
E
E
N
T
R
A
N
C
E
SERVER
DESIGNER - ID 18
SERVER
DESIGNER - ID 12
RINALDO'S OFFICE
PURCHASING - ID 20
MARKETING
ID 19
PRODUCTION
ID 21
PROJECT
ID 17
Collocated – all in one
room
MARKETING - ID 14
PURCHASING - ID13
PROJECT - ID 11
PRODUCTION - ID15
Virtual – all but 2 in separate
offices
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
Situational Awareness
Context specific questions
relating to:
 Confidence level in
information,
 Completeness of
information
 Ease or difficulty in
understanding
/decision making
 Ease or difficulty
because of
concurrent tasks
 Ease or difficulty
because of the
capacity to complete
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
Virtual – Collocated Gap
Cars Q1
3
Less
Virtual
2.5
Mean
2
Colocated
1.5
Virtual
Collocated
1
0.5
More
0
1
2
3
4
Junction Point (time) hours
Ease of Understanding
Virtual team’s understanding becoming worse with time and
collocated team’s understanding improving with time.
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
Prioritise Work Activities
Develop an Effective Work Relation
Establish a Common Language
Focus on Quality
Develop Interpersonal Trust
Reduce Product Cost
Undersrand Market/Customer Needs
Work Cooperatively
Avoid Duplicating Work Activities
Develop New Ideas/Solutions
Understand the Task/Problem Depth
Understand Each Other's Objectives
Understand Ease/Difficulty of Manuf.
Share Information Continuously
Work with Experts Diff. Backgrounds
Work in Parallel
Modify Existing Design(s)
CE Concepts
Questionnaire
Develop New Products
Cognitive Analysis:
Reduce Time to Market
Please rate these on how similar or close they are to each other on the point scale, where 0 = "not related at all" to 10 = "totally related"
Reduce Time to Market
Develop New Products
Modify Existing Design(s)
Work in Parallel
Work with Experts from Different Backgrounds
Share Information Continuously
Understand Ease/Difficulty of Manufacture
Understand Each Other's Objectives
Understand the Task/Problem in Depth
Develop New Ideas/Solutions
Avoid Duplicating Work Activities
Work Cooperatively
Undersrand Market/Customer Needs
Reduce Product Cost
Develop Interpersonal Trust
Focus on Quality
Establish a Common Language
Develop an Effective Working Relationship
Prioritise Work Activities
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
Pre-Gaming CE Cognitive Map
6 = share information continuously
7 links
18
5
15
10
8
7
12
9
4
6
2
13
3
17
16
14
19
11
1
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
Post Gaming CE Cognitive Map
6 = share information continuously
15
9 links
11
12
4
1
3
5
14
10
6
9
13
19
16
17
8
2
18
7
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
Preliminary Results (1 Individual)
CE Conce pts List
prioritise work activities
share information continuously
understand market/customer needs
establish a common language
develop new ideas/solutions
work with experts from different backgrounds
work in parallel
modify existing design(s)
reduce time-to-market
develop an effective working relationship
reduce product cost
work cooperatively
avoid duplicating work activities
understand each other's objectives
focus on quality
understand ease/difficulty of manufacture
understand the task/problem in depth
develop new products
Blue = CE improvement
Importance
Massive Increase: 4->1
Increased Importance
Increased Importance
No change
Increased Importance
No change
Massive Increase: 6->3
Increased Importance
Massive Increase: 7->3
Massive Increase: 6->4
Reduced Importance
Stayed Same
Massive Reduction: 2->4
Increased Importance
Increased Importance
Massive Reduction: 3->5
Massive Reduction: 1->6
Massive Reduction: 3->7
Game
CE
***
***
*
***
***
***
***
**
**
***
***
***
Orange = Game effect
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
G1P2
Individual CE Profile
Marketing Manager
1
18
19 5
17
2
3
4
0
5
16
-5
15
6
7
14
13
8
12
11
10
9
Relatively Positive Experience
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
Individual CE Role Profiles
1
18
19 5
17
2
3
4
0
16
5
-5
15
G1P3
14
13
7
8
12
1
18
19 5
17
-5
14
13
7
8
9
Designer
5
19
17
6
10
9
18
4
5
11
10
3
16
12
11
1
2
0
15
Marketing
G1P5
Manager
6
2
3
4
0
16
5
-5
15
6
14
7
13
8
12
11
10
9
Production Manager
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
Preliminary Cognitive Results
Improvement in players’ CE understanding
occurred
Difference by role played
– Marketing: Relatively Positive
– Designer: Very Positive
– Production: Weaker Response
Individual CE Profile
-> Scientific approach to
– improving the game
– improving its learning outcomes
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
Communication - Role Analysis Summary 1
Asking Info (37%)
– Purchaser, Production, Designer
Giving Info (12%)
– Purchaser, Manager, Marketing, Designer,
Production
Requesting Action (time) (17%)
– Purchaser, Marketing, Production, Designer
Cajoling Action (9%)
– Manager, Purchaser & Production
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
Communication - Role Analysis Summary 2
Compliment/Acknowledgement (2%)
– Manager, Designer, Production
Frustration (5%)
– Purchaser, Production, Designer,
Marketing
Non-Task (9%)
– Purchaser, Manager, Production
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
Analysis of Benefits - Conclusion
COSIGA Simulation Game Successfully
Simulates the Process of Designing Products
– Both Analyses of Benefits Confirmed this
Information was asked and given by those
expected to do so
Frustration experienced by Purchaser &
Production, but not Designer & Marketing
Very good team building tool
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
Conclusion
CE needs new education & training
approaches
– How to do CE, co-operate, parallelism
Simulation games can meet this need
– Group gaming, Experiential
COSIGA is a new approach for education of
personnel involved in NPD
– learning goals focus on how-to do CE not
on tools
– CE simulation
– co-operation
(C) University of Nottingham 2002
(C) University of Nottingham 2002