Jonathan Wilkenfeld
ICONS PROJECT OVERVIEW
• Training and education arm of the Center for
International Development and Conflict
Management
• Over 25 years experience with the delivery of
online simulation exercises in international
politics and foreign policy decision making
• ICONS offers multi-player, real-time
distributed simulation exercises
• Team of world-class trainers and simulation
developers
• Customizable and available world-wide
ICONS Project
TRAINING
U.S. Government Agencies
Think Tanks
Private Corporations
NGOs
EDUCATION
Universities
High Schools
Training
• The ICONS Project advances learning by designing
and delivering interactive leadership training on
conflict management, negotiation and crisis
leadership
KEY LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES:
Conflict Management/Resolution
Negotiation
Collaboration and Problem Solving
Crisis Leadership
Selected Simulations
•
•
•
•
•
•
Crisis in North Korea
Globalization and Nigerian Oil
Crisis in Kashmir
Crisis in Valleyton
Avian Influenza Crisis
Crisis in East Asia
Selected clients:
• Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
• Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
• National Security Agency (NSA)
• Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
• U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
• Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs- Harvard University
• Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
• Brookings Institution
• Maryland Leadership Institute
Benefits of ICONS Simulations
• User-friendly software and support materials
• Simulations can be tailored for any group of
participants
• Engaging
• Interactive
• Ability to monitor/facilitate each exercise
• Complete transcript of activity for later debrief
and analysis
• Flexibility (location – anywhere in the world)
Simulation for Crisis
Management
Jonathan Wilkenfeld
Center for International Development and
Conflict Management, and ICONS project
University of Maryland
War Games versus Simulations
• Traditional war games are used by major
powers to test plans and identify strategies
• Broader geopolitical simulations involve a
greater range of policy options and integrate
domestic and international political factors
Key Features of Crisis Simulations
• Include both military and geopolitical
considerations
• Participants must consider objective situation
as well as domestic and international politics
• Provide opportunity for broader and deeper
knowledge of global situation and other
actors’ perspectives
• Permit participants to develop individual and
organizational skills
Options for Conducting Simulations
• Participants can play the role of their own
country’s decision makers to evaluate their
decision processes and options
• They can play the role of a neutral party to
develop objective insights on the dynamics of
international politics
• They can play the role of the other country’s
decision makers to improve their understanding
of that country’ politics and processes
Simulation as a Training Environment
• Multi-level nature of simulations provides for
understanding dynamics of international politics and
development of new means of communication and
collaboration within teams
• Learning takes place within participants teams and also
within control team, which had a broader perspective
and gains understanding of the interplay of political,
military and economic forces
• Can explore contingencies and sensitive topics in an
atmosphere of confidentiality
• Evaluate plans in light of scientific experience
Learning Outcomes from Simulations
• Increased knowledge of international issues
through scenario research and writing
• Deeper understanding of own country’s goals,
norms, practices and capabilities
• Improved insight into political dynamics and
culture of other countries
• Ability to evaluate impact of potential policies
on other countries’ actions and on broader
international environment
The Use of Simulations in Policy
Formation and Analysis
Jonathan Wilkenfeld
Center for International Development and
Conflict Management, and ICONS project
University of Maryland
“Simulations are ‘interactive events’ in which ‘it
is the environment that is simulated’…but the
behavior is real.”
-Jones (1955)
Simulation Stages
• Preparation: participants evaluate the initial
situation and the role that they are portraying
• Interaction: participants have a chance to put
their initial positions into action as they
attempt to achieve their goals
• Debriefing: includes guided group discussions,
and gives participants the chance to identify
general principles
Simulation Design Considerations
• What are the policy formulation and evaluation goals
• What kind of time and technological limitations will be
faced
• Will the simulation be base on a real or fictional case
• What is the desired level of complexity
• How many participants and how will they be organized
• What will the decision-making processes be (intra-team
and between teams)
• How active will the control team be in introducing new
situations and in prodding the teams
• Will outcomes be structures or open-ended
• Will there be any constraints on participants, if so what
kinds
How Goals Affect Structure
• Are you attempting to train participants in the
use of a procedure or technique,
Or
• Are you attempting to teach them particular
concepts of content or process,
Or
• Are you attempting to evaluate a plan or
procedure?
If you are teaching concepts:
• Decide whether learning about process (e.g., decision
making, negotiation) or content (the facts, history that
provides the context for this simulation) is more
important
– Most simulations provide opportunities for learning on
both fronts, but you must decide which is primary
• Determine the appropriate balance between the
preparation and interaction stages
– Process-oriented simulations teach by doing; focus more
on the interaction among participants
– Content-oriented simulations should delve deeply into the
subject matter in preparation for the simulation
How Limitations affect Structure
• What you are able to accomplish with your
simulation will be limited by the time and
technology available
• These constraints may dictate certain choices
that might otherwise have been decided by
your goals
Time and Technology
• Time: choose how to balance the time available
between participant preparation and interaction
• Technology: the availability of computers and
internet access provides some opportunities for
enhancing the simulation experience, but the use
of technology requires careful consideration
Not all simulations are best conducted using
computers
The ICONS Simulations
When to use ICONSnet
Running a simulation within ICONSnet is useful if any of the
following considerations is important to your simulation
design or instructional goals:
• Anonymity
• Conducting simulations as asynchronously
• Conducting simulations over a distance (distributed
simulations)
• Supporting two-level dynamics (i.e., interactions within
teams, as well as between teams)
• Maintaining full archives of the simulation proceedings
• Managing votes on proposals
• Keeping a detailed record of actions taken
Elements of Scenario Design
•
•
•
•
•
Model of reality
Simplicity versus detail
Motivating – adapt to level of participants
Scripted versus the unexpected
Sources of input
Elements of Design, Cont’d
•
•
•
•
•
Extent of intervention
Control team functions
Archiving for summary analysis
Public versus restricted access
Participants
Opening Scenario
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Early 2013
Economic recovery proceeding slowly
Russia drifting toward totalitarianism
Sporadic violence continues in Middle East
United States bogged down in Afghanistan
Little action on global issues
Friction among major powers increasing
•
•
•
•
China resists criticism on human rights
North Korean nuclear program continuing
US -China trade relations deteriorating
US electorate divided over foreign policy, and
limited attention to East Asia leads some
observers to conclude that US less willing to
be “external balancer” in the region
• New leadership in China with little military
experience
• Limited progress in cross-Strait dialogue
• PLA capabilities continue to grow, including
missile force; criticized by Taiwan leadership
• Ma won re-election in Taiwan by slim margin
• Ma and new Chinese leadership risk a new
dialogue on peace accord, but Ma insists on
reduction in missiles
• This demand, and internal politics, lead to a split
in China on how to react
• PLA, on own authority, initiates campaign to
provoke Taiwan
• Actions include hacking computer systems,
close approaches by aircraft and naval forces
• Taiwan responds with aggressive military
patrols and computer attacks
• New Chinese leadership caught unawares
• Accidental clashes occur, escalating conflict
North Korea Nuclear Scenario
Background
• The year is 2001 and continuing efforts by China, the
US, Japan, Russia, and South Korea to forestall North
Korea’s nuclear weapons program have made little
progress
• Strong consensus within the 5 parties – based on
shared intelligence – that North Korea possesses
several nuclear weapons
• The DPRK has also tested medium-range missiles,
sufficient range to reach all major Japanese
populations centers
Background, cont’d
• The US has made thinly veiled threats to attack North
Korean military and nuclear facilities
• In 2010 the US went so far as to alert its Pacific
Command forces in an effort to pressure the DPRK to
abandon its nuclear program
• China alerted its own forces, citing the provision in
the PRC-DPRK Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and
Mutual Assistance calling for military assistance in
the event that either party is threatened.
• The US Department of Defense and the Japanese
Defense Agency have agreed to construct a
comprehensive missile defense shield for Japan
State of US-China Relations
• Deteriorated as a result of growing tensions over
Taiwan, human rights issues, China’s ongoing military
modernization, and policies toward the Asian region
• Conservatives in both countries press for more
“hardline” policies toward each other
• US and China have moved closer to a confrontation
over their mutually diverging interests and their
perceived need to support key regional allies
Initial Conditions
• US intelligence reports North Korea raised alert level of its
military forces, apparently in reaction to US-Japan dialogue on
missile defense
• North Korean sub detected in Japanese waters
• Both US and China fear that situation in region could further
deteriorate, leading to use of force by North Korea, extending
even to its nuclear arsenal
• US and China also concerned about ROK’s reaction and in
particular that the South Korean military may attempt some
kind of preemptive action
• Japan, traditionally restrained and committed to regional
stability, is feeling increasing pressure to respond forcefully
Triggering Events
• US decides to increase alert level of its forces in
South Korea and to accelerate deployment of
additional Aegis ships to the Sea of Japan
• China has decided to dispatch two destroyers of the
East Sea Fleet to the region to monitor and report on
the US fleet, and to underscore China’s
determination to resist US attempts to pressure
North Korea
• US and China convene high level crisis management
teams