Using game theory for producing quality plans: A Pac-Man simulation experiment Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo UKSS Conference, Sep

Structure of presentation 1.Introduction 2.Brief review of game theory as part of systems theory 3.The Pac-Man model 4.Example of the model in practical use 5.Discussion 6.Conclusion

Doing OR without understanding organizational politics To succeed with OR it is necessary with sociological understanding and political skills (Checkland, 1981; Jackson, 2000; Mingers, 2006) Management scientists (change agents) and managers are ”natural enemies” (Beer, 1968) ScientistsEngineers Managers

Observations leading to a question The theory of “serious games” (Abt, 1969) is based on the idea that games can be used as general models for understanding conflict and competition Axelrod (2002) has written about the non-serious game of Monopoly as a model for understanding business strategy Some researchers believe that the video game generation see the world differently than previous generations (Beck & Wade, 2006) Could the non-serious Pac-Man video game be used as a model for understanding the politics of OR and TQM?

Structure of presentation 1.Introduction 2.Brief review of game theory as part of systems theory 3.The Pac-Man model 4.Example of the model in practical use 5.Discussion 6.Conclusion

Game theory & Systems theory In the early years of systems theory and cybernetics, game theory is explicitly seen as a part of systems theory (Wiener, 1950; Ashby, 1954; Churchman et al, 1957; von Bertalanffy, 1968; Weinberg, 1975; Rapoport, 1986) Metaphors about TQM as a game is common in business literature (e.g. Crosby, 1979; Berry, 1991; Cole, 1999), but strangely not so common in systems-based business literature (e.g. Flood, 1992; Jackson, 2000) Metaphors about science as a game is common (Latour, 1979; Sinderman, 2001), but strangely not so common when writing about action research (e.g. Reason & Bradbury, 2004)

Systems theory categorized by the Burrell&Morgan matrix (examples) SubjectiveObjective Radical change (”conflict”) Drama theory (Howard, 1971) Game theory (von Neumann, 1944) Regulation (”harmony”) SSMOR

Game theory & GST strategypayoff Game model (model of conflictual system) Chess Bridge Monopoly Pac-Man … Sports Drama Games Business Economics Politics Biology Psychology … homomorphism

Structure of presentation 1.Introduction 2.Brief review of game theory as part of systems theory 3.The Pac-Man model 4.Example of the model in practical use 5.Discussion 6.Conclusion

Pac-Man (Iwatani, 1979) Title screen Start of game

Ghost psychology & management grid (Blake & Mouton, 1964)

Score board Pac-Man foodLevelPointsTQM activity DotAll10Document verification DotAll10Quality audit DotAll10Quality report not part of a management decision process Power pelletAll50Quality report as part of management decision process 1 st GhostAll200Impact on manager 2 nd GhostAll400Also impact on a second manager 3 rd GhostAll800Also impact on a third manager 4 th GhostAll1600Impact on four or more managers Cherry1100Positive feedback Strawberry2300Positive feedback Lemon3+4500Positive feedback Apple5700Positive feedback

Structure of presentation 1.Introduction 2.Brief review of game theory as part of systems theory 3.The Pac-Man model 4.Example of the model in practical use 5.Discussion 6.Conclusion

Insert coin: 1999

Pac-Man strategy

Game over: years

Structure of presentation 1.Introduction 2.Brief review of game theory as part of systems theory 3.The Pac-Man model 4.Example of the model in practical use 5.Discussion 6.Conclusion

Applying Pac-Man philosophy in the real world Pac-ManTQM politics Principle 1 Keep eating, and reflect in action (or between games). For each board level, there are behavioural survival patterns (Zavisca & Beltowski, 1982). Keep auditing, measuring, analyzing and making improvements. Data collection, analysis, action and progress must never stop. Principle 2 Understand ghost psychology, both on individual level and how they act as a swarm (Kelly, 1994; Holland, 1995). Expect conflict, study management psychology and avoid irritating people unnecessarily. Principle 3 Get energized and attack when the ghosts are clustered, before they manage to scatter in all directions. Design “management review” (Hoyle, 2006) to fit with institutionalized quality control practice (annual budget process, annual production cycles etc.), get as much management commitment as possible.

Structure of presentation 1.Introduction 2.Brief review of game theory as part of systems theory 3.The Pac-Man model 4.Example of the model in practical use 5.Discussion 6.Conclusion

Conclusion Seeing TQM as Pac-Man produces strategies of fight and flight that can help change agents interact with management Game theory was seen as a promising part of systems theory in the past – the study indicates the relevance of future exporation on the ”soft” aspects of GT