1. The transfer of serious games to business research An example of knowledge transfer between management theory, a serious game, and practice 1 st GaLA Alignment School, 20-24 th June, Edinburgh, UK Christian Schneider, ETH Zürich, cschneider@ethz.ch

2. The transfer between theory, SG, and practice Tuesday 21 June 20112 ? Practice SG Theory

3. The aim of the analysis is to do better than that… Tuesday 21 June 20113

4.  Introduction to the logistics game  Theoretical background  Results  Conclusions and practical implications Content Tuesday 21 June 20114

5. Basic facts about the logistics game  Given  Between 11 and 16 players  3 instructors  Approx. 2 hours  A box full of raw material  Goal  Produce the right amount of goods in the right quality at the right time at minimal costs*. * costs are determined by costs for personnel, stock, late deliveries and bad quality Tuesday 21 June 20115

6. Impressions from playing the logistics game Tuesday 21 June 20116

7. Playing the game Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 StartStop measuring performance taking measures Tuesday 21 June 20117

8.  Introduction to the logistics game  Theoretical background  Results  Conclusions and practical implications Content Tuesday 21 June 20118

9. Theoretical background (1/2) The sand cone model by Ferdows and de Meyer defines a chronological order in which different manufacturing capabilities should be tackled in order to achieve lasting improvements in manufacturing. Question: Can this model be verified in the logistics game? Tuesday 21 June 20119

10. Theoretical background (2/2) Instead of specifying the exact parameters of the learning curve, Adler and Clark model how learning effects emerge by differentiating between first- and second-order learning. Production activity First-order learning Second- order learning Productivity improvement cumulative unit number direct labor hours per unit Question: Does this model help explain the outcome of the logistic games? Tuesday 21 June 201110

11.  Introduction to the logistics game  Theoretical background  Results  Conclusions and practical implications Content Tuesday 21 June 201111

12. Results: quality performance and costs Question: Does a sound performance in quality imply that the financial result is good as well? Share of bad parts Costs per good part Round 1Round 2Round 3Round 4 r = 0.28r = 0.32r = 0.17r = 0.06 Finding: While costs correlate with quality in the first two rounds, this correlation weakens in round three and disappears in round four. Tuesday 21 June 201112

13. Results: quality performance and costs Question: Do groups that have good quality performance in the beginning outperform other groups in round four? Finding: Good quality performance in the beginning has no correlation with the financial result in the last round. Tuesday 21 June 201113

14. Results: quality performance and measures Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 StartStop measuring performance evaluate delta best performers worst performers Tuesday 21 June 201114

15. Results: quality performance and measures Question: Do the measures taken by the best performers differ from the measures taken by the worst performers? Finding: The measures taken by the two groups are practically the same. Tuesday 21 June 201115

16. Results: quality performance and measures Question: Does the measure “quality training” improve quality more than other measures? Finding: Groups choosing “quality training” as a measure improve quality less than the total average. Tuesday 21 June 201116

17. Results: quality performance & learning Production activity First-order learning: based on repetition and learning-by-doing First-order learning: based on repetition and learning-by-doing Second-order learning: based on managerial or engineering actions purposely improving the manufacturing capabilities Productivity improvement Players‘ progress in producing the part in the right quality. Measures aimed at improving the production capabilities. Tuesday 21 June 201117

18.  Introduction to the logistics game  Theoretical background  Results  Conclusions and practical implications Content Tuesday 21 June 201118

19. Conclusions  Costs only correlate with quality performance in the first two rounds.  Good quality performance in the beginning does not assure a superior financial result in the end.  Measures taken between round one and two have no influence on quality.  Quality training does not improve quality more than other measures.  The sand cone model can be confirmed inasmuch as quality improves early on.  The learning process helps to explain why quality performance improves independently of measures taken. Tuesday 21 June 201119

20. Practical implications  In manufacturing, improving quality helps to bring down costs early on.  Improving quality is not necessarily a matter of managerial or engineering actions, some aspects might improve simply as a function of the cumulated units produced. Tuesday 21 June 201120

21. What have we seen? Tuesday 21 June 201121 ? Practice SG Theory

22. THANK YOU! Tuesday 21 June 201122

23. BACKUP Tuesday 21 June 201123

24. Results: quality performance and measures Tuesday 21 June 201124

25. Results: quality performance & learning  Plateuing in round three and four  Improvements of costs base on more sources of learning than improvements in quality. Tuesday 21 June 201125

26. Data sources  Played for the last 16 years  Results of 81 games  Played with students (70%) and practitioners (30%) Tuesday 21 June 201126