the transfer of serious games to business research an example of knowledge transfer between...
Post on 16-Jan-2016
212 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
The transfer of serious games to business researchAn example of knowledge transfer between management theory, a serious game, and practice
1st GaLA Alignment School, 20-24th June, Edinburgh, UK
Christian Schneider, ETH Zürich, cschneider@ethz.ch
The transfer between theory, SG, and practice
Tuesday 21 June 2011 2
?
Practice
SGTheory
The aim of the analysis is to do better than that…
Tuesday 21 June 2011 3
Introduction to the logistics game
Theoretical background
Results
Conclusions and practical implications
Content
Tuesday 21 June 2011 4
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 2011 5
Impressions from playing the logistics game
Rework
Shipping WP3
WP1
WP2
WP4
Stock
Sales
CustomerQC
DirectInternal TransportExternal Transport
Tuesday 21 June 2011 6
Playing the game
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4Start Stop
measuring performance
measuring performance
measuring performance
measuring performance
taking measures
taking measures
taking measures
Tuesday 21 June 2011 7
Introduction to the logistics game
Theoretical background
Results
Conclusions and practical implications
Content
Tuesday 21 June 2011 8
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 2011 9
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
dire
ct la
bor
hour
s pe
r un
it
Question: Does this model help explain the outcome of the logistic games?
Tuesday 21 June 2011 10
Introduction to the logistics game
Theoretical background
Results
Conclusions and practical implications
Content
Tuesday 21 June 2011 11
Results: quality performance and costs
Question: Does a sound performance in quality imply that the financial result is good as well?
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
1 10 100 1000
Sh
are
of
ba
d p
art
s,
Ro
un
d 4
Costs per good part, Round 4
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
1 10 100 1000
Sh
are
of
ba
d p
art
s,
Ro
un
d 3
Costs per good part, Round 3
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
1 10 100 1000 10000
Sh
are
of
ba
d p
art
s,
Ro
un
d 2
Costs per good part, Round 2
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Shar
e of
bad
par
ts, R
ou
nd
1
Costs per good part, Round 1
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
1 10 100 1000
Sh
are
of
ba
d p
art
s,
Ro
un
d 4
Costs per good part, Round 4
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
1 10 100 1000
Sh
are
of
ba
d p
art
s,
Ro
un
d 3
Costs per good part, Round 3
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
1 10 100 1000 10000
Sh
are
of
ba
d p
art
s,
Ro
un
d 2
Costs per good part, Round 2
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Shar
e of
bad
par
ts, R
ou
nd
1
Costs per good part, Round 1
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
1 10 100 1000
Sh
are
of
ba
d p
art
s,
Ro
un
d 4
Costs per good part, Round 4
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
1 10 100 1000
Sh
are
of
ba
d p
art
s,
Ro
un
d 3
Costs per good part, Round 3
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
1 10 100 1000 10000
Sh
are
of
ba
d p
art
s,
Ro
un
d 2
Costs per good part, Round 2
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Shar
e of
bad
par
ts, R
ou
nd
1
Costs per good part, Round 1
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
1 10 100 1000
Sh
are
of
ba
d p
art
s,
Ro
un
d 4
Costs per good part, Round 4
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
1 10 100 1000
Sh
are
of
ba
d p
art
s,
Ro
un
d 3
Costs per good part, Round 3
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
1 10 100 1000 10000
Sh
are
of
ba
d p
art
s,
Ro
un
d 2
Costs per good part, Round 2
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Shar
e of
bad
par
ts, R
ou
nd
1
Costs per good part, Round 1
Sh
are
of
ba
d p
art
s
Costs per good part
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
r = 0.28 r = 0.32 r = 0.17 r = 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 2011 12
Results: quality performance and costs
Question: Do groups that have good quality performance in the beginning outperform other groups in round four?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0 50 100 150 200S
hare
of b
ad p
arts
, Rou
nd 1
Costs per good part, Round 4
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Sha
re o
f bad
par
ts, R
ound
1
Costs per good part, Round 3
r = 0.24 r = -0.03
Finding: Good quality performance in the beginning has no correlation with the financial result in the last round.
Tuesday 21 June 2011 13
Results: quality performance and measures
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4Start Stop
measuring performance
measuring performance
taking measures
evaluate deltabest performers
worst performers
Tuesday 21 June 2011 14
Results: quality performance and measures
Question: Do the measures taken by the best performers differ from the measures taken by the worst performers?
Layout Lot size Training Removal int. transp.
Q-Training0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Best performers
Worst performers# ti
me
s ch
ose
n
Performance change between round 1 and 2 in number of bad parts:
Finding: The measures taken by the two groups are practically the same.
Tuesday 21 June 2011 15
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 2011 16
Round 1 Round 2 Delta Average number of bad parts
With Q-Training 10.86 3.57 7.29 Total 11.69 3.21 8.48
Average costs per good part
With Q-Training 4874.00 256.71 4617.29 Total 2443.22 109.31 2333.91
Results: quality performance & learning
Production activity
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 2011 17
Introduction to the logistics game
Theoretical background
Results
Conclusions and practical implications
Content
Tuesday 21 June 2011 18
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 2011 19
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 2011 20
What have we seen?
Tuesday 21 June 2011 21
?
Practice
SGTheory
Production activity
First-order learning
Second-order
learning
Productivity improvement
Rework
Shipping WP3
WP1
WP2
WP4
Stock
Sales
CustomerQC
DirectInternal TransportExternal Transport
THANK YOU!
Tuesday 21 June 2011 22
BACKUP
Tuesday 21 June 2011 23
Results: quality performance and measures
Layo
ut / T
rain
ing
Layo
ut / R
emov
al in
t. tra
nsp.
Layo
ut / L
ot si
ze
Lot s
ize / T
rain
ing
Lot s
ize / Q
-Tra
inin
g
Train
ing
/ Tra
inin
g
Train
ing
/ Q-T
rain
ing
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
# ti
me
s ch
ose
n
Tuesday 21 June 2011 24
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 2011 25
1 2 3 40
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Costs
Quality
Round
Co
sts
# Q
ab
s
Data sources
Played for the last 16 years Results of 81 games Played with students (70%) and practitioners (30%)
Tuesday 21 June 2011 26
top related