EditorsWitold T. BieleckiJagoda Gandziarowska-ZiołeckaAnna M. PikosMarcin WardaszkoReviewersL.J. (Rens) Kortmann, Ph.D.Mikołaj Lewicki, Ph.D.dr. ir. Sebastiaan Meijer (Ph.D.)V.A.M. Peters, Ph.D.Professor Richard TeachProfessor Witold T. BieleckiMarcin Wardaszko, MAProofreadingJustyna MarutAnna GoryńskaCover designRafał KucharczukComputer typesettingMarek Bąk

© Copyright by Poltext sp. z o.o.© Copyright by Kozminski UniversityWarsaw 2012

Publication of this book is financially supported by Kozminski University

Poltext Ltd32 Oksywska Street, 01-694 Warsawtel.: 22 832-07-07, 22 632-64-20e-mail: wydawnictwo@poltext.plinternet: www.poltext.pl

ISBN 978-83-7561-212-7

Contents

Preface (Marcin Wardaszko) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7The Idea Behind the Book (Jagoda Gandziarowska-Ziołecka) . . . . . 9Bonds and Bridges. Games and Drama – How to Get Inspired?

(Joanna Średnicka, Nel Berezowska, Ivo Wenzler) . . . . . . . . . . . 15

SECTION ONE. Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Social Responsibility of Business Simulation Games

(Witold T. Bielecki) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Simulation Game Support for Marketing Decision Problem Solving

(Witold Wilk) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35PPC Game: Experiential Learning as a Tool to Teach Planning

and Production Control (Fernando Ramos Corrêa, Luiz Cesar Barçante, Carmelita Seno Cardeira Alves) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

New Product – An Integrated Simulation Game In Business Education (Mihail Motzev) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Extension of Computer Business Game: Connection with Real Market (Eugenijus Bagdonas, Irena Patasiene, Martynas Patasius, Grazvidas Zaukas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Dealing with Challenges of a Globalised World Conclusions of a Research Project (Sebastian Schwägele, Birgit Zürn) . . . . . 85

Tools to Teach Game Design to Teachers (Martijn Koops) . . . . . . . . 99Social Studies Simulations – A Challenge for the Competences

of Not Only the Czech Students (Dana Dražilová Fialová) . . . . 107Making the Legal Education Work Beyond Codes to Israel

and Palestine. A Case Study (Jagoda Gandziarowska-Ziołecka, Wojciech Jarosiński) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Gender Effects in Simulations Games for Entrepreneurship Education (Willy C. Kriz, Eberhard Auchter) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Bankruptcy in Simulating Games (Patrycja Sznajder) . . . . . . . . . . . 141Make It Fun or Real – Design Dilemmas and Their Consequences

On the Learning Experience (Casper Harteveld, Geertje Bekebrede, Julia Lo, Albert-Jan Pomper, Bruno Jordaan) . . . . 153

6 BONDS AND BRIDGES

Choosing Between Traditional and Virtual Sim-gaming Environments for Language Learning (Douglas W. Coleman) . . 165

SECTION TWO. Business Organizations, Industry and Market . . 173Development of Personal Leadership through Simulations

(Rutger Deenen, Ivo Wenzler, Sander van Muijen) . . . . . . . . . . . 175Bridge over Coaching and Games (Joanna Chmura) . . . . . . . . . . . . 187How to Support a B2B Sales Process by Using a Business

Simulation Game (Filip Tomaszewski) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193Supervisor: A 3D Serious Game for Hazard Recognition Training

in the Oil Industry (Sebastiaan Meijer, Ronald Poelman) . . . . . 209Reflection On a Structured Game Design Approach for a Market

Model Design (Rutger Deenen, Ivo Wenzler, Sjoerd Helmer) . . . 223The Use of Risk Information by Investors: A Simulation Study

(Karol M. Klimczak, Anna M. Pikos, Marcin Wardaszko). . . . . . 235

SECTION THREE. Public Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243How to Apply “Learning by Gaming” to the Worksite: Training

Program for City Officials on Communication in Health Crises (Mieko Nakamura, Toshiko Kikkawa, Mika Shigematsu, Junkichi Sugiura, Fumitoshi Kato, Takeru Nagaoka) . . . . . . . . 245

Games for Health Professionals to Improve Crisis Communication Skills: “The Ghost Map” and “The Mystery of Wai-Wai Nursing Home” (Toshiko Kikkawa, Fumitoshi Kato, Mieko Nakamura, Mika Shigematsu, Junkichi Sugiura, Takeru Nagaoka) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

Discovering Communication Protocols for Inter-Agency Collaboration for Emergency Response (Bharath M. Palavalli, Harsha Krishna, Onkar Hoysala, Eswaran Subrahmanian) . . 263

Training Adjunct Commissionaires of Police in an Open Simulation: Methodological Challenges from a Politically Sensitive Case (Sebastiaan Meijer, Marielle den Hengst, Geertje Bekebrede) . . 273

The Development and Use of a Simulation Platform to Foster Polish-American Sister City Entrepreneurial Business Cooperation (Joseph T. Kuvshinikov) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

Education Use of Simulation of Road Traffic Noise Reduction (Juozas Patasius, Irena Patasiene, Martynas Patasius) . . . . . . . 293

Gaming to Speed Up Energy Transition: From Experiments to Multi-actor Systems Gaming (Iman S. Mohammed, Erik Pruyt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

how to aPPly “learnIng By gamIng” to the worksIte: traInIng Program for CIty

offICIals on CommunICatIon In health CrIses

mieko nakamuraRyutsu keizai universitymnakamura@rku.ac.jp

toshiko kikkawakeio universitygeg01510@nifty.com

mika shigematsuNational Institute of Infectious Diseasesmikas@nih.go.jp

Junkichi sugiuraAichi university of EducationJad03165@nifty.com

fumitoshi katokeio universityfk@sfc.keio.ac.jp

takeru nagaokahosei universitynagaoka@tnlab.net

we have been organizing training seminars for city officials in Japan to improve their communication skills in a health crisis. Because gaming simulation is a powerful pedagogical tool in training semi-nars, we used this approach in our sessions. Although participants became involved in the gaming

ABSTRAcT

246 puBlIc DOmAIN

process, some of them seemed puzzled after the exercise. They wondered how a gaming experience would be applicable to real-life situations. for this reason, we came up with several ways to help them apply what they had learned in the gaming exercise to events that occurred at their worksites. for example, we asked participants to write down their observations and talk with others; we had experts give wrap-up explanations; and we distributed debriefing questionnaires for participants to complete. This paper describes how to support participants to connect “learning by gaming” with “real life”.

From 2009 to 2010, we organized several training seminars with partici-pants holding different positions in a variety of workplaces at city govern-ment level.1 We were involved in a project that was aimed to develop a training program for city officials to improve their communication skills in health crises. In a health crisis, local government officials serve an im-portant role. They have opportunities to get local input at first hand, and they are required to listen carefully to what people say. Information and analysis are crucial for dealing with the issue of health crises, especially during the early stages of such crises. To collect appropriate and accurate data, it is important to have good relationships with those involved. In other words, building a trusting relationship on a daily basis is the key to preparing for health crises. It is also known that important information is sometimes overlooked because of not only carelessness but also differences in perception. The real importance is usually understood only in retro-spect. However, such basics are not well known.

Moreover, local government officials are expected to deliver timely and accurate information in a proper manner. Efficient information prop-agation determines how fully citizens are convinced and whether they act in a level-headed manner. It is therefore necessary for city officials to improve their communication skills.

The first training season was from April 2009 to March 2010 and the second season was from April 2010 to March 2011. On the basis of valu-able experience gained from the first season, we enhanced the sessions in the second season. As an example, we describe here one of the sessions we organized in the first season.

It was held on 10 March 2010 (13:00–16:30) in a conference room with movable desks. Twenty-one participants joined the session. They came from healthcare centers or administrative offices and were in charge of crisis management at the prefectural or municipal level. The objectives of the session were “raising awareness of skills in risk/crisis communica-tion” and “learning clear communication and precise information analy-

1 This project was funded by the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare in Japan.

1. INTRODucTION

247how To apply “learnIng By gamIng” To The worksITe: TraInIng ...

sis.” We prepared two ice breakers and two simulation games as exercises and set a short lecture at the end of the session. The two ice breakers were played in a circle. In “IMPRESSIVE SELF-INTRODUCTION” the participant had to make an impressive self-introduction in 10 seconds, and in “DOG AND CAT” they had to pass around a stuffed dog and cat in the opposite direction, with questions and answers. A game called “BUILDING MESSENGER” came next. Its aim was to duplicate a build-ing in miniature as a group. The building was exhibited behind a wall and only one member was allowed to see it at any one time. The person who saw the building became a messenger and told what he/she saw to the rest of the group. After the exercise, a debriefing was held in which the participants discussed how they could do better. A facilitator then gave an explanation about clear communication. At this point, the par-ticipants recorded what they had thought and noticed so far. The next item was “MOLE SEARCH,” a game aimed at learning the importance of information analysis. After the exercise, a facilitator gave an explanation on sharing roles and information analysis. Then, a short lecture was giv-en on misunderstandings in risk/crisis communication. After that, par-ticipants were asked to write down freely their impressions about the entire session.

Through the experiences in the first session we made three important findings:1) Previous information gathering: Whenever we organized a training

program, we tried to get the necessary information – especially partic-ipant-related information such as number and characteristics – before-hand. However, this was not always possible, and we often had to pre-dict missing features from other information. To do so, it was useful to collect as much as possible related information through communica-tion with our clients.

2) Sequence of components: Once we had obtained a clear image of the training it was not very difficult to look for games applicable to the desired purpose, but determining how to combine them with other components was more difficult. All components (i.e. exercises, debrief-ings, explanations, and short lectures) needed to be carefully ordered.

3) Debriefing: Some participants had difficulties in getting the point. They were not able to see how to apply “learning by gaming” to the real world. They needed some assistance to visualize scenarios in which they could use the findings of the exercises at their worksites. Various approaches were required to support them to build a bridge between gaming and the real world. According to Duke (1974) and Duke and Geurts (2004), there are three stages in debriefing: emo-tional release, looking back on what happened during the exercise, and applying the findings to the real world. Determining how to apply what has been learned from gaming to the real world is the most chal-lenging part.

248 puBlIc DOmAIN

On the basis of these findings, we designed five different training pro-grams in the second series. We focus here on three of the five cases. These three were similar in terms of clients and objective: the clients were city governments and the objective was to improve communication skills in general. Here we report the three cases and discuss what we found. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the three training programs in the second session and make a proposal on the training program so that par-ticipants can utilize their learning from exercises for their worksites.

In this paper, we focus on the following items: conditions (time frame, room type, desk mobility, and number of participants), participant char-acteristics, objective (purpose or theme), main components (short lec-tures and exercises), and sequence.1) Conditions are constraints on a training program: time frame, room

type, desk mobility, and number of participants. They set the structure for a program. Gaming simulation, in particular, depends heavily on these constraints. For example, when the number of participants is more than 100, we need such things as a group of facilitators to run a game, ample time for preparation, and a huge room with good equipment.

2) Participant characteristics are such things as organizational division, job content, position, career, experience, age, and sex. Knowing these characteristics helps us to predict similarity or diversity among par-ticipants and should help us to modify the program to suit these char-acteristics. For example, if several participants were from the same section, they might be put in the same group or in different groups, according to the purpose of the exercise. During a session, various in-teractions happen. Designing a training program involves creating an environment that produces as many interactions as possible in accord-ance with the purpose of the program.

3) The objective is the purpose or theme of the program. In our project, we approached local governments, suggesting a training program on “im-provement of risk/crisis communication skills.” We then moved into ac-tion with those who agreed to our suggestion. Although we had the same general objective, we needed to answer different requests in each case. This was good, since we were able to try different components each time.

4) Main components consisted of short lectures and exercises. While re-specting clients’ requests, we insisted on including gaming simulation exercises. This was because we believe that gaming simulation is a powerful method for improving communication skills. However, it was challenging, since most training sessions for city officials are usu-

2. ITEmS fOR DEScRIpTION

249how To apply “learnIng By gamIng” To The worksITe: TraInIng ...

ally in the form of lectures. We secured ample discussion time with clients to achieve agreement on the components.

5) The sequence is a stream of short lectures, exercises, written debrief-ings, sharing, exchanges of opinions, sentence completion, comments, and wrap-ups. It is how the main components are ordered and con-nected with others. This is closely related to the first season’s findings: how to combine each component and how to bridge “learning by gam-ing” with the real world. Two big changes in the second season were to use multifaceted approaches in debriefing and to add a wrap-up after the debriefing.Next, we examine the details of three cases in the second season in

terms of these five items.

Table 1 puts the three cases into sections headed by each item.

3.1. case AIn case A, as shown in Table 1, 39 participants gathered from different departments of a city office, from the fire department to the personnel section. Our client was concerned about how to respond to complaints/claims from the public. At the same time, they were interested in the lat-est news on the H1N1 swine flu. To meet the client’s requests, we gave two short lectures on expression in risk/crisis communication and on the H1N1 swine flu, and we prepared four exercises. “RED AND BLUE” was an exercise to deal with confusing information, “CLOSED QUESTION” and ”OPEN QUESTION” were aimed at revealing the relationships be-tween questions and answers, and “PAC: TRANSACTIONAL ANALY-SIS” was focused on viewpoints veiled by conversation and represented as the parental, adult, or child ego state (see: Berne, 1964).

We started the session with the “RED AND BLUE” exercise, which was aimed at having the participants experience receiving misleading informa-tion and also at warming up the atmosphere. Debriefing for this exercise was done in writing. We distributed a debriefing sheet to the participants and then gave them 5 minutes to write down their impressions/observa-tions in the appropriate blank spaces. This was the first time we examined this debriefing style. Participants in each exercise were debriefed by using this written style. The point was the setting of time to reflect after each exercise. Participants had the opportunity to look back on what they had done and to think about the meaning of the exercise. In wrap-ups, an ex-pert presented examples of occurrences in real health crises. In the conclu-sive wrap-up, the expert encouraged the participants to take back what they had learned that day to their worksites.

3. DEScRIpTION Of ThE cASES

250 puBlIc DOmAINTa

ble

1. t

hree

of t

he c

ases

in th

e se

cond

sea

son

Item

Case

aCa

se B

Case

C

Cond

ition

s(d

ate,

ro

om,

de-

sks,

nu

mbe

r of

pa

rtic

ipan

ts)

13:3

0–17

:00,

7/2

1/20

10Co

nfer

ence

room

Des

ks a

re m

ovab

le39

par

ticip

ants

13:3

0–16

:30,

8/2

3/20

10 a

nd 8

/24/

2010

Gre

at h

all

Des

ks a

re n

on-m

ovab

le10

8 an

d 78

par

ticip

ants

in e

ach

sess

ion

13:3

0–16

:30,

10/

26/2

010

Sem

inar

room

Des

ks a

re m

ovab

le30

par

ticip

ants

Part

icip

ant

cha-

ract

eris

tics

City

offi

cial

s fr

om d

iffer

ent

depa

rt-

men

ts a

nd n

eigh

bori

ng ci

ties

Adm

inis

trat

ive

staf

f of

w

elfa

re

faci

litie

s (2

3rd,

spe

cial

ists

in

elde

rly

and

disa

bled

ca

re; 2

4th,

spe

cial

ists

in ch

ildca

re)

City

offi

cial

s in

cha

rge

of p

ublic

re

latio

ns in

diff

eren

t dep

artm

ents

Obj

ectiv

es

(pur

-po

se, t

hem

e)•t

Und

erst

and

the

curr

ent/f

utur

e si

-tu

atio

n w

ith r

egar

d to

hea

lth c

rise

s an

d ne

ws

repo

rts

•tIm

prov

e se

nsiti

vity

to co

mpl

aint

s/cl

aim

s

•tIm

prov

ing

com

mun

icat

ion

skill

s in

heal

th

cris

es•t

Prov

idin

g pr

oper

info

rmat

ion

to h

igh-

risk

in

divi

dual

s in

hea

lth cr

ises

•tIn

form

atio

n pr

opag

atio

n in

he-

alth

cris

es•t

Trai

ning

in b

asic

risk

com

mun

i-ca

tion

skill

s fo

r city

offi

cial

s

Mai

n co

mpo

nent

sSh

ort l

ectu

res:

1) I

mpo

rtan

ce o

f exp

ress

ion

in r

isk/

cris

is co

mm

unic

atio

n2)

Iss

ues

asso

ciat

ed w

ith n

ews

re-

port

s on

H1N

1 sw

ine

flu

Shor

t lec

ture

:1)

Inf

ectio

ns th

at w

e sh

ould

look

out

for

in

the

near

futu

re

Shor

t lec

ture

s:1)

How

to h

andl

e H

1N1

swin

e flu

2) T

he i

mpo

rtan

ce o

f ex

pres

sion

in

risk

/cris

is co

mm

unic

atio

n

Exer

cise

s:A)

RED

AN

D B

LUE

B) C

LOSE

D Q

UES

TIO

NC)

OPE

N Q

UES

TIO

ND

) PAC

: TR

ANSA

CTIO

NAL

AN

A-LY

SIS

Exer

cise

s:A)

TRE

ASU

RE IN

TRO

DU

CTIO

NB)

TEL

L YO

UR

NEI

GH

BOR

C) T

HE

MYS

TERY

O

F TH

E W

AI-W

AI

NU

RSIN

G H

OM

E

Exer

cise

s:A)

SEA

RCH

ING

FO

R EX

PRES

-SI

ON

B)

CO

OPE

RATI

VE W

RITI

NG

C) C

OLO

RFU

L PU

BLIC

AN

NO

-U

NCE

MEN

TSSe

quen

ce•t

A) +

wri

tten

deb

riefi

ng•t

1) +

2)

•tBr

eak

•tB)

+ w

ritt

en d

ebri

efing

•tC)

+ w

ritt

en d

ebri

efing

+ w

rap-

up•t

D) +

wri

tten

deb

riefi

ng +

wra

p-up

•tCo

nclu

sive

wri

tten

deb

riefi

ng +

sh

arin

g +

conc

lusi

ve w

rap-

up

•t1)

•tBr

eak

•tA)

•tB)

+ e

xcha

nge

of o

pini

ons

+ w

ritt

en d

e-br

iefin

g +

wra

p-up

•tBr

eak

•tC)

+ e

xcha

nge

of o

pini

ons

+ w

ritt

en d

e-br

iefin

g +

wra

p-up

•tSe

nten

ce co

mpl

etio

n +

shar

ing

+ co

nclu

si-

ve w

ritt

en d

ebri

efing

•t1)

+ 2

)•t

Brea

k•t

A) +

com

men

ts +

wra

p-up

•tB)

+ co

mm

ents

•tC)

+ co

mm

ents

+ w

rap-

up•t

Conc

lusi

ve w

ritt

en d

ebri

efing

+

conc

lusi

ve w

rap-

up

251how To apply “learnIng By gamIng” To The worksITe: TraInIng ...

3.2. case B

In case B, as shown in Table 1, the numbers of participants were 108 on the 23 August and 78 on 24 August: there were too many to run the usu-al gaming simulations. Moreover, it was impossible for the participants to move around during the session, since space was limited. We needed to design exercises that took this physical restriction into consideration. To ensure that the exercises ran smoothly, we refined the plan and shared roles carefully among facilitators. A great advantage of this case was that the participants were staff of welfare facilities and had skills in interpersonal communication. We were able to compensate well for the abovementioned restrictions.

The objective was to improve communication skills in a health crisis–specifically, the supply of appropriate information to high-risk individu-als. At the same time, our client wanted to do some follow-up of the previ-ous year’s session on the H1N1 swine flu. Therefore, we prepared a short lecture on infection, and we designed three exercises that were playable without the need to move from the places where participants sat first. “TREASURE INTRODUCTION” was an exercise aimed at introducing each person’s important things to others in groups of three. “TELL YOUR NEIGHBOR” was an exercise for information gathering and information propagation. “THE MYSTERY OF THE WAI-WAI NURSING HOME” was used for information analysis.

The session started with a short lecture, and all exercises were run consecutively after the lecture. “TREASURE INTRODUCTION” was played by three participants sitting in the same row. It was an icebreak-er and no debriefing was done. “TELL YOUR NEIGHBOR” was played by all (12) participants in the same row. The 12 participants were re-quired to work as a team by talking only with their right-hand and left-hand neighbors. After the exercise, participants were asked to exchange opinions in groups of three. Then they were asked to write their thoughts individually on a debriefing sheet. After that, as a wrap-up, an expert explained communication networks and information propagation and mentioned what would happen in the real world. “THE MYSTERY OF THE WAI-WAI NURSING HOME” was played by six participants, combining two rows of groups of three. After the exercise, participants exchanged opinions, wrote on the debriefing sheet, and listened to a wrap-up explanation from an expert. Finally, participants were given another sheet and completed two sentences, “What I found today was…” and “What I want to challenge myself with from now on is …,” and shared their answers with their surrounding neighbors. In case B, we set a block of time for exchanging opinions. This enabled participants to encounter different views and encouraged them to think from various perspectives.

252 puBlIc DOmAIN

3.3. case c

In case C, as shown in Table 1, the number of participants was 30. The participants were from the public relations sections of different depart-ments. Most of them were dealing with documentation as a routine ac-tivity. Therefore, we used exercises that were related to text representa-tion or compelling writing. “SEARCHING FOR EXPRESSION” involved skimming a weekly magazine and finding good expressions about health issues. Participants worked individually first and then exchanged their findings in groups. “COOPERATIVE WRITING” involved writing an an-nouncement on the H1N1 swine flu as a group. In silence, each member contributed one hiragana character in turn, to complete an announce-ment that had no more than 88 characters. “COLORFUL PUBLIC AN-NOUNCEMENT” was intended to produce a notice board by using open discussion. All exercises were done by the same groups of six.

The session started with two lectures on the H1N1 swine flu and on verbal expression. Then, the same magazines were assigned to members of a group and skimmed to find good expressions. “SEARCHING FOR EXPRESSION” was expected to be an icebreaker, and no debriefing was prepared. Instead, a commentator gave some examples of viewpoints and a facilitator wrapped up the exercise. “COOPERATIVE WRITING” was an exercise done in silence and was supposed to be very exciting. Unfortunately, it turned out to be boring: the resulting performances were all similar and stereotypical, and no one would have wanted to read them. We therefore made an on-the-spot decision to bring in an additional exercise, which was to create a “COLORFUL PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT.” Participants were now allowed to talk and were asked to make a powerful, persuasive public announcement on preven-tion of H1N1 swine flu. Before this exercise was run, the experts gave critical comments on the results of “COOPERATIVE WRITING” and en-couraged the participants to work hard. The results of the “COLORFUL PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT” were literally colorful and appealing. The experts did not need to say anything: the difference was obvious.

In the first season, we set aside time for oral debriefing and explanation after the exercise, but this was not enough to bridge the gaming experi-ences and experiences in the real world. We therefore devised several ways of debriefing in the second season. In Case A, we introduced a “writ-ten debriefing,” “wrap-up,” “conclusive written debriefing,” “sharing,” and “conclusive wrap-up.” The “written debriefing” was used to look back at what had happened during the game and write a few lines freely. The “wrap-up” by an expert aimed to give hints about connecting what had

4. fINDINGS

253how To apply “learnIng By gamIng” To The worksITe: TraInIng ...

happened in the exercise to the real situation. “Sharing” was used to share what participants wrote on their debriefing sheets in a small group. The “conclusive wrap-up” by an expert encouraged the participants to fit the theory into their own situations. These devices went well. In the opinions given on the debriefing sheets, most participants understood the meaning of the exercises, although some still had difficulties applying what they had experienced in the game to their worksites. For example, one partici-pant wrote, “The exercises were too abstract. I need more explanation.” Additionally, in Case A, because the ice-breaker exercise was remote from the other exercises its effect was weakened. Although we intended to warm up the atmosphere at the beginning, this warmth cooled down dur-ing the short lectures. After reflecting on this, we decided to run all subse-quent exercises consecutively.

In Case B, “exchange of opinions” and “sentence completion” were intro-duced. “Exchange of opinions” was done in a small group before the written debriefing. This was a kind of peer support system. Opinions from other participants had a strong impact as an eye-opener. Those who noticed a deep connection between the gaming experience and their everyday work opened their mouths and influenced others. Their thoughts thus spread and were thus expected to help others to apply their gaming experiences to their own situations. “Sentence completion” was a task that asked participants to complete a given sentence, such as “What I want to challenge myself with from now on is …” It reminded participants to take back what they had learned to their worksites. As a result, many participants wrote that they were ready to apply the theories they had learned to their worksites.

In Case C, a “comments” section was introduced. The “comments” from experts were remarks on the results of the exercise. This made partici-pants aware of different perspectives. In Case C, there was no formal de-briefing for each exercise. Instead, the last exercise, called “COLORFUL PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT,” functioned as a debriefing. Participants talked and shared their opinions on information propagation during the exercise. This happened because all of the exercises consistently dealt with how to convey information properly and persuasively. In the end, partici-pants mentioned that they were sure they would apply their experiences to their worksites.

The numbers of participants that had difficulties applying their learn-ing to their worksites were as follows: 17.1% (6 out of 35 participants) in Case A; 0% (none out of 181) in Case B; and 0% (none out of 30) in Case C.

From the experiences of the first season, we realized that some partici-pants had failed to grasp the meaning of gaming. Oral debriefing and explanations were not enough for our participants. Therefore, in the

5. DIScuSSION

254 puBlIc DOmAIN

second season, we introduced several debriefing methods and encour-aged participants to expand their minds. Fortunately, we had experts in the form of our staff members, but what can be done if there are no ex-perts to give hints and explanations? As an alternative, we can prepare questions to make participants think. For example, “What would you do if such and such happens at work?” The key is to appeal to participants through channels on various levels to stretch their imaginations outside the world of gaming.

In addition to the debriefing devices, we should mention the grouping system. In Case B, a group of three worked as a core group. Participants started the ice-breaker as a group of three, and this group was sustained through the other exercises. In Case C, the group of six was fixed from beginning to end. The core group became a basis for participants to ex-change information, make decisions, and share what they had learned during the exercises.

Our experiences demonstrated the usefulness of multifaceted ap-proaches in debriefing. The main findings were as follows:1) Set time to reflect after each exercise. Participants can reconsider

what has happened during the gaming session. 2) Make participants fill in a written debriefing. This helps them to grasp

the main point of the exercises. 3) Put participants in a small group and keep it as a core group. They

then feel safe and contribute more actively. 4) Make participants exchange opinions in a small group. They learn

about each other and get good examples to connect gaming experiences with their worksite activities.

5) Use experts to give wrap-ups. Explanations and comments by an ex-pert lead to changes in the attitudes of participants. This is especially important for those who are not accustomed to gaming activities.

6) Prepare questions. Questions stretch the imaginations of participants.If we think of a gaming session as a seed, debriefing is the process by

which we carefully sow the seed by hand. Careful attention to partici-pants’ reactions constitutes the key to successful training. This involves maintaining a delicate balance, because if we do too much we can ruin the entire learning process.

Berne E. (1964) Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relationships. London: Penguin Books.

Duke R (1974) Gaming: the Future’s Language. New York: SAGE.Duke R., Geurts J. (2004) Policy Games for Strategic Management. Amsterdam:

Dutch University Press.

REfERENcES