4.1. The Tower of Babel
Theoretical basis: The theoretical basis of this game is rooted in project management literature that stresses the importance of identifying project stakeholders [
55], identifying their real needs and expectations and ensuring their active involvement [
56] throughout the project life cycle [
57]. The game also illustrates the significance of thinking of project assignments as a means to create an impact and not only about producing an output [
1,
58]. In addition to illustrating concepts, processes and definitions, the game is used to challenge learners’ assumptions, attitudes and biases which are considered to be contributing factors to project failures [
59,
60,
61,
62].
Principal use: This game has a dual use. It is played during the very first lecture in order to capture the interest of the students and motivate them to learn the subject. It is also used to introduce or reinforce the theoretical foundations outlined above. The game challenges and questions students’ ideas and assumptions about project work. It also provides the students with an overall idea about how projects should be initiated and planned.
Type of game: Physical simulation using paper and tape only.
Time requirements: Approximately 30 min for playing the game and around 45 min for debriefing and summarizing the lessons learned. It is important to perform this assignment under time-pressure in order to replicate an important feature of project work and to illustrate to the students the consequences of this time-pressure combined with other factors such as ambiguity and uncertainty.
Prior to the game: The instructor should make sure that enough material is available for all students. Students are not required to make any preparations prior to coming to the class.
Game play: The game includes two main roles: the client (project owner) and the contractor (project organization). In this game, the instructor plays the role of the client, and the groups of students that are formed randomly play the role of the contractor or project organization. The gaming exercise starts in the first lecture of the course when the client announces his intention to construct a paper tower made only of A4 sheets and tape. The information is displayed on the screen in the classroom and includes the requirements regarding the type of materials that are allowed, the expectations that must be met in order to satisfy the client. Information about time frame is also displayed. The client’s expectations are deliberately formulated in such way that they give room for multiple interpretations. The expectations that must be met in order to satisfy the client are given to the students as follows.
The tower should be as tall as possible.
The tower should be built in the shortest possible time.
The tower should not be expensive (to use fewest number of sheets).
The tower should have an attractive design.
Other information that is held back and is not disclosed to the students includes the following.
The purpose of the project and what the tower will be used for.
The real needs that the clients are trying to address by constructing this tower.
Other stakeholders that might have some needs or expectations that must be met by the tower.
The environment where the tower will be located.
No information is given about any other functional or operational requirements that the tower must satisfy.
After a very brief introduction to the type of roles in the game, the requirements and time limitations as well as after presenting the project to the students, project organizations are formed randomly. The optimal size of each group should be around five to seven persons. It is not advised to have large groups because this might reduce students’ opportunities to actually contribute and influence the gameplay. The client then invites student groups (contractors) to submit a project proposal. The groups are told that the submitted proposals must contain information about the proposed height, an estimate of the number of sheets (resembling a cost estimate) and an estimate for the time needed for completion. They are also requested to think of and list potential risks factors that the project might encounter. The groups are also asked to take the assignment seriously and try to think and act as if they were project managers and have this task at hand. This request is deliberately restated several times during the game.
Students are instructed that producing the proposal (planning phase) should be completed in 15 min. During the planning session, the instructor must be present and visible to the students. The instructor should also answer questions regarding scope, objectives, other stakeholders, priorities between expectations, or about the purpose of the project only if asked. It is important that the instructor does not interfere or try to influence the students during this phase by any means.
It is also important to note here that there will be very few groups who would actually initiate a contact with the client to seek more information during this stage. Another interesting observation that was made is that almost half of the participants in the game confirmed afterwards that they felt the information given to them at the start of the project was not enough and yet they opted to go on with the assignment without further investigation with the client or with other potential stakeholders. This lack of involvement and the reasons for this lack of involvement become the core subject of the debriefing session at the end of the game.
On occasions, as noted above, some groups ask for more information about the project. They want to know what the tower would be used for, or what kind of tower is needed, and sometimes they show different sketches to select among. It is important that the instructor answers the questions and provides the groups with the information available.
After the planning session is completed, all proposals are then collected by the instructor and rewritten on the blackboard so that every student can see the proposals of all the other groups as shown in
Table 1. They are informed that they can amend their proposals if they prefer to do so. Once all proposals are displayed on the black boards. Groups are requested to start the execution phase.
Table 1.
Information collected and displayed on the blackboard at the end of the planning phase.
Table 1.
Information collected and displayed on the blackboard at the end of the planning phase.
Group | Height | Time Needed to Complete the Project | Number of Sheets that Will Be Used | Risk Factors |
---|
1 | | | | |
2 | | | | |
3 | | | | |
n | | | | |
Execution phase is the phase where the actual building of the tower takes place. The time frame for this phase is set to 15 min. In this phase, student groups are busy and work very hard to construct their structures. Furthermore, it is evident that they are focusing very strongly on the assignment.
Game debriefing: The observations made during the planning and execution phases are the focus of the debriefing session. A typical pattern of students’ attitudes during these can be summarized in the following observations:
Vast majority of the groups use the planning session to experiment with the game material, such as trying out different methods to roll the sheets of paper to form a cylinder or truss elements that will be used to build or support the tower. They seem very concerned with figuring out the best way to construct the tower. Very little effort is made to actually identify or find out the functions of tower.
They use time during planning to come to an agreement on who will do what during the execution phase.
They seem very eager to start with the execution phase, and some groups use less than the allocated 15 min.
Very little and sometimes virtually no discussions on what are the needs the client is trying to address by embarking on this project are observed.
No questions or discussions with the client to identify the operating environment of the tower are observed.
No questions or discussions to understand the project context, other stakeholders or other contextual requirements are observed.
Students seem very absorbed by the assignment during both the planning and execution phase.
The atmosphere within each group seems to be at ease, and no signs of confrontations or hostilities within each group are observed.
Very few groups actually initiate any type of contact with the client; occasionally they would ask if they can start the execution phase before other groups.
Most of the risk factors identified by the group focus on technical aspects such as risk of collapse or toppling. Some groups identified other risk factors such as lack of material (sheets of papers or tape), or failing to finish on time or failing to attain the targeted height. Virtually none identify risk factors related to client or other stakeholders’ satisfaction.
They seem very excited about and proud of their final products.
In the debriefing phase, the actual reflections and learning take place based on the students’ own attitudes observed in the game. Observations made are also presented to the students and discussed. The observations made are presented to the students using the survey tool available in Kahoot. This tool allows the instructor to obtain an individual response from each student in real time. The results are then displayed to the students on the screen.
Table 2 shows an example of the results obtained from the debriefing session.
Table 2.
Student responses to observations made during the game.
Table 2.
Student responses to observations made during the game.
Observation Statements | Agree | Disagree | Missing |
---|
I was focused on finding a good technical solution. | 94.7% | 3.7% | 1.5% |
I have not thought of the context or what the project will be used for. | 77.6% | 19.4% | 3.0% |
I thought the information provided was sufficient. | 47.5% | 48.5% | 4.5% |
I felt group pressure to begin the “real work” and I got carried away. | 76.2% | 20.9% | 2.2% |
I established my own assumptions to compensate for missing information. | 74.6% | 21.6% | 3.7% |
I am pleased with our results. | 74.5% | 23.1% | 1.5% |
We have involved and collaborated with the client in our decision making process? | 9% | 90% | 1.0% |
Much time during the debriefing session is taken to go through the impact of these attitudes, biases and heuristics on the project outcome. We strongly emphasize the importance of investigating thoroughly the purpose, the needs and the outcome rather than focusing only on the output. We emphasize the importance of looking at both project and operational context of the project assignment. We emphasize the importance of controlling assumptions during the planning phase. The importance of identifying stakeholders and taking time to learn their needs and expectations is also emphasized to the students.
Learning outcome: Everything we did in this assignment was actually based on student responses; they were the major contributors to all the elements of the game, the experimentation and the observation and the lessons learned. What we gained was the creation of a learning environment where students could see how their contributions are being analyzed in terms of the best practice outlined in the project literature and what they need to do to change these attitudes in order to deliver successful projects. The impact of this game on students is illustrated using some of the responses we got from the survey.
“The game changed the way I think about projects.”
“I understand now (at least know) the importance of identifying the goal of the project, and the importance of aligning project stakeholders.”
4.2. Verdict of the Jury
Theoretical foundation: This game complements and builds on the learning outcome of the first lecture but focuses on a narrower concept: how to evaluate the results of a project. The subject of project success is well covered in project management literature and deals with the importance of defining success criteria and the corresponding critical success factors [
63,
64,
65,
66]. The literature also emphasizes that success is an elusive term and can be seen differently by different people or from differing perspectives [
67,
68]. The goal of this assignment is to illustrate the different categories of these perspectives. The assignment also aims at providing students with an overview of factors that contribute to failure or success in projects.
Principal use: To facilitate discussions about dimensions of project success and the conditions of achieving success.
Type of exercise: This is a role-playing game where students play the role of jury members and their task is to come to a unanimous verdict about the outcome of a project. The project is screened to the students during the class. The goal of the assignment is to illustrate the importance of defining success criteria up-front and to demonstrate the different clusters of these criteria and how these clusters impact judgment of success and failure among stakeholders. This exercise is conducted usually for full time students.
Material used: A short video film (15 min) played on the screen in class.
Time requirement: Fifteen minutes for screening the video, 30 min for the groups to come up with a verdict and 45 min for debriefing session and lessons learned.
Prior to the game: In order to save time and to prepare the students for the concepts used in the game, it is advised that the instructor makes a short video presentation and posts it to the students and asks them to review it before coming to the class. This presentation should include an overview of important concepts and definition of success. Categories or dimensions of success criteria, the definition of success factors are also presented in the short presentation.
Game play: The video presents a real life project from idea to completion. It describes a project that went well above budget, was delayed by six months, was not completed according to the original specifications and experienced many troubles along the way but the end users and the clients were very satisfied with the outcome. After screening the video to the students, the students are then asked to form groups on their own. The size of the group could be small or large depending on the students’ preferences. On the basis of the information given in the video, each group is then instructed to come up with a unanimous verdict about the project: successful project or failure. They are also asked to identify the major causes of this failure or success. The time frame of this stage is set at around 30 min. The instructor should also be available and present during the deliberation session responding to eventual questions or clarifications from students but without interfering with their verdict.
Debriefing session: After deliberations, the groups are invited to share their verdict and the reasons for the verdict with the rest of the class. The class is practically divided into three categories: (1) success verdict; (2) failure verdict; and (3) unable to decide verdict. Each category is then invited to share the reasons for their verdict with the rest of the class. All the information gathered is put on the blackboard and this information provides good and lively grounds for discussions about types of success criteria and the importance of looking at success from different perspectives; for instance, the project management perspective and the project perspective and long term impact [
69]. Then, these different criteria were grouped into different clusters and the different perspectives within each cluster were explained in light of project management theory. The lecture emphasizes that managing projects require a reference frame that will be used in risk management, creating a common vision and establishing accountability as well as a reference for verifying the outcome [
70].
Learning outcome and student evaluation: Except for the video screening, everything else we did in this assignment was actually based on student responses; they have been the sole contributors to all the information collected on the blackboard. The deliberation was independent and without interference from the instructor. Again, what we gained was the creation of a learning environment where students could see how their verdicts are being analyzed in terms of the best practice outlined in project literature and new insights into how projects should actually be evaluated and how the criteria for evaluation should provide a basis for managing the output and the outcome. Students were asked to indicate why they thought this assignment was very important for their learning:
“During the in-class exercise 2 we had very good discussions about our own ideas and assumptions about project success. When the theory was presented later, it was much easier to assess if our evaluation was right or wrong. And also the work process to reach consensus was interesting to see, since the group was large and the members had very different views about the topic.”
The drawback that was reported by the student groups was that this exercise required more time for the impression they had to sink in and to give more deliberations.
“In my opinion, the thinking process required in the exercise demands more time to be able to come up with such systematic thinking. I would include an additional exercise on this topic. Moreover, it is too open to individual interpretations.”
As a matter of fact, what the student points out in the comment above that judging a project as a success or failure is a subject of individual interpretation is indeed in accordance with the recent calls for a subjectivist view of project success [
64,
68].
4.3. Risk Management Game (Interactive Simulation)
Theoretical foundation: Uncertainty is an inherent characteristic of projects since projects are unique and temporary undertakings based on assumptions and constraints. The project risk management process could be seen as a proactive attempt to understand, assess and manage this uncertain environment [
71]. Maytorena,
et al. [
72] indicated that interest in risk management has increased as the size and complexity of projects have grown and as competition between firms has intensified. The Project Management Institute [
73] has identified 44 processes that fall into five basic process groups and nine generic knowledge areas. Project risk management is one of the nine project management areas, which focuses on describing the processes that are important in order to conduct proper risk management on a project. The objectives of project risk management are to increase the probability and impact of positive events [
74] and to decrease the probability and impact of events adverse to the project. It is now widely accepted that even moderate levels of risk management planning are sufficient to increase the chances of project success [
75,
76].
Unique types of skills are needed in order to perform the risk management process. First, it is a people-centered process. People form their own subjective perceptions of risk based on their understanding of the context, culture, expectations, experience and skills. Second, decision-making is largely based on qualitative evaluation and is dependent on a project’s context. Reading or thinking about the risk management process is, therefore, not enough [
32]. It is a process that must be experienced, reflected upon and guided through feedback and debriefings.
Principal use: The game prompts an appreciation of project uncertainty as well as providing the students with the opportunity to experience the consequences of ignoring or following risk management. The learning objectives and the game design was previously reported by an author in a previous publication [
77]. The uniqueness and strength of the design comes from its ability to engage students actively in the entire risk management process as well as from using real-life project cases. The game also illustrates the impact of decisions taken by the players on important project success criteria such as duration, costs and customer satisfaction.
Type of exercise: On-line simulation of a real life project.
Material used: The game was built using the PrimaGate template [
78]. The template is an on-line tool that allows instructors to build their own risk management games. Functions included in this template are: defining work packages, relationships between work packages, project duration, work load for each work package, resources needed, number of resources available to the project; defining project description and difficulty level and the associated risk factors of each work package, their probability and the costs associated with mitigating each risk factor; defining the number of workers available as well as the number of workers that can be put on to crash the project, the costs per hour for each type of resource and the number of risk factors that will appear randomly to the students. It allows editing, deleting and changing all of the above parameters.
Prior to the game: The description of the project and the individual work packages that are needed to complete the project are posted to the students two weeks prior to playing the game. They are then invited to suggest or think about possible risk factors that they believe are relevant for each work package. A template is provided in which students can outline their potential risk factors. The template is shown in
Table 3.
Table 3.
Template to identify potential risk factors to include in the simulation.
Table 3.
Template to identify potential risk factors to include in the simulation.
Work Package | Student Input |
---|
Description of the risk factor | |
How do you assess the probability of the risk factor (low, medium high) | |
How do you assess the consequences of the risk factor on for example duration, cost or customer satisfaction | |
What type of measures do you suggest in order to eliminate or reduce the impact of the risk factor on the project | |
The students input is then collected and revised to remove duplicates and then added to the simulation using the PrimaGate template.
Game play: The game simulation itself takes place inside the classroom under the supervision of the instructor. However, the game can be played individually as well. The task is to complete the project according to the specified success criteria. At the start of the simulation, the simulation engine then randomly selects risk factors from the database for each work package. The list of risks usually includes risk factors identified by the players themselves prior to the simulation and which are added to the database, or risk factors identified in previous experiments by other classes. The database can, therefore, be seen as an incubator for risk factors.
No information is provided to the players about probability or the consequences of each risk factor. During simulation, players should use their own experiences as well as the information provided in the leaflet to assess the likelihood and consequences of each risk factor displayed. Failure to assess risks correctly will ultimately result in failure to respond to critical risks. This might result in severe delays, penalties by authorities, slow progression, and so on. Visual effects such as video clips from YouTube are used to illustrate the consequences of failing to assess risks. Players are encouraged to search the Internet for more information on typical risk factors for this kind of project and their impact. The interface between the players and the game takes place through the game navigation window, shown in
Figure 1. The game navigation window is generated by the template and could be accessed using a personal computer or any handheld device.
Debriefing session: The debriefing lecture takes place at the end of the computer simulation. It evaluates the performances of each team, revisits and discusses execution strategies and explains how teams distributed the roles and responsibilities. The efficiency of communication in the team and reflections about bias and heuristics during execution [
59] are also discussed with teams by linking the results to the project management theory and identifying lessons learned. The pitfalls of assessing risk factors such as indifference, haste and bias are also reviewed. Strategies to encounter these pitfalls such as the importance of supporting the assessment with historical data from previous projects are presented and emphasized.
Figure 1.
Screenshot of game navigation window.
Figure 1.
Screenshot of game navigation window.
Learning outcome and student evaluation: This exercise gives the students the opportunity to look at projects from a holistic point of view such as how failing to manage risks impacts the project objectives and how resources should be used to balance demands of time and cost. The feedback can be given instantly through the progression map and the cost performance index and predictions, in addition to the feedback given in the debriefing session that focuses on the biases and heuristics of decision-making. Examples of the heuristics discussed in the debriefing session are shown in
Table 4.
Table 4.
Examples of heuristics [
59].
Table 4.
Examples of heuristics [59].
Conservatism | Failure to Consider New Information or Negative Feedback |
---|
Escalation of commitment to a failing course of action | Additional resources allocated to a project that is increasingly unlikely to succeed |
Groupthink | Members of a group under pressure to think alike and to resist evidence that may threaten their view |
Illusion of control | When decision makers conclude that they have more control over a situation than an objective evaluation of the situation would suggest |
Overconfidence | Level of expressed confidence that is unsupported by the evidence |
What we gained from this exercise is the creation of a learning environment where students could see how their decisions have an immediate effect on project performance. Then, the results obtained by the students are analyzed in terms of the best practice in project risk management. The majority of the students indicated that this assignment was very important for their learning:
“Helped me to understand the phases of project, how resources could be allocated, how risk arises and how it should be mitigated. Overall overview of a complete project could be viewed.”
“Learn consequences of your actions. You have to make choices.”