Why (Serious) Games?

Introduction

The rise of business agility and entrepreneurship increasingly shifts work towards self-managing agile project teams. Especially in knowledge-intensive fields creating new products and services, agile project management methods have revolutionized the way initiatives are organized and executed [1]. However, while work in self-managing agile teams is increasing, the acquisition of mature project and portfolio management capabilities, be it agile or traditional, is still troublesome for many organizations.

Serious games can support the adoption of agile project and portfolio management capabilities in context, as frequently reported by agile coaches and consultants [8], [9]. Project methods rely heavily on skills embedded in routines applied by individuals at all levels of the organizational hierarchy [3], [4]. Games can help rising awareness and acquiring skills in context - in an effective and fun way.

This website is dedicated to discuss the purpose, characteristics, and success factors of serious games and their embedment in training.

Background: Why is it so difficult to aquire agile skills and capabilities?

When acquiring routines and cognitive skills such as those involved in portfolio management, the learner progresses through two major stages as learning theories suggest: (1) a declarative knowledge stage, and (2) a procedural knowledge stage [13], [14]. Declarative knowledge (knowing what) can be acquired from lectures and textbooks. Procedural knowledge (knowing how), however, needs to be trained during the process [13].

Teachers and coaches can generally support the acquisition of routines either through an inductive or an deductive approach [15]. Deductive teaching is most commonly known as the traditional classroom approach. The teacher introduces concepts and general principles, uses illustrative examples and then asks students to complete similar applications for homework. This approach is most suited to the teaching of facts and declarative knowledge. A common criticism is that little attention is paid to the rationale, the why of a specific approach is taken [15]. In inductive teaching the teacher exposes the student to the concepts by letting them experiment and reflect on the concept in-use. Inductive teaching is generally better suited to the acquisition of procedural knowledge. Such inductive approaches are commonly found in the form of mentoring and coaching of agile [3] and entrepreneurial initiatives [16].

Research findings: How are games used to support the adoption of Business Agility?

In order to understand how organizations use games to adopt agile methods in practice we conducted qualitative interviews with game developers, business consultants, and agile coaches from nine different companies, and conducted desk research on available open source serious games.

Based on 475 minutes of recorded audio, 81 pages of transcripts as well as 26 identified open source games, we researched the purpose, characteristics, and success factors of serious games and their embedment in training. Further, we provide an analysis of available games and what capabilities they address.

The findings indicate how games are used to:

1 raise awareness amongst the participating individuals,

2 help acquire declarative and procedural knowledge, and

3 support the changing attitude of the respective individual and their team.

Read about the full study here, or the summary below.

Success factors in the use of Serious Games in training agile project and portfolio management

1) Success factors in the pre-training phase

Simply playing the serious games does not solve the root cause of a problem than an organization might be facing. According to our participants, for a trainer, agile coach, or consultant it is really important to create an understanding of the problem/goal of the organization before starting the training. The case organizations were unanimous about the importance of the intake process in getting to the real problem/goal of the organization. This corresponds to what Kirkpatrick says about clever training leaders, who use the Four-Level Evaluation Model of Kirkpatrick somewhat differently [35]. They use the evaluation model backwards. Starting with the goal of the organization, then the desired on-the-job behavior, they then turn to what participants need to learn and they then choose the type of learning intervention accordingly. To this end, they conduct an interview with the business leader, and focus on their goal/opportunity to make sure that the training supports an actual business need. Winn [36] also addresses this when discussing the Design, Play, and Experience Framework. He argues that to design a game effectively, the designer should come up with desired goals for the experience. The goals are used by the game developer to guide the design of the serious game [36].

2) Success factors in the training phase

Success factors for the training are the fictional environment and the feedback loops. Most serious games contain a fictional environment in which learners can apply the lessons learned. Therefore, trainers might need to adapt the standard fictional context of the game to match the organization. If this does not happen, learners tend to be more resistant to the required change, as they fail to see the relevance of the scenario to their organization.

The intake stage allows the trainer to collect input for the reflection moments in the serious games. The feedback loops are crucial in transferring the lessons learned in the game to changes in on-the-job behavior. To achieve these changes, it is crucial to set personal goals at the end of the training. This is where the lessons learned from the training are transferred to reality. These personal goals also provide the possibility to tracking the outcome and usefulness of the training.

3) Success factors in the post-training phase

The results of the interviews showed that none of the participating companies had an effective way of measuring the outcome of training. The only way of measuring training was a form given to participants to evaluate the trainer and the training. According to Kirkpatrick this is level 1 of evaluation, to measure customer satisfaction [35]. Little attention has been given by participants to measure level 2, learning. For a trainer and organization sending employees to training this is a really interesting level. At this level you want to measure the knowledge, attitude, and behavioral changes resulting from training. Measuring on this level can include surveys, questionnaires, or tests. According to research by Stikkolorum, change in skill could be measured by using a pre-test and post-evaluation [37].

Level 3–change in on-the-job behavior–is, according to Kirkpatrick, the most difficult and important. When participants have learned something in training but do not apply these lessons learned, then the training has been a failure. To evaluate Kirkpatrick’s Level 3 [35], organizations could use surveys before and after the training, allowing participants time to change their behavior. The trainer needs to give participants some time to change their behavior. For organizations themselves, the most important evaluation measure is Level 4–results.