A STUDY OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING TECHNOLOGIES Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, Volume 11, 1984 29 A STUDY OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING TECHNOLOGIES Michael N. Chanin, Baruch College, CUNY Vicki J. Wulwick, Montclair State College Harris J. Shapiro, Baruch College, CUNY ABSTRACT Increased complexity of modern organizations and rapid changes in economic, social and political environments have created conditions for which the concepts of decision making and problem-solving become critical. With the increased level of openness, business and administrative organizations have grown in size and complexity. These developments have led to the creation of more complex forms of organization necessitating the need for effective problem-solving technologies. This paper describes an empirical investigation into the comparative effectiveness of four problem-solving technologies Dialectical Problem-Solving Technology (DPST), Devil’s Advocate Problem-Solving Technology, Nominal Group Technique (NGT), and Modified Delphi (Delphi). INTRODUCTION In a recently published article entitled “Is Problem-Solving America’s Lost Art?”, Malcolm W. Brown wrote: Are we Americans becoming a nation of ignoramuses, and if so, is there anything we can do about it? Scientists, teachers and America’s managers are complaining that on the whole our people no longer seem to solve problems very well. The complaints cite precipitous declines in school and college test scores, the statistical increase in functional illiteracy and the growing difficulty of filling jobs requiring problem-solving abilities.. .if the slide continues our country could eventually find itself a member of the deprived ‘Third World’ without engineers or the other problem- solvers who created American civilization (2). This citation epitomizes the realization of the critical need for new ways and techniques of problem-solving in the increasingly changing environment of modern business and government. For a long time attempts were made to improve the quality of decision- making by developing new techniques and formats of problem- solving. A substantial body of literature and research on these problem-solving technologies, such as brainstorming, Nominal Group Technique and Delphi, has been generated in the last 20 years (1, 4, 17, 18, 23, 26, 32, 42, 44). Examination of the traditional problem-solving technologies indicates that the majority of these technologies reflect the “consensus” or “harmony” period in the development of organizational theory. Only recently a few problem-solving technologies have made explicit use of the conflict concept in their constructs (6, 7, 20, 28, 30). Some researchers recognized conflict as a dialectical and natural phenomenon, which is derived from Hegelian and dialectical materialism (7, 9, 10, 11, 28, 29). These researchers utilized the dialectical concept of conflict as an integral part of a number of models designed to facilitate problem-solving in strategic planning and policy formulation. The concept of conflict is not only accepted as inevitable, necessary and even desirable under specific organizational and environmental conditions but also it is assumed that moderate levels of conflict can facilitate individual performance and ability to adjust to uncertainties of the changing environment. In contrast to existing planning methodologies, where conflict is regarded as destructive and unproductive, these dialectical planning models are built on explicit recognition of the positive role of systematic or controlled conflict, with continuous commitment of an organization’s opposing parties to their positions. The theoretical claims about the advantages in strategic decision- making of using such dialectical planning models such as Dialectical Inquiry Problem-Solving Technology (DIPST), Strategic Assumption Making Methodology (SANM), Assumption Making Methodology (AMK), and Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing has been supported by a number of uncontrolled field studies, undertaken by Mitroff, Mason and their associates (21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 35). However, these studies were conducted without controlled samples, no statistical data were reported and the researchers stated that subjective opinions of participants arid/or researchers were utilized as measures of success of dialectical models in the studies. Cosier and his associates, though supporting the positive view of conflict, have questioned the validity of the dialectical approach, and strongly criticized the methodology, results and claims made by Mitroff and his colleagues. A number of controlled laboratory studies were conducted by Cosier and his colleagues to show that dialectical inquiry models are inferior or, at best no more effective than the DA or the traditional ‘Planning Expert’ approach (10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 37, 38, 39). The findings of these studies suggest that the Devil’s Advocate Approach is better suited to strategic planning and policy formulation. Contrary to the findings of Cosier and his colleagues, Chanin (7) and Chanin and Shapiro (8, 9) found that DPST is a more effective planning tool as compared to DAPST. Examination of studies on conflict-oriented problem-solving technologies have failed to provide us with conclusive evidence and support for specific problem-solving technologies. The major problems in this area stem from methodological problems and different interpretations and/or rationalization of dialectic. In addition, it is methodologically questionable to compare decision-making based on group conflict in studies by Mitroff and his colleagues with cognitive, individual conflict in studies by Cosier and his associates. A similar situation exists in the research on non-conflict oriented problem-solving technologies. There is a considerable body of empirical research comparing brainstorming, interacting groups, pooled-individual groups, NGT and Delphi (3, 5, 9, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24, 34, 36, 40, 41, 42, 44). Our analysis of the existing research indicates that NGT tends to outperform interacting and Delphi problem-solving technology. However, the advantage of NGT is statistically significant in only a few studies. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, Volume 11, 1984 30 An extensive literature review revealed no comparative studies between conflict-oriented problem-solving technologies, such as DAPST or DPST, and non-conflict-oriented problem-solving technologies, such as NGT and Delphi. Recently Chanin (6) found a strong and statistically significant difference between DPST technology groups and groups utilizing NGT technology. The DPST groups out-performed the NGT group on such performance variables as Industry Rank, ROI, Cost per Unit, Profit in Dollars, and Sales in Units. However, the limited scope and exploratory nature of this study did not allow broader generalizations. The absence of comparative studies dealing with a larger number of problem-solving technologies stimulated the present research. METHODOLOGY Subjects The subject poo1 consisted of 94 senior undergraduate students enrolled in four sections of the business policy course at Baruch College of the City University of New York. A total of twenty four teams, representing individual firms, were assigned to four different problem-solving technologies: six teams to DPST, six teams to DAPST, six teams to NGT and six teams to Delphi. The composition of teams was heterogeneous and well-balanced in terms of the students’ major in each team. The assignment of different problem-solving technologies to individual teams was made randomly. Research Design The present study was conducted in the context of the Executive Game (25). The 24 experimental firms were divided into three independently operating industries. Each industry had eight teams (two of each problem solving technologies) competing in production and sale of a single medium-technology product. The performance of individual firms was evaluated by the firm’s rank in the industry and selected economic indicators. The Executive Game is known as one of the first games and thus is rather simplistic compared with other more recently developed Business games. Nevertheless, it still offers a dynamic business case, whose outcome is determined by the group-dynamics and decisions made within the firm, competition with other teams in an industry, and prevailing economic factors affecting the industry market potential. Although the game’s computer program is essentially deterministic, the game itself involves a high degree of uncertainty, which develops not only from imperfect predictions of economic factors and inability to foresee decisions made by competing teams, but also from the quite often erratic behavior of competing firms. All teams were asked to develop a strategic plan with a time horizon of three years, medium-range plans with a time horizon of one year and to submit three annual and final reports. Operational decisions were made every quarter with 12 quarters (3 years) of simulated business activity. All experimental firms were allowed to revise their plans at the end of the first and second years. To facilitate operations and the implementation of long-range policies in each firm a special organizational structure consisting of a president and three vice presidents was created. If desired, at the end of the first and second years, firms were allowed to change their organizational structure (e.g., select a new president, reassign executive functions). Experimental Conditions Four different treatments - problem-solving technologies were utilized in this study; DPST, DAPST, NGT and Delphi. DPST was developed and applied along the theoretical framework of the Dialectical Materialism Inquiry System (7, 9). DPST, designed to facilitate the decision-making for strategic and operational planning, is a three- step decision-making process: 1. Development of individual (conflicting) plans 2. Structured debate 3. Synthesis - development of a final group plan A detailed description of DPST is presented in Chanin (7) and in Chanin and Shapiro (8). The operationalization of DAPST is similar to Mason’s (28) interpretation of the Devil’s Advocate Approach. DAPST involves a four-step problem-solving technology: 1. Development of strategic and operational plans by the planning group 2. Plan presentation at the management briefing session 3. Management critique of the plan, and 4. Development of a final plan The NGT was developed and introduced by Van de Ven and Delbecq (42, 43, 44). NGT was operationalized as a six step problem-solving technology: 1. Individual generation of forecasts and decisions 2. Round-Robin recording of decisions 3. Serial discussion of decision variables 4. Preliminary vote 5. Final vote - if necessary 6. Team decision A more extensive description of NGT steps is presented in Chanin (6). The Delphi technique, developed at the Rand Corporation by Dalkey and his associates, is one of the most popular and well-researched problem-solving technologies (16). Though there are many variations in the process of administering the Delphi procedure, the basic approach involves two iterations of questionnaires and feedback report. Because of time constraints and logistic difficulties in the present operationalization of Delphi we have used only one iteration. The operationalization of Delphi involved a two stage decision- making process: Stage 1 a. Development of individual strategic and operational plans b. Submission of the individual plans to the Game Administrator Stage 2 a. Preparation of the feedback report by the Game Administrator b. Return of the feedback report, consisting basically of enumeration and a summary of different statements for qualitative plans and means and standard deviations for each quantitative decision variable Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, Volume 11, 1984 31 DPST and DAPST can be classified as conflict-oriented problem- solving technologies, where conflict is stimulated through the workings of the problem-solving technology. NGT and Delphi are non-conflict oriented problem-solving technologies, where the very design minimizes the possibilities for conflict to occur. DPST, DAPST and NGT are interactive and Delphi is a non- interactive decision-making process. Independent and Dependent Variables In the present study the independent variables are four problem- solving technologies: DPST, DAPST, NGT and Delphi. The independent variables are introduced into the research design by setting up differential starting positions-different problem-solving technologies for teams involved in the study. Compliance of the subjects with specific problem-solving technologies was constantly reinforced by regular observation of each team’s decision-making process by outside observers and usage of a 12 point (1 point per decision) reward system. Dependent variables utilized in this study were objective performance variables such as rank, ROI, profit, sales, etc. An additional dependent variable was the total score on business game tests. Hypothesis H1: DPST group will tend to outperform DPST, NGT and Delphi groups in economic performance. H2: DAPST groups will tend to have higher levels of performance as compared to NGT and Delphi groups. -: H3: NGT groups will have higher economic performance than Delphi groups. H4: Because application of DPST increases awareness and understanding of economic and planning problems and issues, the DPST subjects will outperform the remaining problem-solving technologies in scoring on business game tests (an indirect measure of performance). RESULTS Hypothesis Hi stated that DPST will exhibit superior performance as compared to other problem-solving technologies. In order to identify which problem-solving technology has higher performance, we dichotomized all teams into high- and low-performance teams, using the Industry rank for each firm. Firms ranked as 1 to 4 were designated as high performance teams. Table 1 presents the number of teams falling into each category after three years of simulated business operations. Table 1 High and Low Performance Teams According Industry Rank Level of Performance Problem-Solving Technology Number of Teams High DPST DAPST NGT Delphi 6 3 2 1 Low DPST DAPST NGT Delphi 0 3 4 5 From the results in Table 1 we may classify DPST as a high performance problem-solving technology and NGT and Delphi basically as low performance problem-solving technologies. Distribution of teams into high and low levels of performance has a relative interest, but it does not indicate whether the differences in comparative effectiveness is statistically significant. The superiority of DPST technology is also supported by information contained in Table 2. Examination of data in this table indicates that DPST firms have the highest rank, return on investment, net profit, and market share. DPST groups significantly outperformed DAPST on all five variables and also outperformed NGT and Delphi on three out of five variables. Thus, hypothesis Hi is overwhelmingly supported. Table 2 Comparison of Problem-Solving Technologies for Selected Performance Variables Performance Means and Stand. Deviations Comparative t-value and significance level Variable DPST DAPST NGT Delphi DPST vs DAPST DPST vs NGT DPST vs Delphi DAPST vs NGT DAPST vs Delphi NGT vs Delphi Rank 2.2 (2.3) 4.3 (2.1) 4.7 (2.2) 6.8 (1.2) -2.16 (.028) -2.41 (.018) -6.46 (.000) -1.27 (.395) -2.58 (.013) -2.16 (.028) ROI (%) 16.13 (1.72) 13.76 (1.30) 13.63 (1.55) 9.37 (4.75) 2.70 (.011) 2.65 (0.12) 3.28 (.004) 0.15 (.441) 2.18 (.027) 2.09 (.031) Net Profit ($000) 363 (88) 240 (98) 218 (125) 83 (161) 2.29 (.078) 2.32 (.155) 6.37 (.224) 0.34 (.381) 3.33 (.206) 2.37 (.211) Mkt. Share (%) 13.8 ( .85) 12.7 (1.56) 13.2 (1.68) 10.7 (1.82) 1.56 (.074) 0.87 (.203) 3.79 (.002) -0.50 (.314) 2.02 (.035) 2.42 (.018) Sales 21332 (1687) 18662 (2348) 19532 (2336) 24085 (22176) 2.26 (.023) 1.53 (.078) -0.30 (.384) -0.64 (.297) -0.60 (.287) -0.50 (.314) *Rank 1 is the highest and Rank 8 is the lowest. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, Volume 11, 1984 32 Basically Hypothesis H2 should be rejected because we found no statistically significant difference between DAPST and NGT groups, though DAPST groups outperform Delphi on three out of five variables. Hypothesis H3 is statistically supported by three out of five variables: rank, ROI and market share. In Hypothesis H4 we stated that the very nature of DPST increases awareness and understanding of the problem through the structured debate and critical evaluation of various alternatives and underlying assumptions. Table 3 contains information on means, standard deviations, t-values and significance levels derived from business game tests. Analysis of this table indicates that only students using DPST significantly outperformed their peers in remaining problem- solving technologies. We found no significant differences between DAPST. NGT and Delphi. Thus hypo- thesis 4 is supported. Table 3 Performance Means, Standard Deviations and t-value for Problem Solving Technologies Prob.-Solv. Technologies Mean St. Deviation t-value Sig. Level DPST Vs DAPST 15.44 13.07 2.82 4.37 2.23 .015 DPST Vs NGT 15.44 14.03 2.82 4.48 1.3 .099 DPST vs Delphi 15.44 14.14 2.82 3.24 1.45 .077 DAPST vs NGT 13.07 14.03 4.37 4.48 -.75 .228 DAPST vs Delphi 13.07 14.14 4.37 3.24 -.94 .177 NGT vs Delphi 14.03 14.14 4.48 3.24 -.10 .462 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The findings of this study indicate a strong and statistically significant difference in comparative performance between DPST and the other three technologies: DAPST, NGT, and Delphi. We also may infer that teams using conflict-oriented problem-solving technologies generally perform better than those using non- conflict- oriented problem-solving technologies. However, though the results are not statistically significant, DAPST had slightly higher values in Ranking, ROI and Net Profit. The poor performance of Delphi teams may be explained by the absence of social interactive decision processes. In the absence of the ability to discuss possible alternative strategic or operational plans, the subjects in Delphi groups felt frustrated and angry with the decisions of their unknown teammates. The subjects were asked to rank the 5 most important positive and the 5 most important negative aspects of the problem-solving technology they used. The responses were clustered into the 9 following factors: usefulness, social interaction, impact on planning and decision-making, independent thinking, conflict, time demand, analytical power, structure of technology, and feedback. The examination of the responses using these 9 factors indicated that positive responses exceeded negative responses by i.6 to 1 for DPST, 1.1 to 1 for DAPST and 1.7 to 1 for NGT. In the case of the Delphi technique there were 2.6 negative responses for each positive response. Students utilizing the Delphi technique cited the following major shortcomings: absence of social interaction, negative impact on planning and decision-making, and poor feedback. In a number of studies above, Cosier and his associates claimed that dialectical models may be inferior to alternative problem- solving technologies, especially the Devil’s Advocate approach. Our research results are contrary to the findings of Cosier; DPST teams considerably outperformed DAPST teams. Nevertheless, we have to be careful making generalized and far-reaching conclusions. First, ‘The Executive Game’ may not be sufficiently complex to provide the necessary environment and conditions for strategic and operational decision-making. Second, the study is limited in scope and population size (six teams for each problem- solving technology). One of the major conclusions that we arrived at in this study is that more extensive and diversified research is needed to establish comparative advantages or disadvantages of specific problem- solving process. In addition, conditions should be created to control for the impact of such variables as personality traits, individual beliefs, motives and needs, as well as group norms and roles, and leadership styles. REFERENCES 1. Bouchard, T.J., Jr., & M. Haire. Size, performance and potential in brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 54, No.1, 1970, pp. 51-55. 2. Browne, M.W. Is problem-solving America’s lost art? New York Times, July 29, 1980, p. B-1. 3. Campbell, R.M. A methodological study of the utilization of experts in business forecast Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, 1966. 4. Carr, D.F., Green, T.B., and R.E. Huges. A comparison or interacting, nominal, pooled and brainstorming groups in the barrier identification phase of the problem-solving process. in L.R. Trueblood (Ed.), Proceedings, Southwest Division, Academy of Management, New Orleans, 1977, pp. 200-204. 5. Carr, D.F., Green, T.B. and T. W. Hinckle. Exploring nominal grouping from a social facilitation context. In D.F. Ray and T.B. Green (Eds.), Expanding Dimensions of Management Thought and Action. Mississippi State: Southern Management Association, 1976, pp. 79-81. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, Volume 11, 1984 33 6. Chanin, M.N. An examination of conflict and non-conflict- oriented problem-solving technologies. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises. Normal, Illinois: Illinois State University, ABSEL, 1983, pp. 152-156. 7. Chanin, M.N. An empirical study of problem-solving technologies and conflict-handling behavior modes. Unpub1ished doctoral dissertation, The City University of New York, 1980. 8. Chanin, M.N. and H.J. Shapiro. Comparison of problem- solving technologies: A free simulation approach. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises. Normal, Illinois: Illinois State University, ABSEL, 1982. 9. Chanin, M. N. and H.J. Shapiro. Towards a dialectical theory of strategic planning. Proceedings, 11th Annual Meeting, American Institute for Decision Sciences, New Orleans, Louisiana, November 19-21, 1979, pp. 232-234. 10. Cosier, R.A. Dialectical inquiry in strategic planning: A case of premature acceptance? Academy of Management Review, 1981a, 6(4), 643-648. 11. Cosier, R.A. Further thoughts on dialectical inquiry: A rejoinder to Mitroff and Mason. Academy of Management Review, 1981b, 6(4), 653-654. 12. Cosier, R.A. Inquiry method, goal difficulty, and context effects on performance. Decision Sciences, 1980, 11, 1-16. 13 Cosier, R.A., & Aplin, J.C. A critical view of dialectical inquiry as a tool in strategic planning. Strategic Management Journal, 1980, 1, 343-356. 14. Cosier, R.A., Ruble, T., & Aplin, J.C. An evaluation of the effectiveness of dialectical inquiry systems. Management Science, 1978, 24(14), 1483- 1490. 15. Cosier, R.A. The effects of three potential aids for making strategic decisions on prediction accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1978, 22(2), 295-306. 16. Dalkey, N.C. Predicting the Future. The Rand Corporation, p. 3948, October 1968. 17. Delbecq, A.L., Van de Ven, A.H., & D.H. Gustafson. Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes, Glenview: Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1975. 18. Dunnette, M.D., Campbell, J., & K. Jaastad. The effect of group participation on brainstorming effectiveness for two industrial samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 1963, pp. 30-37. 19. Eldridge, L.D. The effects of nominal and brainstorming decision-making procedures on group procedures on group productivity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Univ. of Rochester, 1977. 20. Emshoff, J.R. & 1.1. Mitroff. Improving the effectiveness of corporate planning. Business Horizons, October 1978, pp. 49- 60. 21. Emshoff, J.R., & Finnel, A. Defining corporate strategy: A case study using strategic assumption analysis (Working paper No. 8-78). Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania, Wharton Applied Resource Center, 1978. 22. Geren, P.A. The Relative Effectiveness of Three Group Processes in Decision Making. Georgia State University, College of Education, 1978. 23. Green, T.B. An empirical analysis of nominal and interacting groups. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 1, 1975, pp. 63- 73. 24. Gustafson, D.H., Shukla, R.K., Delbecq, A., & G.W. Walster. A comparative study of differences in subjective likelihood estimates made by Individuals, interacting groups, Delphi groups, and nominal groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 1973, p.280-291. 25. Henshaw, R.C., & J.R. Jackson. The Executive Game. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1978. 26. Herbet, T.T., & E.B. Yost. A comparison of decision quality under nominal and interacting consensus group format: The case of the structured problem, Decision Sciences, 10, 3, July, 1979, pp. 358-370. 27. Laurenco, S.V., & J.C. Glidewell. A dialectical analysis of organizational conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 1975, pp. 489- 508. 28. Mason, R.O. A dialectical approach to strategic planning Management Science, 15, 3, 1969, pp. B-403-414. 29. Mason, R.O. & 1.1. Mitroff. Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions. New York: Wiley, 1981. 30. Mitroff, 1.1., Barbara, V.P., & R.H. Kilmann. The application of behavioral and philosophical technologies to strategic planning: A case study of a large federal agency. Management Science, 24, 1, 1977, pp. 44-58. 31. Nelson, J., & Mitroff, 1.1. An experiment on dialectic information systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1974, 25, 252-262. 32. Nemiroff, P.M., Pasmore, W.A., & D.L. Ford. The effects of two normative structural interventions on established and ad hoc groups: Implications for improving decision making effectiveness. Decision Sciences, 7,4, 1976, pp. 841-855. 33. Nystrom, P.D. Dialectical decision process: Its use in faculty personnel actions. American Institute for Decision Science Proceedings, 1977, pp. 491-493. 34. Osborne, A.F. Applied Imagination. New York: Scribners, 1957. 35. Pierce, B.R. The nature and extent of long-range plannIng in the transportation regulatory agencies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, i971. 36. Rotter, G.S., & S.M. Portugal. Group and individual effects in problem solving. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 4, i969, pp 338-341. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, Volume 11, 1984 34 37. Schwenk, C.R. Some effects of planning aids and presentation media on strategic decision making. Faper presented at the Western Academy of Management Meetings, April 1981. 38. Schwenk, C.R. Effects of inquiry methods and ambiguity tolerance on prediction performance. Decision Sciences, 1982, 13(2), 207-221. 39. Schwenk, C.R., & Cosier, R.A. Effects of the expert, devil’s advocate and dialectical inquiry methods on prediction performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1980, 26, 409-424. 40. Turoff, M. The design of a policy Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2,2, 1970, pp. 149-171. 41. Turoff, M. Delphi and its potential impact on information systems. AFIPS Conference Proceedings AFIPS Press, Montvale, New Jersey, 39, 1971, pp. 317-326. 42. Van de Ven, A.H., & A.L. Delbecq. The effectiveness of nominal, Delphi, and interacting group decision making processes. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 1974, pp. 605-621. 43. Van de Ven, A.H., & A.L. Delbecq. The nominal group as a research instrument for exploratory health studies, Journal of the American Public Health Association, March 1972, pp. 337-342. 44. Van de Ven, A.H., & A.L. Delbecq. Nominal versus interacting group processes for committee decision making effectiveness. Academy of Management Science, 14, June, 1971, pp. 203-212. Table of Contents Volume 11, 1984 Simulation Gaming as a Means of Researching Substantive Issues: Another Look A Further Test of the Group Formation and its Impacts in a Simulated Business Environment Impact of Economic Patterns on Student Performance in Computer Business Simulation Games Majority Fallacy Game with Independent Student Simulation and a Case Introducing the Marketing Channel Laboratory A Comparative Evaluation of a Marketing Game A Study of Comparative Effectiveness of Problem-Solving Technologies The Impact of Hierarchical and Egalitarian Organization Structure on Group Decision Making and Attitudes Risk-Free Decision Making The EX-STRA Export Strategy Game Computer Education for Management Students Developing a Computer Game/Job Simulation to Teach Functional Literacy Skills Experiencing Socialization First Hand: An Experiential Exercise in Organizational Socialization Networking Distributive Versus Integrative Approaches to Negotiation: Experiential learning Through a Negotiation Simulation Managerial Education and the Real World: Foudations for Designing Educational Tools Diagnosing Group Climate to Improve Supervisory Effectiveness Student background as a Factor in Simulation Outcomes: The Collective bargaining Example The Use of Pre-Plays in Management Education Experiencing the Process Debrief: A Workshop ABSEL Megatrend Roots MEGATRENDS for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning The Effects and Consequences of the Megatrends on Simulation Gaming: One View Opportunities for the Future: ABSEL's Role Experiential Learning-Based Discussion vs. Lecture Based Discussion: A Comparative Analysis in a Classroom Setting An Evaluation of the Minitab Package in Teaching Business Statistics Concepts A Path Analytic Study of the Effects of Alternative Pedagogies Developing and Using Weighted Application Blanks: An Experiential Exercise Building Airplanes Individual vs. Group Grade: An Exercise in Decision making A Marketing Plan Exercise: Development of Interteam Cooperation Using a Coordinated Experiential Approach Using Student Experience as the Basis for a Consumer Behavior Learning Exercise Student Evaluations of Instructors: What do Students Believe? A Description of the SOFTCAT Computer Assisted Teaching System Comparisons of Practitioners' and Professors' Perceptions of Business Policy Content and Learning Methods The Perceived Relationship Between Pedagogies and Attaining Course Objectives in the Business Policy Course The Use of Simulation in the Teaching of Business Policy A Research Study on Strategic Decisions in a Business Simulation Strategic Management Decision Making Researched Via Simulation Gaming Using Simulation to Investigate Factors in Competitive Bidding Combining Experiential Learning and management Assistance A Model for Teaching Management Skills Putting Experience Back into Experiential Learning: A Demonstration The Teaching and Behavioral Measurement of Managerial/Organizational Competencies: Developing Experiential Exercises and Simulations A Simulation Game Model for Conglomerates QCLAB - A Microcomputer Laboratory in Quality Control CTSS: A Commodity Trading Simulation System Problem Solving: An Exercise on Learning, Coaching, and Operant Conditioning A Demonstration of the Effects of Feedback as a Category of Reinforcement The Assessment of Feedback and Disclosure in Interpersonal Relations: An Experiential Exercise A Study to Determine Whether the Teaching of Basic Grammar Skills in Business Communication Classes Improves Students' Business Letter Writing Corporate Maladies Through the Eyes of the Memo Writer: A Seldom Used Experiential Tool Executive Bailout at Shake & Spear, Inc. The H.E./L&P Merger Intercultural Nonverbal Communications: An Experiential Exercise The Evolving Business Policies Course - Is Management Gaming the Logical Pedagogy? The Use of Decision Simulations in Management Training Programs: Current Perspectives Humanizing the Business of Medicine: The Use of Simulated Patients to Train medical Students Systematic Integration of Simulation Methods in a Graduate Management Curriculum Modeling Non-Price Factors in the Demand Functions of Computerized Business Using Spacial Relationships to Estimate Demand in Business Simulations Two Algorithms For Redistribution Of Stockouts In Computerized Business Simulations Leadership And Strategic Behavior A Comparison Of Two Business Strategy Simulations For Microcomputers Incorporating Decision Support Systems Into Management Simulation Games: A Model And Methodology Using Micro-Computers To Support The Analysis Of Complex Cases: It's As Easy As 1-2-3 Strategic Formulation Consistent With Pims: A Micro-Computer Application