HELPING NEW GAME ADOPTERS: FOUR PERSPECTIVES Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 28, 2001 HELPING NEW GAME ADOPTERS: FOUR PERSPECTIVES Kenneth Goosen, Micro Business Publications Alfredo Mauri, Baruch College William J. Ritchie, Florida State University Joseph Wolfe, PhD, Experiential Adventures LLC jwolfe8125@aol.com Abstract Any number of problems face an instructor adopting a new game. This paper presents the viewpoints of four indi- viduals associated with a panel presentation on issues and problems faced by someone who adopts a totally new game. The first perspective is that of a new gamester. The second is that of one who has used games before but has not used the newly-introduced The Global Business Game. The third contributor is the game's author who summarizes the mate- rials he created to help the adopter adjust to the game's requirements. The last presenter is a game author but also the publisher of three games. His perspectives deal with problems created for the user by a game designer's deci- sions as well as self-inflicted problems caused by the new user. HELPING NEW GAME ADOPTERS Part of ABSEL's mission is to encourage the adoption of the experiential method for business education. The accomplishment of this mission entails supporting the use of sophisticated business games by encouraging their initial adoption and retention. Past interest in the areas of game adoption and retention has been shown in various panels and papers presented at ABSEL's conferences since its origination. Biggs, Gulkus and Morgandale (1983) studied the types of schools that have adopted business games while Faria and Nulsen (1978, 1979) and Summers and Boyd (1983) looked a the nature of the game user to iden- tify the types of faculty most-likely to use games. Keeffe and Cozan (1985) looked at the gaming reten- tion problem by polling members of the Academy of Man- agement Business Policy division to determine how many used games and the reasons why some stopped using them. Gentry and Brown (1974) cited methods for helping players be less frustrated by a new game, Fritzsche (1975, 1978) and Biggs (1980) presented early panels featuring opera- tional hints for new game adopters and followed shortly thereafter with suggestions on how to make a game easier to administer thus making the game less onerous to a new adopter. Both Low (1979, Biggs (1986) and Biggs and Halpin (1990) performed a broader service by presenting helpful guidelines to those thinking about adopting a com- puter-based game for teaching purposes. Smith (1987) pre- sented a paper on elements the game designer should be aware of to make a business game more useable and less error-prone to administer. Taken as a whole these efforts indicate an interest in making it easier for instructors to use games thereby making it easier to make a particular adop- tion decision. This panel presentation took advantage of a unique op- portunity afforded by the recent introduction of The Global Business Game (Wolfe, 2000). When the game's author designed this game particular attention was paid to provid- ing multiple information sites from which adopters could obtain knowledge about what the game does from the per- spectives of administration and play. This foresight may or may not have been effective. Alternatively, perhaps no amount of preplanning on the author's part could have over- come the nature and circumstances of the game's potential and actual users. To present a fresh view of how a new game is adopted, installed and used the panel consisted of four individuals closely associated with business games and The Global Business Game. The first panelist adopted the game but had never used a business game for instructional purposes. The second panelist was an adopter of The Global Business Game but was also an experienced gamester. Interesting contrasts may emerge between these two types of adopters given their knowledge about the practical side of business gaming. The third panelist will be the game's author. He will present the elements he believed would facilitate (1) the game adoption decision and (2) any help a user would need once game play had begun. The fourth and last panel- ist is a publisher of business games and one who has had much experience in dealing with game users. Publishers often get a different view of a game's operational problems as well as receiving feedback that is presented in a different form than that caught by a game's author. Given these four different perspectives on the same teaching device, interest- ing insights should be obtained as to what can and cannot be done to facilitate the implementation of a new game. 80 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 28, 2001 WILLIAM J. RITCHIE: A NEW GAME- STER, NEW GAME USER My first exposure to business simulation games took place in 1990-1991 while I was a student in an international management class in an MBA program. From a student perspective, and most likely for the game administrator as well, the game was very difficult to use in that it required a fluent working knowledge of DOS and other programming skills. This experience had a negative effect on my overall impression of simulation games in subsequent years. It was not until ten years later that I considered using a game in the classroom. This year (2000) marks the first time I have worked with a simulation game as a Doctoral Candidate and instructor. While attending one of the Southern Management As- sociation meetings I engaged in a conversation with one of the Thomson Learning representatives. I explained that I was interested in any progress in simulation game technol- ogy, but was not familiar with time commitments, instructor learning curves, and level of difficulty of newer games. However, I new that my International Strategic Manage- ment class needed a new venue for learning to supplement the text and cases. As I reviewed the text of The Global Business Game (GBG) it was clear that, as a Windows ori- ented program, it was extremely user-friendly. In fact, the instructor’s manual was replete with visual aids depicting the actual steps carried out in the simulation. This caught my attention, giving me greater comfort in the idea of adopting a game for my class. GAME ATTRIBUTES A review of the game revealed a number of attributes that would work very well in tandem with my current curriculum. Specifically, the GBG has a very logical flow that models the real-life experiences that an individual would undertake in the formation of a company. For example, the Player’s Manual emphasizes the importance of team formation and development. This initial aspect of the game works in parallel with international team-building exercises that utilize personality tests such as the Myers- Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) or the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. The GBG also covers key aspects of strategy such as the development of mission statements and overall organizational structures. These major themes are also cov- ered in my normal class presentations, providing the students with an opportunity to apply what they are learning in the context of real management teams. The GBG places a great deal of decision-making power in the hands of the administrator, but without overwhelming him/her with details. For example, the GBG is replete with options regarding one or more countries of interest, changes in production costs, team and industry size, economic sce- narios and more. But all of these areas have defaults that allow the administrator to avoid making choices if the time allotted for learning the game is at a premium. This is a real plus, considering that the time available for administra- tors is extremely variable. The game also facilitates direct interaction between the administrator and teams. This aspect of the game makes it very personal, and emphasizes to players that they are mak- ing decisions in real-time. Bulletins, administrative fines and credits, critical incidents, and the sale and purchase of patents are just a few examples of the positive means of interacting with players on a quarter-by-quarter basis. The benefit in this is that the administrator can relate one-on- one with players regarding their intent to sell patents, or reward a company financially for helping out another team or sharing information by providing monetary incentives. The GBG expands the vocabulary of traditional busi- ness students. The fact that the GBG is comprehensive in its business coverage truly enhances the learning process and overall understanding of otherwise myopically oriented students. For example, recently an MIS major approached me saying “I had no idea what it really meant to float a bond”. Other management majors have commented that they really did not have a grasp on the concept of “subas- semblies” and inventory levels until playing the game. PREPARATION FOR PLAY Given the constraints on my time at the beginning of a term, I knew that I would not be able to devote a great deal of time to learn the game prior to the first round of imple- mentation. An additional constraint was the fact that I was scheduled for teaching six-week sessions, which meant class meetings every day. I was faced with the choice of either postponing the game until later in the year, or intro- ducing it to my students as a learning experience for both of us. I chose the latter. As a new user, I was keenly aware of the fact that I had obtained only a cursory understanding of the intricacies of the game just prior to play. The GBG was introduced to the students as “a new learning experience for them and for me”. I emphasized the fact that many of the students would gain expertise in certain areas of the game prior to my full understanding, and that I would be calling upon such con- tent experts in times of need. In keeping with my goal of using the GBG to model the “real world”, I reminded stu- dents that at some point in the future they would be work- ing with or for managers that did not possess the content knowledge of their subordinates. But that managers are many times hired for their expertise in coordinating, plan- ning for, and managing work teams. I suggested that my role would be one of “Facilitator” and “Coordina- tor/Manager” and that my goal for the students was that they hone their “people skills” through this exercise as well as their knowledge of business content. To facilitate team interaction, I informed the class that there would be rewards for teams that documented answer- ing the questions of other teams. This concept was pre- sented in the context of real-world examples of companies finding out key strategic information from friends in similar industries. The rewards were usually $20,000 per answer. 81 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 28, 2001 A number of teams took advantage of this opportunity. In keeping with my goal of maximizing my efficiency as I learned the nuances of the GBG, I chose the simplest sce- narios for the first few rounds of play. For example, using the United States and one other international country pro- vides the necessary international elements, while minimiz- ing administrative input such as using only two currency rates, minimal shipping points and factory locations to monitor and trouble-shoot. I also selected basic defaults on economic conditions and production costs associated with raw materials and worker labor rates. This allowed me to focus my attention on grasping the logistics of game play. “Grade Obsession” is a common ailment in many of my senior-level students. These students are striving to bolster their GPAs to obtain entrance into graduate schools or gain entry into key corporate positions. With the uncer- tainty associated with the first few rounds of GBG’s im- plementation, I anticipated that student anxiety might be heightened. In an effort to minimize “game and/or grade anxiety” for students who obsess over grades I decided not to tie their grades directly to the game’s economic out- comes of ROA, ROE, and composite score for the first few rounds of play. In retrospect, this was a good decision. I have found that just by nature of the fact that my students are business majors, they are already fiercely competitive with each other. The direct connection of company per- formance outcome to student grades would have added a layer of anxiety to the game that would have been counter- productive to my overall goals of building teams and rela- tionships. It is noteworthy that I chose other means of grad- ing the game such as their end-of-term project and their presentation of team performance. These two assignments provided ample opportunity for students to demonstrate their academic prowess. Surprisingly, even without the direct performance-to-grade relationship, most student teams adopted a somewhat secretive posture and were very careful about sharing strategic information with others. WORDS TO THE WISE Simulation game experiences are replete with uncer- tainty and change. This environment brings out both the best and worst in students. I have found that it is best to present this scenario to students in the first class meeting, a form of disclaimer if you will. I inform the students regard- ing the simulation game that my class will be filled with uncertainty and that students will be expected to perform well under such conditions. I suggest further that if they are not inclined to work in this context, they have many other class options within the college of business. This statement “up front” prepares the students for the worst. In the major- ity of cases, at the conclusion of the simulation, the students report that it was an extremely favorable experience. The end-of-term project and class presentations are wonderful tools for de-briefing teams and for accumulating an administrator’s “library of hints and suggestions”. Be sure to include questions that prompt the students to suggest changes in the game and/or its administration. I review these suggestions regularly to ensure that I am improving the game delivery. Since many simulation games utilize floppy disks for information exchange between students and instructors, a simple but sometimes problematic issue is the condition of the disks. I Require students to bring “New” diskettes to the initialization process. This eliminates past problems such as student disks that have been dropped, stepped on, and run over by cars before using them in class. I also em- phasize the importance of gathering and interpreting infor- mation in the game. The GBG’s Merlin Reports prove to be useful in this regard. Teams that made use of these re- ports have repeatedly outperformed teams that ignore such reports. The reports are also a good transition into topics like environmental scanning and industry analysis. It is useful for company performance to ensure that each team has at least one person with an interest in finance or accounting. If this is not possible, I compose teams by using Myers-Briggs (or Keirsey Temperament Sorter) ty- pologies. Students can find our their MBTI by taking a test online. The test takes about 15 minutes and is located at the web site http://www.keirsey.com/cgi- bin/keirsey/newkts.cgi. Once the students are equipped with their individual typologies, it is relatively easy to as- sign them to teams based upon individual strengths. For example, students with high scores in Sensing, Thinking, and Judging usually work well (i.e. ISTJ, ESTJ, ESTP, etc.) with facts and figures. I make every effort to ensure that teams have some “options” people, such as NTs, NFs, NFPs, NTPs as well. This not only balances the teams, but also provides an excellent forum for talking about team composition and roles. As with the administration of all personality tests, students should be informed that these tests are not designed to label individual behavior, but merely to help identify individual preferences. The foregoing paragraphs highlight some recommenda- tions that have proven to be useful in my first experience with a simulation game. The list is certainly not exhaustive, since I am learning more about what enhances and detracts from the simulation experience with every round of play. All things considered, one of the most important factors that have enhanced my simulation experience is my focus on open communication with the students, especially in the area of knowledge (or lack thereof) of game content. Given the wide variety of variables associated with simulation games, the learning curve for new game administrators can appear daunting. Certainly, this deters untold number of potential game adopters. But this need not be the case. Those who are initially reluctant to embark on a journey into the world of business simulations may be pleasantly surprised by what they find if they just take the initial step of adopting a game and approach its implementation with an “incrementalist” view. Specifically, a large portion of administrator learning occurs during the actual game play but in small pieces. In my experience, there appears to be no “best” means of attaining a comprehensive a priori un- derstanding of simulations. However, an effective way to 82 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 28, 2001 accelerate the learning curve is to acknowledge your new- ness to the simulation experience and perform a trial run of the game with students for the express purpose of attaining game familiarity. This not only provides greater insights into the nuances of a simulation, but also bonds the learner and the teacher through a mutual learning pursuit. ALFREDO MAURI: GETTING TO KNOW THE GLOBAL BUSINESS GAME: AN EX- PERIENCED BUT NEW GAME USER'S PERSPECTIVE Simulations are part of the requirements of the under- graduate Business Policy course at Baruch College. This implies a large undertaking as we teach approximately 80 sections of BPL5100 in an academic year. We have been using Jensen’s The Business Management Laboratory (Jen- sen, 1996) for about ten years. In our setting, each instruc- tor administers the simulation with the support of teaching assistants working in the simulation lab. The teaching as- sistants enter the students’ decision sheets and produce the simulation reports for each section. What made me start looking for a new simulation is that I was assigned to teach an EMBA course on interna- tional management. This course needed to be revamped. The Director of Baruch’s Executive Programs suggested using a computer simulation during the course to provide a hands-on experience on managing a multinational com- pany. In addition, this course would support other courses that simultaneously focussed on strategic management. SEARCH AND ADOPTION PROCESS During the early stages of the search process, I partici- pated in a very useful discussion group at the Business Pol- icy and Strategy (BPS) network of the Academy of Man- agement. In that discussion, many faculty members shared their experience on the use of simulations in strategic man- agement courses. Additionally, a colleague suggested visit- ing the ABSEL website. I found several feasible options for simulations with an international management focus. The short list of games included: Thorelli’s Intopia and Thompson and Stappenbeck’s The Business Strategy Game (BSG). I contacted the corresponding authors and followed a detailed review of both programs. Basically, I leaned in favor of BSG because of its simplicity and the favorable reviews it had gotten during the discussion at the BPS net- work. I installed it on my computer and did an in-depth review for about a week. I was pleased with the simulation. The day before sending the book order to the bookstore, however, I received an examination copy of The Global Business Game (GBG) from South-West College Publish- ing. After reading the players manual, I was very excited. The GBG had a clear focus on international issues and seemed an excellent tool to teach the complexities of com- peting in a global industry. From the beginning, I was very impressed with GBG’s conceptualization of competition in the global TV industry. As soon as I received the administrator’s manual, I evalu- ated the program for about a week. The evaluation process consisted of reading of both the player’s and administrator’s manual, and installing the simulation programs on my com- puter. I was very pleased with the GBG’s user-friendly in- terface. The common features of programs written for Win- dows were available and worked accordingly (opening, saving, printing, copying, pasting, etc). I was particularly interested in the data entry and output screens. These were easy to understand and intuitive. I conducted a few simula- tion runs using a limited number of firms, and the results were consistent with those described in the manual. I also evaluated running the simulation using data stored in a zip disk. I expected running the simulation programs at both my office and home computers, while keeping the simula- tion data in my zip disk. GBG approach was good because the simulation data was kept in one file. Similarly, the stu- dents’ data was kept in one file as well. This file contains each firm’s decision screens and the results of the previous quarter. This facilitated the interaction of students and ad- ministrator because decision files and program outputs could be sent by email using one file per firm. GBG also provides very good information helping the program’s ad- ministrator understand easily what is happening at each firm. The administrator’s outputs include comparative fi- nancial statements, comparative operation reports and ratio analysis for all firms in a given quarter. After a few days I contacted the author for clarifications and minor typos in the manual. PREPARATION BEFORE THE SIMULA- TION STARTED The preparation phase consisted of conducting trial runs to evaluate GBG’s input, output screens, and the inte- gration among a firm’s functional areas and overseas opera- tions. I created a trial simulation with limited complexity operating in the U.S. and Mexico. I was very concerned about the ability to predict with reasonable certainty some of the program outputs to increase my understanding of managing a firm in the game. To do this, I constructed a series of decision support spreadsheets as a key tool to help the process of learning the simulation. The GBG provides an excellent spreadsheet platform because of the compati- bility between GBG’s input and output screens and Micro- Soft Excel. This integration is due to the use of MicroSoft VisualBasic as GBG’s main programming language. A simulation user can easily copy and paste information back and forth between GBG screens and Excel so that Excel spreadsheets can become an important tool for processing information and help in the decision-making process. Excel also provides great flexibility because the spreadsheets can be easily modified and improved by students as they learn more about the simulation. In these early stages, I created the production sheet and then tested its results using several cold runs of the simula- 83 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 28, 2001 tion. The results were used to check how precise my pro- duction calculations were. With the author’s help I was able to work out discrepancies between the simulation re- sults, the manual’s presentation and my expectations. South-Western’s team rapidly fixed some programming “bugs” while I modified the spreadsheet. I also outlined marketing and administration spreadsheets. By the end of this phase, I was able to produce relatively accurate esti- mates regarding the impact of production decisions on a firm’s operational and financial outputs. I was also able to evaluate the impact of marketing and other decision vari- ables on the respective lines of the Income statement and Balance Sheet. UNDERGRADUATE COURSE I used the GBG in an undergraduate course of Business Policy. Some students were concerned for the reasons be- hind using a different simulation to what other sections were using at Baruch. However, at the same time they were also excited because managing a company producing TVs in a global industry sounds a lot more interesting than pro- ducing dinnerware in a mature industry. During the beginning of the semester, we had five two- hour class sessions, including a trial decision workshop, dedicated exclusively to the simulation. I used the Power- Point slides available from the game's website during the initial sessions. These slides allowed creating positive class expectations because I could go through all the exiting fea- tures of the simulation in a quick way. I complemented the slides with my own material to support the class discussions. I provided the students with my production and marketing spreadsheets with the under- standing that these sheets were part of a “work-in-progress” information system that they needed to complete. These spreadsheets were helpful as they illustrate insightful calcu- lations on how the simulation works. I brought a computer with a projector to the classroom and illustrated how to use the spreadsheets. The spreadsheets were available to all students by posting them on the course web-site. Later, GBG’s author provided me additional spreadsheets for cash flow, subassemblies, and income statement pro-forma cal- culations. These spreadsheets were very helpful and I posted them on the course web-site as well. During the class discussions, I made emphasis on visu- alizing what was going on to gain an intuitive understand- ing of the simulation context. GBG player’s manual pro- vides excellent information on the industry and firm con- text. The logic of the game makes sense and allows students to think logically as production, marketing or finance man- agers working at a company producing TVs. After the con- text was understood, the rest of the class discussions fo- cused on the calculations of the decision support spread- sheets to understand the details. After the trial period, we started a simulation run of ten consecutive quarters. The evaluation criterion was exclu- sively based on different measures of firm performance. The first five quarters were scheduled at a pace of one quar- ter per week, and the last five were very intensive at a rate of two per week. Three out of six teams had a quick start. Very quickly they started bombarding me with questions and issues about plans and decisions that were not working according to their “expectations.” Whenever I was not able to give an adequate answer, I contacted the author. Their response time was reasonable and their answers were ade- quate. In several instances, these inquiries ended up with the creation of an application “update” that solved the prob- lem. During the first four quarters of the simulation, the primary objective was for students to understand the proc- ess of achieving “functional integration” or creating an ade- quate balance between what a firm can sell, produce and finance. Upon the arrival of the fifth quarter, firms had the option of expanding operations into Mexico. Here the ob- jective was achieving international integration between the operations of geographically dispersed company units. To facilitate understanding and reduce complexity, the ex- change rate between Mexico and US was fixed during this period. The results of this session were very impressive. By the end of the term, I would say that four teams had a clear understanding of how to achieve both the integration across functions and the integration across borders, while two teams were moving towards such an understanding. We also conducted a debriefing session with very positive feed- back. EMBA COURSE The EMBA course started at Baruch about two months after the undergraduate session. The expectations of the course were very different. In contrast to the undergraduate course in which students had no previous exposure to other strategic management courses, the EMBA program has a strategy focus. In addition, students in the executive pro- gram have significant working experience. Given this set- ting, I scheduled the first twelve hours of the course to the GBG. One two-hour session was held in the regular class- room, but the remaining ten hours were held at the com- puter laboratory. In addition, some of the undergraduate students were invited to attend the last session at the com- puter lab. The idea was to provide a hands-on experience in which questions could be answered with the help of a com- puter, and give an opportunity to practice using the simula- tion software and the decision-support spreadsheets. At the end of this period students submitted a trial decision which coincided with spring break. During the break students were allowed to submit “what if decisions” to gain experi- ence with different simulation scenarios. Some teams also submitted a second trial decision. After the trial run, we scheduled eight simulation quar- ters for the remaining of the term. Decision files were due by e-mail early in the mornings of the weekly class ses- sions. I ran the simulation program before the class met and the result files were e-mailed after class. In the follow- ing two to three weeks, there was a lot of anxiety within 84 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 28, 2001 groups. We had several private meetings and began having lunches with different groups to provide guidance and an- swer more specific questions. Given the longer preparation time and greater student experience, the EMBA class was allowed to expand internationally from the first simulation quarter. However, the expansions were limited to US, Mexico, Germany and Spain and not Taiwan and Thailand in Asia. Several firms invested in plant expansions in Mexico and Europe during the initial quarters. Teams were concerned because of the initial investments, which generated relatively important expenses and no revenues. However, after two quarters, these subsidiaries were ready to generate money. The in- ternational expansion created a very interesting competitive environment. All firms were producing and selling in at least two countries, and many were operating across conti- nents. During the first four quarters of simulation, I helped teams by not letting any firm incur an overdraft. The initial investment phase required issuing significant amounts of debt and equity to raise the cash needed to pay for the capi- tal expenditures. The students were able to calculate the cash outflows due to the expansion. But, they often miscal- culated the increase in working capital required to support the larger operations. The new working capital included financing raw materials inventories, the production of fin- ished goods and account receivables. This external help allowed students to realize how to manage the cash position of their firm. I stopped this practice during the second year. However, I continued the overdraft help when I thought that the overdraft was not the students’ fault. In particular it happened several times with the automatic loans between headquarters and subsidiaries. The GBG allows subsidiaries to borrow funds automatically from headquarters when they face a cash deficit in a country. This feature allows the person in charge of finance to man- age cash in a consolidated/global basis. However, the fea- ture does not work from the subsidiaries to the headquar- ters. When subsidiaries have excess cash and headquarters face a cash deficit, the firm gets an overdraft. I thought that this was unfair. When it happened, I manually transferred funds from the subsidiary with excess cash to headquarter to avoid the overdraft. The EMBA firms experienced significant logistical problems when operating between Europe and North Amer- ica in particular when using the surface shipping method. A portion of these problems was associated with program- ming bugs, which again were promptly taken care by the author. I recommended for all firms to stop using surface shipping because the goods were virtually disappearing (perhaps they were being held at the GBG’s customs for inspection). However, the most important lesson during these logistical problems was that the students understood the complexities of operating in an international environ- ment, in which a lot of things may go wrong. The results of the simulation in the EMBA class were excellent. During the debriefing session all students had positive comments and offered suggestion that may be ap- plied in future courses. For instance, some students sug- gested starting the simulation before the winter break to increase the time to understand the game. This may allow extending the number of simulations quarters during the term. CONCLUSION Learning the GBG requires commitment from the in- structor. The preparation phase was very important. The combination of using spreadsheets and cold runs worked well for me. In the early stages, I learned how to operate and run a firm by creating an industry with only a few firms. I learned the logic of achieving functional and geo- graphic integration across different company units. As you learn more you become more proficient and can see the more complex interactions. Students’ preparation is also important. They need to read the chapters before they come to class. I used an inter- active teaching style in which I asked questions and stu- dents came up with the answers. This worked well in the undergraduate class. But was not effective in the EMBA class. I believe that this was because most EMBA simula- tion sessions were held in the computer lab where there were lots of distractions. Next time I will organize it differ- ently. The trial decisions were an important teaching tool as well. Students needed to know that they could learn the intricacies of the GBG with no penalties in their financial results. One trial is a must, but two trials are better. The two trial quarters with “what if decisions” worked well for the EMBA class. After the trials they had a much better idea of what they needed to do to operate their firm. Limiting international complexity was also important. It would have been hard for the undergraduate class to han- dle more than Mexico and the US. In fact, they would have been fine with just the US, but I wanted to examine the in- ternational environment in greater depth. In case of the EMBAs, limiting operations to North America and Europe worked fine. But next time, I will use the GBG’s full geo- graphic scope and international complexity. The instructor needs to have a good understanding of what is going on in the game. The instructor needs to know what each firm is doing and needs to keep communicating with them. The GBG provides excellent information tools to help the administrator figure things out. I usually spent about hour examining the many industry and firm reports of a given quarter. In addition I started each class session dis- cussing the results, and held many informal meetings with each firm. The GBG is a good tool to help teaching strategic man- agement and international business concepts. The simula- tion is realistic, challenging and fun. Students gain first hand experience in crafting the strategy and managing the complexities of a global firm. In particular, running a simu- lation allows breaking the “monotony” of using cases and 85 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 28, 2001 engages students in a healthy rivalry and competition that keeps them motivated while they learn strategy. JOSEPH WOLFE: THE GLOBAL BUSINESS GAME-- THE AUTHOR'S PERSPECTIVE A paradox has been noted (Cannon, 1995) in business games and this paradox could not have been more obvious than that contained in the opening remarks by Stanley Vance (1974, p. 7) at ABSEL's first conference. On mak- ing recommendations about the factors that would make a business game sustainable it was stated to "keep your game understandable and simple in structure" followed by the advice to "make it realistic." This constant and commend- able call for realism unfortunately makes a game more complex while simultaneously making the game more diffi- cult to play, administer and explain to players. This all serves to limit the number of course-related lessons and conclusions that can be drawn from the experience (Fritzsche and Cotter, 1990). In designing The Global Business Game (Wolfe, 2000) the author had to deal with the dilemmas associated with this complexity paradox. The game had to be complex as it operated at the international level with allied currency fluc- tuations, different manufacturing and distribution costs and financial markets. It also had to be all-inclusive regarding both the complexity and interactions associated with an organization's functional efforts as well as the numerous strategies that could be employed by a firm operating at the global level. The author, fortunately, had both traditional and non-traditional or "modern" technologies available to him. The traditional technologies were those that have his- torically been used by all game authors— "hard copy" de- scriptions and write-ups in the Player's Manual and the Game Administrator's Manual. The non-traditional or modern technologies are those which are uniquely associ- ated with the advent of Microsoft's Windows™ and the internet. The following two sections detail how these tech- nologies were used in hopes of making a relatively complex game more-easily understood by players and implemented by instructors. TRADITIONAL METHODS Player's Manual. Within the game's Player's Manual the author tried to deal with the game's complexity by insur- ing that every aspect of the game was explained or exempli- fied 2 to 3 times in various places. As an example the ele- ments that went into the game's cost of goods sold was ex- plained when its entry on the firm's Income Statement was described, in the manual's Production chapter where the components of this entry are exemplified and in the game's Finance chapter. The manual also featured a set of initial Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) by functional area. Regarding the game's computer interface screen captures were used to show the user what to see and expect when running the game's player application, initializing the company, enter- ing decisions and saving them and exporting results. Game Administrator's Manual. The manual dealt with the game itself in more technical detail than the Player's Manual while also emphasizing the pedagogical nature of business gaming. A simulation overview was provided as well as a short history of business games. Great detail was employed regarding preparation for play. This was broken down into three basic elements—How the instructor, how the game and the students should be prepared for the gam- ing experience. The instructor preparation section recom- mended a "hands-on" approach while suggesting a number of ways to obtain this experience. The nature and instructor requirements associated with the experiential learning method were also presented. The manual's pages on preparing the simulation itself for its use at the particular site entailed how alternative game configurations would accomplish different teaching objectives, the pros and cons of various team selection methods and team sizes, how the game's scenarios can be presented and edited and details on the game's various company performance indicators. Screen captures were used to show the user the computer interface that should appear as part of the game's installation and set-up opera- tions. The section on preparing the players dealt mostly with using the team-building and goal-setting exercises that were included in the Player's Manual. The objective here was to help players create cohesive and output-oriented teams. The remaining sections of the Game Administrator's Manual covered the "answers" and rationales for the re- sponses to the game's ten Critical Incidents, various ways to go about fixing game-play problems and the nature of these problems, a set of administrator and player FAQs, how to conduct a game debrief and where to find additional, on- line help about the game. The manual's last section cited "Friends of Business Gaming and Experiential Learning" in hopes that the user would exploit the collegial relationships available and to also demonstrate that a larger community of like-minded individuals exists. MODERN METHODS Windows™ The game's Windows™ operating envi- ronment allowed for a very active and attractive user inter- face for both administrators and players. Multiple drop- down windows were employed and the game's menu bar was logically ordered along with reasonable task sub- components. Firms can reduce the size of their Operations Report while simultaneously displaying narrowed versions of their Marketing Decision Sets by grabbing the image's handles. The Game Administrator has an overview of the entire simulation's operations through Game Explorer. The Windows™ on-line "Help" feature was also used extensively. The game's major components, terms, defini- tions and concepts were defined in a simple manner in the Player Application. The same components were also used in the Game Administrator Application but in this case the 86 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 28, 2001 definitions were greatly expanded along with appropriate page numbers. Additional topics, germane only to the Game Administrator were also included in "Help". Internet. The advent of the Internet has allowed for much faster and more accurate communication between authors and users as well as the downloading of many dis- cretionary supplemental materials. Much use was made of this aspect in creating The Global Business Game. A web- site for it was established early in its life and it has been a growing source of user information and materials. It has six of eight major sections related to supporting the game— Game Administrator Resources, Player Resources, FAQs, Strategy Suite, Talk to the Editor and Meet the Author. The largest of these section is the one devoted to the Game Ad- ministrator. It contains the following: • Game Updates—Due to the game's recent vintage a number of upgrades have been made to improve its functionality. These can be downloaded by adopters after they have registered with the publisher. A sepa- rate GBG User Group has been created to notify adopt- ers about upgrades. • Simulation Overview • Simulation Highlights • A History of Business Games • PowerPoint Presentation Slides—GBG Orientation, GBG Initialization and GBG Decision Set • Excel Spreadsheet Decision Making Aids— ProFormaCashflow, Subassemblies, CurrencyCon- verter, ProFormaIncome and Laborcosts • Minimum System Requirements The Player Resources section contains updates to the Player's Application, the PowerPoint Presentation slides and a list of the game's minimum system requirements. The FAQ section has been greatly expanded as users have ques- tioned the author over items and details he thought he had adequately covered in the Player's and Game Administra- tor's manuals. Registered game users are offered the oppor- tunity of submitting questions directly to the author via this webpage. The "Talk to the Editor" section allows users to com- municate directly with the game's Executive Editor at South-Western College Publishing. The "Meet the Author" section contains a short biographical sketch of the game's creator while also providing a hyperlink to ABSEL's and Simulation & Gaming's websites. CONCLUSION Based on his years of experience with business games, as well as attempting to improve upon the "best practices" other game designers have used for supporting their games, the author of The Global Business Game tried to anticipate the most-common types of problems and questions players and Game Administrators might come across. To some degree he may have been successful. In addition to creating the materials presented in this paper he also operated under a consulting relationship with the publisher. This relation- ship insured his availability to users which also demon- strated a strong commitment by the publisher to the support of this product. Most questions posed by users had their answers al- ready in the texts or support materials. Thus these ques- tions may have been more in the nature of affirming notions already deduced by users rather than genuine quandaries. For those areas that produced consistent questions a set of errata sheets were prepared and these became part of a "Welcome" package sent to all new users via the GBG User Group. A serious oversight in compiling the Player's Man- ual occurred with the omission of an Index. This Index, however, is currently being culled and will be made avail- able at the game's website. KENNETH GOOSEN: IDENTIFYING AND SOLVING ADOPTION PROBLEMS IN BUSINESS SIMULATIONS-- A PUB- LISHER'S PERSPECTIVE Adopting and implementing business simulation soft- ware usually creates problems for users. Perhaps a more suitable term would be “presents challenges”. When view- ing the problems simulation users should be classified into two broad categories because the challenges they face, as well as the solutions require, are different. The user types are: Experienced game users First-time game users First-time users can be sub-classified as: No prior adoption or user of any simulation First- time user of a specific simulation First- time users of a specific simulation are likely to have less problems because of their general experience with other simulations. Even so, users who are experienced in using simulations will have problems when the steps re- quired to properly implement a simulation have been skipped or not properly followed. First-time users of any simulation are the focal point of this presentation. While some first-time users may have participated in a simulation as a student this type of experience is of limited value in implementing a simulation. Simulation usage problems can be classified as avoid- able and unavoidable. Avoidable problems are those that arise because normal and precautionary procedures were not properly followed, skipped, or because they were im- plemented too late. Unavoidable problems are problems that arise that are beyond the control of the simulation ad- ministrator. For example, the game administrator has no control over whether a team disk is corrupted or lost. The administrator also has no control over internal glitches in 87 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 28, 2001 the simulation's software. However, there are many tech- niques that can be learned and used to recover from these unavoidable problems when they occur. This paper is pri- marily concerned with the discussion of avoidable prob- lems. AVOIDABLE PROBLEMS The first-time user can eliminate or substantially re- duce avoidable problems by scrupulously following the steps required to properly implement a simulation. First- time users, who have had no prior experience with any simulation, do not realize that a poorly implemented simu- lation will result in problems that could easily have been avoided. Hopefully, the user’s guide will clearly explain and strongly recommend required procedures. As a simula- tion publisher I know from first hand experience that first- time users frequently engage in poor implementation prac- tices. As both a publisher and as an author, I can almost be certain that a game in the hands of a potential user has not been adopted if I have not received a call about either avoidable or unavoidable problems. What can be done to help first-time users? The help needed is fairly simple-- The steps required to properly im- plement a simulation need to be identified and clearly ex- plained. The basic principle for a successful first-time use of a simulation is: Prepare far in advance of the course's starting time. This involves: 1. Installing software on the computer 2. Testing the software 3. Making practice decisions 4. Performing sensitivity analysis on demand variables 5. Understanding consequences of decisions 6. Learning the student manual For first-time users, what is needed is a good user’s guide whose scope is much broader than merely the simulation's technical aspects. None of the currently published simula- tions, including the simulations I publish, come with an adequate user guide that meets the need of the first-time user. THE NATURE OF AVOIDABLE PROB- LEMS Avoidable problems happen because first-time user of- ten: 1. Do not install software the simulation software until classroom usage begins. As a publisher of software, and as an author, I am amazed at the number of first-time users who attempt to install software after the first set of deci- sions have been collected. Because first-time users and student players are likely to make all kinds of input errors and are likely to have misunderstood critical setup proce- dures, fatal processing errors will almost always occur. Users, often in a state of panic, frequently call authors or the publisher wanting immediate help. Many problems associated with use of software can be avoided if the simulation is installed and tested several months before class begins. Also, users who do not test- drive software are unlikely to have much knowledge about the game's rules and constraints thereby making mistakes when advising students. As a publisher, I have had the op- portunity to observe how much time elapses between the software's acquisition and its actual implementation. In too many cases, this is only a few weeks prior to actual imple- mentation and in a few cases, acquisitions and adoptions have been made after classes have begun. This creates a personal dilemma. As a publisher I want adoptions because adoptions lead to sales. But I also want the potential cus- tomer’s student too achieve a positive learning experience. Do I advise the customer to wait or do I say nothing and sell manuals? A poorly implemented simulation is certain to result in a bad experience for the instructor and the students. And on a number of occasions this is exactly what has happened. One professor, after attempting to process the first set of decisions, collected all of the books from his students, re- turned them to me, and demanded a refund. In this in- stance, the professor had bought the books directly from my publishing company. In this case, I refunded the cost of the manuals. A new problem concerning installation of simulation software has recently developed. Many universities have placed severe restrictions on the installation of new soft- ware. Individuals are not allowed to install programs on their own office computers. The software must first be ap- proved and then may be installed only by the administrator of the school’s computer system. Delay in installing the software in these circumstances definitely is not a good idea. 2. Have not test-driven the software. First-time users or adopters need to set up a test industry of two to three teams and actually play the game for several periods. Skill in using simulation software can be easily developed simply through practice. This practice should take place prior to actual implementation in the classroom. Driving lessons are important in learning to drive an automobile, and first- time users of a simulation should take self-taught lessons on how to use simulation software. The user needs to learn how to: Set up a new industry Create student input disks Process decisions Print decision results Rerun decisions when input errors are discovered Recover corrupt or lost disks Even though the printing of simulation results would appear to be a simple task, there is no guarantee that at the start the 88 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 28, 2001 software will immediately work with the user’s computer or the user university's computer system. The printer settings within the software may not be compatible with the com- puter system of the user. The time to discover this is before and not after simulation usage begins. 3. Have not made practice decisions. Reading the par- ticipant’s manual alone is not sufficient. The first-time user needs to actually experience the simulation before the stu- dents engage in making decisions. The consequences of decision-making are not necessarily self evident from read- ing the participant’s manual. Decision consequences are learned by making and processing decisions, that is, playing the game. Simulations involve rules and constraints. For many decisions there are minimum and maximum decision values and these constraints must be recognized in order to make good decisions. It is essential that the user of a simu- lation understand the simulation scenario and the rules and constraints presented within that simulation. To do this, an investment of time is required. One reason many professors do not use simulations, or have ceased to use them, is be- cause they recognize that the startup time is greater than they are willing to give. In learning the software, and also the simulation's sce- nario, it is possible to kill two birds with one stone. Playing the simulation by setting up a test industry will compel the user to learn the more important rules and procedures. In making practice decisions, it is important that the first-time user exert a reasonable effort to make good decisions. Making test decisions is the best way to learn both the simulation software and the student manual. By making test decisions and learning all the steps involved in process- ing, the first-time user will have eliminated the need to make midnight hour frantic calls to the authors or to the publisher for help. Unfortunately for publishers and au- thors, the first-time users who procrastinate usually blame the software for being poorly designed. Following good implementation steps in a timely and proper manner will contribute greatly to eliminating avoidable problems. Simulation software ideally should be able to correctly process every permutation of decisions. Of course, a 100% achievement of that goal is not likely. The amount of time required to do this type of beta testing on the part of the authors can be overwhelming, particularly in the case where the simulation is the sole product of one or two indi- viduals. Unfortunately, students playing our simulations are often the actual beta testers. When a serious flaw in a game is found, the instructor whose students found the flaw may be in serious trouble. In many instances the game can- not continue until the software has been fixed. All the pub- lisher can do is request that the authors fix the program and use Fed Ex overnight delivery or send the fixed software as an e-mail attachment in order to get updated software into the hands of other current users. If a quick fix cannot be made, the user made have lost one or two weeks of class- room playing time. Because simulations can contain flaws and quirky de- mand behavior, it is important to make practice decisions well in advance of actual use. For simulations that have come into the market for the first-time, or for simulations that have just come into the market as a new edition, it ap- pears to be a law of the universe that software glitches or flaws will exist. It is very difficult to go through a demand- ing beta testing process that probably should precede the publishing of a new edition. As a publisher, I know that a number of users that are happy with an old edition are re- luctant to be the first users of a new edition. And even if an old edition has been used for a number of years, this does not mean that a newly released edition will not contain new glitches or software problems. In my own simulation, one flaw existed for over twenty years, and was caught only when a team of students made a particular combination of decisions that were not rational but nevertheless valid. Also, another flaw was found in a more recent version when the professor extended the play to more than ten periods. Very seldom do users play the simulation for more than five periods. But for this profes- sor, this glitch was serious, because until the flaw was cor- rected the simulation could not be continued beyond the tenth year. In some cases, the consequences of decisions when processed do not behave in a manner suggested by the stu- dent manual. In these instances, it is difficult to determine whether the problem was with the manual or with the soft- ware. As a publisher and, also, as the editor of the simula- tions that I publish, I have had to carefully read and edit simulation manual manuscripts for errors and consistency. Authors are not, and probably cannot be, good editors of their own material. In the past, publishers such as R.D. Irwin accepted camera ready copy of manuals from the authors. This is a poor practice and in many cases errors that could have eas- ily been caught by independent editing cause frustrating problems for users and students. 4. Have not performed sensitivity analysis on demand variables. The heart of any market-based simulation is the demand algorithm that computes units sold and back orders. How this algorithm works, and the relative sensitivity of the various demand variables, is seldom if ever explained. However, there is a way for a first-time user to zero in on the elasticities of demand variables. I recommend that first- time users use a sensitivity analysis test to determine how the simulation's demand algorithm works. This is a tech- nique that I have developed and used on the simulations that I publish. It can be conducted in the following manner: A test industry of two or three teams should be created. The user then changes only one decision such as price for Company 1. All decisions for the other firms remain con- stant. Decisions are then processed. The effect on sales and back orders should be noted. Then price should be changed again with no changes in decisions for the other 89 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 28, 2001 team or teams. In this test price should be changed from four to six times. Sensitivity analysis should be performed on all demand variables. Decision variables other than price that affect demand include advertising, number of sales representa- tives, distribution centers, and commission rates. The use of the sensitivity analysis technique has the benefit of hav- ing the first-time user learning how to use the software quite well. 5. Have not carefully read and studied the simulation. As an author and publisher, I am surprised at the number of adopters who implement a simulation for classroom use without really having studied the participant’s manual or the instructor’s manual. Every simulation involves rules and constraints that if not observed will result in very poor decision-making. The first-time user needs to understand these rules and constraints so they can articulate these rules to their students. Also, it is highly important for the user be able to understand and interpret the financial statements generated from the processing of decisions. A careful read- ing of the participant’s manual is essential. 6. Lost or misplaced software and instructor’s manual. Sometimes professors lose or misplace software. This problem often happens when the user has moved to a new school or has been given a new computer. The fact that the software has been lost or misplaced is only discovered when the time has come to install the software on a new computer. The user has collected decisions and starts to process decisions only to discover that the software cannot be found. This problem can be avoided by carefully storing software in a place where it is unlikely to be lost or easily found by others. 7. Have not determined or defined the learning goals from using a simulation. Simulations can be used as a stand alone supplement to a course or as a tool to support various course enrichment techniques. Sometimes simulation ad- ministrators simply do no more than collect decisions, process decisions, and return results. The assumption is that mere participation in a simulation is a valuable learning experience. This approach however is least likely to attain optimal learning results. From papers presented at ABSEL, it appears that most users want to use simulations as a tool to facilitate the use of various enrichment techniques. If the objective is to teach students certain decision-making tools, such as budg- eting, cash flow statement analysis, and cost-volume-profit analysis, then the user will require students to prepare budgets, make cash flow statements, and perform cost- volume-profit analysis using data generated by the process- ing of decisions. If the objective is to teach the importance of strategic planning, then the preparation of mission state- ments and strategic plans may be required. As papers pre- sented at ABSEL clearly reveal, simulations can be used in many ways to achieve different learning goals and objec- tives. Therefore, the use of a specific simulation without disclosure to students of the learning objectives may result in a less than satisfactory learning experience. Avoidable problems can be eliminated by following good implementation practices. The suggested implemen- tation steps probably should start at least six months ahead of actual implementation in the classroom. While I know of no study that supports this contention, my experience as a publisher indicates that the actual time devoted to imple- mentation ranges from a few weeks to a month or so imme- diately before classroom usage. Many first-time uses of a simulation are successful as evident by repeated use of a given simulation. But as a publisher, I know that almost one-half of my adoptions are one-time adoptions. SUMMARY Authors and publishers must have a greater awareness of how difficult it is to implement a simulation for the first- time. Each has an obligation to provide more help in reduc- ing the start-up time. Whatever the required minimum startup time is for a simulation, first-time users, in order to avoid potential disasters, must invest the required time. The starting point for implementation should begin at least a semester in advance. Assuming that first-time users are aware of minimum implementation steps, these users must prepare a time schedule that allows these steps to be completed before actual class room implementation takes place. Also, au- thors and publishers must invest considerable time in test- ing the sensitivity of demand creation variables, if this in- formation has not been adequately provided in the user’s guide. The testing of one variable at a time holding other variables constant is a minimum requirement. Unques- tionably, a good simulation implementation experience must be preceded by following certain steps that should not be short changed. Installing and test-driving simulation software should be done far in advance of actual class room use. REFERENCES Biggs, W.D. (1980). Fundamentals of Simulation for New- comers. In D.C. Brenenstuhl and W.D. Biggs (eds.), Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises, p. 111. _____ (1986). Computerized Business Management Simu- lations for Tyros. In A.C. Burns and L. Kelley (eds.), Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises, pp. 187-194. Biggs, W.D., S.P. Gulkus and L.S. Morgandale (1983). A Preliminary View from Publishers’ Adoption Lists. In L.A. Graf and D.M. Currie (eds.), Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises, pp. 24-27. _____ and A.L. Halpin (1990). Suggestions for Computer- ized Business Simulation Authors. In J. Wingender and W. Wheatley (eds.), Developments in Business Simula- tion and Experiential Exercises, pp. 15-18. 90 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 28, 2001 Faria, A.J. and R.O. Nulsen, Jr. (1978). The New Research Focus: An Analysis of the Simulation Game User. In D.C. Brenenstuhl and S.C. Certo (eds.), Exploring Ex- periential Learning: Simulation and Experiential Exer- cises, pp. 25-31. _____ (1979). Game Administration: A Life Cycle Analy- sis. In S.C. Certo and D.C. Brenenstuhl (eds.), Insights Into Experiential Pedagogy, pp. 220-224. Fritzsche, D.J. (1975). Workshop: Hardware, Software, and People Problems In Installing Business Games, Opera- tional Problems and Solutions of Business Gaming: A Primer. In R.H. Buskirk (ed.), Simulation Games and Experiential Learning In Action, pp. 41-47. _____ (1978). Let's Simplify the Administrative Require- ments of Computerized Educational Simulations. In D.C. Brenenstuhl and S.C. Certo (eds.), Exploring Ex- periential Learning: Simulation and Experiential Exer- cises, pp. 39-43. Gentry, J.W. and T.L. Brown (1974). Simulation: A Frus- tration, A "Game" Or A Meaningful Experience. In J. Kenderdine and J.B. Keys (eds.), Simulations, Games and Experiential Learning Techniques: On the Road to a New Frontier, pp. 182-185. Keeffe, M.J. and C.J. Cozan (1985). General Management Policy Simulations: Which Games Are Popular, and Why Do Professors Stop Using Games? In J.W. Gen- try and A.C. Burns (eds.), Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises, pp. 101-104. Low, J.T. (1979). A Guide to the Successful Use of Busi- ness Simulation Games. In S.C. Certo and D.C. Brenenstuhl (eds.), Insights Into Experiential Peda- gogy, p. 267. Smith, J.R. (1987). Developing Simulation and Experiential Exercises on the Personal Computer: Some Critical Is- sues. In L. Kelley and P. Sanders (eds.), Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises, pp. 194-196, Summers, B.I. and C. Boyd (1983). Professors' Ratings of Business Policy Learning Methods. In L.A. Graf and D.M. Currie (eds.), Developments in Business Simula- tion and Experiential Exercises, pp. 32-34, Wolfe, J. (2000). The Global Business Game: A Strategic Management and International Business Simulation. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing. Jensen, R. (1996). The Business Management Laboratory. Little Rock, Arkansas: Micro Publications, Inc. Thompson, A.A., Jr. and G.J. Stappenbeck (1999). The Business Strategy Game: A Global Industry Simula- tion. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill. Thorelli, H.B., R.L. Graves and J.-C. Lopez (1995). INTO- PIA: Executive Guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall. Cannon, H.M. (1995). Dealing with the Complexity Para- dox in Business Simulation Games. In J.D. Overby and A.L. Patz (eds.), Developments In Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, pp. 96-102. Fritzsche, D. J. and R.V. Cotter (1990). Guidelines for ad- ministering business games. In J.W. Gentry (ed.), Guide to Business Gaming and Experiential Learning. East Brunswick: Nichols/GP Publishing, pp. 74-89. Vance, S.C. (1974). Long Live Your Business Game. In J. Kenderdine and J.B. Keys (eds.), Simulations, Games and Experiential Learning Techniques: On the Road to a New Frontier. p. 7. Wolfe, J. (2000). The Global Business Game: A Strategic Management and International Business Simulation. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing. 91 Table of Contents Volume 28, 2001 Using A Web Based Tutorial Program To Enhance Student Learning Reflecting On Reflection: An Examination Of Reflective Learning And Assessing Outcomes Overcoming Obstacles To A Cross-Global Collaborative Classroom Panel Discussion On Building And Maintaining Trust In The Abselesque Classroom Cosmopolitan-Based Cross National Segmentation In Global Marketing Simulations Strategic Management And The Case Method: Survey And Evaluation In Hong Kong Designing Interactive Self-Learning Modules Using Macromedia Director Teaching Financial Markets Using The Wall Street Journal Core Course Outcomes Assessment And Program Continuous Improvement Using An Integrative Business Plan Œ An Empirical Evaluation Using A Mock Trial Activity For Interdisciplinary Learning Fidelity, Verifiability, And Validity Of Simulation: Constructs For Evaluation 2001 International Collegiate Business Strategy Competition: 37 Years Of Collegiate Competition Motivating Students: An Initial Attempt To Operationalize The Curiosity Gap Model E-Learning: The Next Wave Of Experiential Learning Helping New Game Adopters: Four Perspectives An Initial Validity Invesitigaion of A Test Assessing Total Enterprise Simulation Learning Administering A Marketing Simulation - Common And Varied Practices Among Instructors Issues In Case Method Instruction: Class Discussion Leadership Sex Composition, Cohesion, Consensus, Potency And Performance Of Simulation Teams Integrating Management Curriculum: Linking Courses With Frontpage Absel: The Way We Talk! Teaching Strategic Management: A Case Study In The Diffusion Of Innovation In Education A Demonstration Of Bussim Strategy A Total Enterprise Simulation Teaching Methods: Etic Or Emic Antecedents Of Work Team Performance In A Business Simulation: Personality And Group Interaction When Experiential Educators Reflect Upon Their Craft: A Qualitative Research Report Strategic Sensemaking In Organizations: Model Formulation And Operationalization Panel Discussion: A Model For Initiative Development: Discussion And Ideas Of Individual Spirit Harmonics Assessing The Efficacy Of Experiential Learning In A Multicultural Environment Are Business Schools Producing 21st Century Managers? Blue Horizon Cruises: An International Simulation Exercise To Illustrate Conflicting Economic And Cultural Models Different Perceptions Of The Same Thing: An Experiential Exercise Current Use Of Agribusiness Simulation Games: Survey Results Of University Agribusiness And Agricultural Economics Programs Team Building 101 For Accountants An Online Evaluation Of The Compete Online Decision Entry System (Codes) Total Enterprise Simulation Winners And Losers: A Preliminary Study Gilding The Lily, Enhancing The Pedagogical Experience, Or Fixing What Isn™t Broke: The Dilemma Of New Simulation Versions The Absel Endnote Database: The Perfect Tool For The Bernie Keys Library Decision-Making Exercises (A), (B), And (C): Examining The Role Of Conflict In Group Decision-Making Group Decision Simulation (A)-(F): Examining Procedural Justice In Group Decision-Making Processes Evaluation Of Performance In Business Games: Financial And Non Financial Approaches A Framework For Evaluating Simulations As Educational Tools Congruence II™: A Strategic Business Board Game The Tournament Concept: Extending The Idea Of Using Simulations As Instruments Of Assessment The Economic And Political Transition Of The Mexican State In The Threshold Of Twenty First Century: From The Entrepreneurial State To The State Of Entrepreneurs. Experiential Learning For Accountants: The Not For Profit Project An Investigation Of The Environmental Awareness Attained In A Simple Business Simulation Game A Daily Exercise In Theory Application: Is This Why I Had To Take Marketing, Management, Finance –? An Alternative View to Scoring Selected Simulation Games and Experiential Exercises