Warmelink, H., Meijer, S., Mayer, I., Verbraeck, A., (2009) Introducing Serious Gaming in a Multinational: Experiences with the Supervisor Serious Game for HSE Training. In: Learn to Game – Game to Learn, Proceedings of 40th Isaga conference 2009 (CD Rom), June 29 – July 3, 2009, Singapore. ISBN 978-981-083769-3.
Introducing Serious Gaming in a Multinational: Experiences with the Supervisor Serious Game for HSE Training Harald Warmelink Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, E-mail:
[email protected] Sebastiaan Meijer Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, E-mail:
[email protected] Igor Mayer Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, E-mail:
[email protected] Alexander Verbraeck Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, E-mail:
[email protected] Keywords: serious gaming; HSE; learning, training; oil and gas industry; game design; proof of concept. Abstract The authors describe the approach that was used to explore and introduce serious gaming for learning and training in a multinational oil and gas company. Many large organizations have become fascinated by the possibilities of serious gaming. At the same time they are struggling with the implementation and use of it. One of the reasons is that serious games, especially for high-level training and learning, cannot be bought ‘of the shelf’. Especially when the company wishes to integrate serious gaming in its learning portfolio, it needs to be designed for and tailored to the organization’s training and learning objectives. This paper is a reflection of the development and thinking process which centered around the development of Supervisor, a Proof of Concept (PoC) of a serious game for HSE training on a drilling site. The authors demonstrate how a nine-layer conceptual model of serious gaming was used for purposes like stakeholder identification and consultation, and opportunity framing.
Gaming as a business challenge Over the last decade, ‘serious gaming’ has received significant attention in scientific publications and public media. The use of (computer) games for purposes such as learning and training has become widely known to the general public. In the Netherlands, for instance, the ‘serious game’ Levee Patroller is displayed at the Dutch Science Museum Nemo. Moreover, an increasing number of students take part in gaming sessions during their formal education (Ke, 2009; de Freitas, 2007). Many companies have become equally fascinated by the possibilities of serious gaming for learning and training, mainly to increase the effectiveness and/or to reduce the costs of learning and training. At the same time, they seem to be struggling with the implementation and use of serious gaming. One of the reasons is that (effective) serious games, especially for high level training and learning, cannot be bought ‘of the shelf’. Serious gaming needs
to be designed for and tailored to the company’s organization and learning objectives. Incorporating serious gaming as a method in a company’s learning portfolio requires structured, managed and tailored management of all components required for a set or library of games. But, in most situations, gaming is far from core business of the companies that consider using it; costs and initial investments need to be kept low, the results are uncertain and the expectations of the stakeholders vary. The underlying choices, e.g. for game platforms and purposes, are many and the decision-making is socio-technically complex. Furthermore, decision-makers often want proof that it works, i.e. that it will increase performance (and how they can measure that?). They may also be anxious to know what others - their peers - are doing; whether they are not too early or too late. The solutions and answers to such questions cannot be left to commercial parties, and involve a company-research partnership. The problem The implementation of serious gaming is even more complex when the company is a global player, for instance in the oil and gas sector, with a great variety of cultures, a complex organizational structure and a range of fully equipped and highly professional learning centers in different regions of the world that deliver high level training and learning programs. The possible scale of application in this case is massive, varied and wide ranged. The introduction of serious gaming also has considerable consequences for the IT-infrastructure and the organization of learning and training. In this example, gaming needs to be ‘state of the art’ and validated, but also standardized, possibly ‘self led’, and fully accustomed to the organization’s learning context, etc. Because, serious gaming is relatively unexplored territory for large companies there are few previous experiences and business models to work from. In 2008, Delft University of Technology was requested by a large oil and gas company to advice and support the implementation of serious gaming. The company drills for oil and gas, develops other sources of energy, has refinement capacity and a world-wide retail network. It employs 104,000 people in more than 100 countries in all regions of the world. Furthermore, an estimated 300,000+ people work indirectly for the company all over the world as contractors, sometimes in dangerous areas, and on hazardous locations. As a multinational business organization, the company has the responsibility to offer its employees and contractors good learning and training programs. A dedicated team of people working at the company wanted to implement serious gaming for learning and training at a significant scale. Business opportunity The assumption of our client was that serious gaming could generate a significant business value, a.o. by increasing learning effectiveness and/or reducing costs. The company wanted to know what the foremost opportunities for serious gaming were. In the view of the company’s stakeholders, gaming could for instance be used to improve the company’s operational training, HSE training, emergency management, site planning, collaborative design, decision making, and project management. But none of these opportunities had really been deepened out. Trying to seize all opportunities in one go would be impossible and very unwise. To make it more complex, the company’s team had even broadened its horizon to include many different modes, genres and platforms of gaming. A related problem therefore was how to embed gaming in the IT
infrastructure, organizational structures and decision-making commitment all the way up to the board of directors.
processes,
finding
Implementation gap Although the gaming literature gives some guidelines for the implementation of gaming in organizations (c.f. Duke & Geurts, 2004; Wenzler, 2009), the scale and ambitions of the client gave it extra dimensions. The ambition of the client was not to develop and use a serious game, but to set up a strategy and infrastructure for the use of serious gaming as an integral part of the company-wide learning portfolio. Due to its size, this company has a highly formalized decision-making process that all ‘innovation projects’ need to follow. It also proved that the dominant engineering culture was not immediately favorable to the implementation of serious gaming. Some were fascinated; some had never heard of it; and others were skeptic. We soon realized that the company’s stakeholders needed to become more familiar with the underlying sociotechnical complexity of serious gaming; especially things like game technology, game concepts, didactics and the learning organization needed to fit together. And the potential scope of applications needed to be narrowed down, without loosing sight over the full potentials. Approach For this purpose, we applied a nine layer conceptual model, discussed in Mayer et al. (2007). The model was mainly used to structure the various decisions, identify and map the stakeholders and business opportunities. As part of the strategy derived from the model, we decided to develop a Proof of Concept (PoC) of a serious game that could demonstrate the potential of gaming for this particular company and could create enough support for later stages of development, implementation and use. Needless to say, we got involved in the introduction phase of the project. But in no manner did we ‘blindly’ promote the use of serious gaming for whatever purposes. From the beginning, it was clear that the outcome of the introduction phase could be that there were insufficient opportunities or that there was not enough support. It was also realized that if the outcome would be positive, the potential scope of the gaming number and s would be far beyond the reach and core business of an academic institution. Sooner or later, the market needed to become involved. But involving them too early would create unwanted dynamics for the client. Turning to the market would also not give enough space to maneuver in the pre-commercial introduction and research phases of the project. It would also not answer many of the questions about gaming within the unique context of this multinational organization, with its decision-making, learning and training processes, as well as its data and IT infrastructures. Outline This paper is a first reflection on the process leading to and following the development of Supervisor, a PoC of a game for HSE training on a drilling site. Over a period of nine months, the researchers worked together with an in-company team to get company-wide approval for the introduction and use of serious gaming within its learning portfolio. Section 2 frames the complexity of the project and focuses on the use of the model for stakeholder mapping. Section 3 discusses the use of the Supervisor PoC for stakeholder consultations. Section 4 draws conclusions from the experiences and discusses the value of the approach as well as some of its drawbacks.
Framing the project From the initial discussions with the client team, we soon realized that the many stakeholders in the company would frame the project very differently, depending on their positions in the organization. The project for instance could be framed as: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
An information (IT) infrastructure project A software development project A contractor / ‘buying in’ problem An (e-) learning project An engineering project An organizational change / innovation project (‘we need to train differently, etc.’) etc.
The problem with serious gaming is that it is probably all of the above and more. The development and implementation of serious gaming for high level training and learning, is much more complicated than, for instance, software development. In order to demonstrate the complexity of serious gaming we used a revised version of the conceptual nine level model previously developed by Mayer et al. (see figure 1a, for a detailed description of the model, see Mayer, Bekebrede and Stegers-Jager 2007: 241244). From a scientific point of view, we wanted to test the validity and applicability of the model in a real life context. Figure 1a demonstrates how the complexity of serious gaming is made up by the integration of the nine levels of serious gaming, from deep core technical levels, to user-interaction levels, to concept, content, didactic and organizational levels. Figure 1a,b – The nine level model and an example of how it was used
Revised from Mayer, Bekebrede & Stegers-Jager, 2007 Partnerships An example of how the model was used to communicate with the client is given in Figure 1b. It demonstrates that serious gaming is not (yet) a matter of simply buying the right game-technology or game-applications. It should be state-of-the art, tailored for and well-embedded into the company’s professional, learning and business context. This implies gradually building up an internal and external network of sponsors, users, suppliers, and expertise and research partners. Scientific and applied research is important for design activities in a pre-commercial stage, for co-ordination and support, value assurance and evaluation and for dissemination of results. At different levels of the model, knowledge, technology and expertise can be ‘bought in’, but the integration needs to be done within the company itself. Figure 1b also communicates that the involvement and interest of the company decreases at the lower levels of the model – the hardware, the engines etc. The company should of course set the standard and requirements that are derived from the higher levels in the model. The company’s key interest and expertise however, lies in things like the game content, game concept, and game didactics. But the integration between the lower and higher levels of the model requires a lot of research and innovation, most likely involving non-commercial (research) partners. Depending on one’s view or strategy, the areas of interest for the company, research and market/suppliers can be drawn differently – larger or smaller. Stakeholder identification and mapping
From the start of the introduction phase, it was realized that stakeholder identification and involvement would be key to the success of the implementation of serious gaming in this company. The decision to use serious gaming needed to be taken at the highest levels of management. Most of the actual game-based training would be done by the operational levels of the organization. The model helped to think about, identify and map the different stakeholders at different levels. During the introduction phase of the project, we expanded the model to include general and company specific examples of internal and external stakeholders within each layer. Figure 2 gives a generalized example of how the stakeholders were identified and mapped in the model. Figure 2: Mapping the stakeholders
Well engineering HSE Project engineering Company learning Instruct. design. Trainers
9. Organizational context 8. Didactical context
Company X
Company senior Management Company Learning departments
Learning consultants
7. Game content
Commercial partners
6. Game concept
Building tools
Techn. support systems Company ICT dep. Sim. mod dep.
Re se arc h
4. Authoring environment (scenario builder, administrator, logging)
IT infrastructure
Serious game concept developers
5. Player environment
Company learning centres
Level editor, etc.
Sound
Physi cs
Trainers, facilitators
Scripting tools
Suppliers
3. Game engine Graph ics
Strategy and implementation consultants
AI
netwo rk
2. Low level API Hardware abstraction layer (open GL, direct 3D, direct x)
(Serious) game companies
anima tion
Market
Hard and software suppliers
1. Hardware (CPU, Graphics card, sound card, Physics card etc.)
Organizational complexity Layer 9 in the model (see Figure 1) refers to the organizational context in which gaming takes place. In our situation, serious gaming needed to be closely linked to different organizational processes, specifically operations within oil and gas related engineering disciplines. The implementation of gaming in the company would require a high level of embedding throughout the organization’s value chain. We therefore defined three levels of the project’s embedding: 1.) Organizational embedding; 2) Technological embedding;
and 3.) Cultural embedding. Organizational embedding focuses on layers 7, 8 and 9 of the model and needed to be approached in multiple ways, linked to the internal structures of the company: 1. A project team needed to be defined that would execute a project roadmap. 2. A Decision Review Board (DRB) needed to be defined that would evaluate the results of the project team and decide how the project is to proceed. 3. An internal project sponsor needed to be defined to cover the costs of the project. 4. The internal client for which a game would be developed would need to cooperate to make sure the game is actually embedded into the business practices. Technological embedding focuses on layers 1-4 of the model and also needed to be approached in multiple ways. 1. During the development of the game, existing data would need to be used to model the environment (e.g. existing 3D models or simulation models used in courses). Thus, divisions responsible for delivering and maintaining such data need to facilitate the embedding of their technologies into the game. 2. The game needed to run on the company existing IT infrastructure. This also meant that the responsible IT division would need to support the software and perhaps even upgrade the hardware to support high-quality graphics. 3. Existing technological information portals would need to be used to ensure maximum exposure, i.e. news listings, e-mailings, etc. Again, the responsible divisions would need to cooperate. Cultural embedding entails that gaming is incorporated in the professional culture throughout the learning departments and core businesses of the company and focuses on layers 5 through 9 of the model. This culture is crucial for this project’s success, as it is a prerequisite for a serious approach to games. In such a culture, employees would look beyond the entertainment value of games and see the potential of the simulated work environments and scenarios they offer. Only then will the continuous development and implementation of specific gaming exercises, as well as the entire project, be guaranteed. Strategy One of the main challenges in the introduction phase was to become concrete without loosing sight over the full strategic potentials. We therefore decided to develop a Proof of Concept (PoC) of a state-of- the-art and tailor-made serious game. This PoC was used for strategic discussions with stakeholders. Our first challenge was to identify the one or two business opportunities for gaming that could generate the highest value for the organization, both in terms of overall business performance – e.g. cost-effectiveness, or reduction of incidents – as well as in the enhancement of gaming throughout the organization. The combined in-company and research team identified Health Safety and Environment (HSE) training as one of the most promising opportunities. There were several substantive arguments for selecting HSE:
1. HSE in general has a very high societal, moral, strategic and economic value for the organization • •
The need for better HSE training and better simulation environments have been put high on the agenda of the oil and gas industry. Based upon benchmark indicators, the organization’s HSE performance can and should be improved.
2. There is a strong need and opportunity for improving the cost-effectiveness of HSE training • • • •
HSE is relevant for all divisions, units and employees in the organization and for all its contractors. There is a high volume of people to be trained on HSE. There is a strong influx of a new and young workforce. Based upon benchmark indicators, the organization spends much money on training per employee / contractor.
3. HSE procedures and training have many characteristics - rules, dynamic actions and feedback, 3D visual environments – that make it suitable for a game. • •
HSE procedures are pretty clear, well described and uniform. The organization operates globally, thus in many different environments, which can be modeled in 3D and in which HSE training scenario’s can be subsequently be played.
Proof of concept Over the course of six months, university developers and programmers focused on the integration of layers 1-9 of the model by developing Supervisor, a serious game on HSE training for drilling site supervisors. Supervisor is a game-based virtual training simulator for HSE Supervisors, working at an on-shore drilling site (see figure 3). In its present version it is a playable training application mainly to be used for demonstration purposes in strategic discussions on where and how to use serious gaming in the client company. In its present version, Supervisor is configured to show the potential of serious gaming for HSE, with links to Drilling, Logistics, Security and Maintenance, etc. The setup of Supervisor is prepared for the implementation of a broad ‘library’ of training scenarios and can be developed into a full fledged application that can be implemented and validated as a game-based virtual training tool. The selected Unreal Engine 3 is state-of-the art with high quality graphics but not a determinant factor for further development of this or other applications. The student-player is a HSE supervisor on a virtual drilling site. After logging in, the student-player finds himself in an office at the drilling site. The player goes through some simple tasks to familiarize her/himself with game-navigation. Then the player gets assignments, incoming as e-mail messages in the main office. The assignments increase in difficulty, much like game levels. Figure 3: Impression of the Supervisor PoC
Using the PoC for stakeholder talks Between July 2008 and March 2009, the in-company and researcher teams held weekly meetings. During these weekly meetings, the development of the PoC was discussed and, later on, demonstrated and validated. Furthermore, the progress and outcomes of technical and conceptual feasibility studies, as well as the talks with company stakeholders were prepared and the insights were discussed. Three researchers of TUDelft spent one or more days a week as external consultants in the company for technical feasibility studies and interviews with 23 in-company stakeholders at all levels of the model (Figure 1). The objectives of the interviews were: • • • • • • • •
To establish the general commitment for gaming opportunities in the company (Level 8 and 9) To get an idea on the wider scale of business opportunities for gaming in the company (Level 8 and 9) To better frame the opportunity of gaming in a context of HSE training (Level 7 and 8) To identify and analyze the internal company stakeholders (All levels) To identify and analyze possible sponsors for the OFW within the company (Level 9) To identify and analyze the technical challenges and conditions for using gaming in the company (Lower levels) To identify and frame possible research areas and opportunities (All levels) To identify the cross platform transfer of technical models into gaming environments (Level 5)
Versions of the PoC in different stages of development were demonstrated to experts and stakeholders within the company, often accompanying the interviews. Overall, experts and stakeholders proved amazed of what could be done in a relatively short time frame, with limited resources. Many stakeholders now saw the potential of the PoC and gaming along this line in general, thus the demonstration triggered thinking about new opportunities. The results from these interviews were fed back into the gaming design process. In many interviews the offered opportunity for PoC co-design created enthusiasm for the design-in-the-large (Klabbers, 2006), as Kriz acknowledged (2003: 501). This often resulted in an interviewee’s commitment to engage in the opportunity
framing workshop that would formally start the gaming project. That way we were able to introduce gaming in the professional culture within this organization. Thus, the interviews helped to position gaming in serious discussions about saving lives in standard company operations of exploration and production, even though gaming had an entertainment connotation to many interviewees. Opportunity Framing Workshop The team was able to invite relevant stakeholders across all layers of our model (Figure 1) to an opportunity framing workshop. In this two-day session, a group of 15 complementary stakeholders worked together to develop a clear project goal definition, phasing and roadmap to ensure a concrete kick-start. The opportunity framing workshop was attended by the following types of stakeholders: • • • • • •
HSE Stakeholders: Stakeholders who could help develop and validate certain HSE scenarios (layers 7 through 9 of the model). Well engineering: Stakeholders who could help develop and validate certain engineering scenarios (layers 6 and 7 of the model). Project engineering: Stakeholders who could help develop and validate certain simulated environments (layers 6 and 7 of the model). Learning design: Stakeholders who could help design and implement the learning experience (layers 5 and 6 of the model). Technical support systems: Stakeholders who could help integrate existing simulation models (layers 3 and 4 of the model). IT infrastructure: Stakeholders who could integrate the developed games into the organization’s technological infrastructure (layers 1 and 2 of the model).
The opportunity framing workshop helped to identify the project’s goals, constraints and critical success factors. Subsequently, we developed a road map and the definitive setup of the project team. Importantly, the workshop served as a setting for formalizing certain leadership’s sponsorship of the project’s first pilot (Wenzler, 2009: 101-102). After the opportunity framing workshop was finished, we were able to start the first pilot development trajectory. In this pilot, a first full-fledged game will be developed and tested within the company. Conclusion and discussion The introduction phase of the project has been finished with a positive decision towards the incorporation of gaming in the company’s learning portfolio. A roadmap has been developed and established and the first pilot has been started. The nine layer model and the PoC allowed us to demonstrate the use of serious gaming to experts and stakeholders. The model enabled us to communicate the complexity of serious gaming and to map stakeholders and opportunities. The PoC allowed us to have effective conversations with stakeholders about serious gaming, stimulating discussions about other applications than the one chosen for the PoC. Thus, we were able to create a shared understanding among the stakeholders in the project’s introduction phase. It allowed us to focus discussions on organizational, technological and cultural embedding of gaming within the company. We were able to attract key stakeholders to sponsor or
fund the project. This was an important top-down project control mechanism. As a result we feel confident that the upcoming project will succeed. The work contributed a test for the applicability and validity of the nine layer model introduced by Mayer et al (2007). In terms of validity we were able to frame all stakeholders, discussions and components required to the model. The model therefore proved to be valid for projects in multinational companies like the oil and gas company that was our client. In terms of applicability the qualitative proof was in the constant return of both the scientific and in-company team to return to the model to see ‘the whole picture’. For this project the model proved applicable. From a scientific point of view a new question comes up: Would the project have had a different result when another model and PoC approach was used? It is not possible to answer this question from the experiences gained here, however there are some indications. First of all, from time to time the project was faced with internal bureaucracy. To convince executive management at crucial moments it helped to have both the PoC as a work-in-progress game and a broader story about first results from interviews in the organization and the ability to pinpoint them in the nine layer model. The PoC did not lead to a first application. Instead, it simply was a starting point for the project. It allowed us to educate potential stakeholders and focus discussions about a first full-fledged game to be applied within the organization. Acknowledgements The authors whish to thank Casper Harteveld, Ronald Poelman and Wim Veen for their contributions to the project as well as the TU Delft Gaming Street - Daan Groen, Melvin Mukrab, Casper van Est, Tom Maaswinkel, Gert-Jan Stolk, Berend Wouda, Cornell Göksu, Youval Kuipers, Matthijs Schaap, Arne Bezuijen, Amir Delfan, Bas van Nuland, Linda van Veen - for the technical realization of Supervisor PoC. Author information Harald Warmelink MA, PhD candidate, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. Dr. ir. Sebastiaan Meijer, Assistant Professor, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. Dr. Igor Mayer, Associate Professor and Director of CPS - Delft Centre for Serious gaming, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. Prof. dr. Alexander Verbraeck, Professor in Systems Engineering, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. List of references Duke, R. & Geurts, J. (2004) Policy games for strategic management. Amsterdam: Dutch University Press Ke, F. (2009) A Qualitative Meta-Analysis of Computer Games as Learning Tools. In Advances in Technology and Human Interaction (pp. 1-32). London: IGI Global Klabbers, J. (2003) Gaming and Simulation: Principles of a Science of Design. Simulation Gaming, 34(4), 569-591
Kriz, W. C. (2003) Creating Effective Learning Environments and Learning Organizations through Gaming Simulation Design. Simulation Gaming, 34(4), 495-511 Kriz, W. C., & Hense, J. U. (2006) Theory-oriented evaluation for the design of and research in gaming and simulation. Simulation Gaming, 37(2), 268-283 Mayer, I., Bekebrede, G., & Stegers-Jager, K. (2007) COTS, MODS and middleware: doit-yourself strategies for (online) gaming in (higher) education. In: Mayer, I., Mastik, H. (eds.) Organizing and Learning through Gaming and Simulation, Proceedings of Isaga 2009, Nijmegen: 241-244 de Freitas, S. (2007) Online gaming as an educational tool in learning and training. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 535-537 Wenzler, I. (2009) The Ten Commandments for Translating Simulation Results Into Reallife Performance. Simulation Gaming, 40(1), 98-109
