Improving the Understanding of Supply

Chain Interaction Through

the Application of Business Games

Jannicke Madeleine Baalsrud Hauge, Nils Meyer-Larsen

and Rainer Mller

Abstract Dynamic systems such as global supply chains (SC) compel the
workforce of all involved players to be faced with ever-changing working envi-
ronments. This complexity makes it difcult to predict the impact of decisions
taken, thus future SC managers need to be trained in taking decisions under
uncertainty and to reflect the impact on the whole SC. This type of practical
decision making is necessary to take shape within the business and engineering
schools since it prepares future practitioners for the requirements they will face.
Game-based learning (GBL) is well suited to GBL process. This paper compares
two different game-based learning setups with students. The rst explains a pure
game-based course, whereas the other discusses how a new game is introduced in
an undergraduate course on container security. Our comparison helps others to
avoid pitfalls in the introduction of GBL in logistics education.

Keywords Supply chain management
Decision making
Gamebased learning

Serious gaming Case studies

Introduction

The goal of supply chains (SC) is the optimisation of logistical and production
processes (Pfohl 2002; Jttner 2005) Contemporary SCs are becoming longer,
leaner and more brittle (Christopher and Peck 2004), involving more co-operation
and collaboration and thus transforming into global SCs (Barrat 2004; Braziotis and
Tannock 2011). An important side effect in the operation of global networks is that
they are more vulnerable and inflexible due to the large number of different entities
involved. Their complex interrelations also increase the number of risks occurring,

J.M. Baalsrud Hauge (&)

Bremer Institut fr Produktion und Logistik, Bremen, Germany
e-mail: baa@biba.uni-bremen.de
N. Meyer-Larsen
R. Mller
Institut fr Seeverkehrswirtschaft und Logistik, Bremerhaven, Germany

Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 533

H. Kotzab et al. (eds.), Dynamics in Logistics,
Lecture Notes in Logistics, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-23512-7_52
534 J.M. Baalsrud Hauge et al.

which might lead not only to higher costs but also to reducing the reliability of
on-time deliveries, or in the worst case, no delivery at all (Srensen 2005; Peck
2003; Jttner 2005; Pfohl 2002).
SCs are complex and the information and data exchange take place at different
levels. van Oosterhout et al. (2007) introduces three different levels in order to
explain the complexity that modern SCs are subject to. The bottom level comprises
the physical flow of material. At this level, different tracking and tracing tech-
nologies can be used in order to collect data from different stakeholders. Examples
of the technology in use at this level are the use of electronic seals, RFID tech-
nology, sensor networks, etc., in order to collect the relevant data. Regarding the
resilience, at this bottom level, this would be more in line with the information
technology (IT) terminology, in which resilience describes the systems ability to
cope with errors during executioni.e. the robustness of the system (Christopher
and Peck 2004, p. 2)
At the transaction level, we are more concerned with using technologies
ensuring a seamless and secure information flow throughout the SC. This requires
not only the use of a common information system (IS) and methods, but also the
willingness to co-operate and share information (Pfohl et al. 2010; Christopher and
Peck 2004). At the second layer in van Oosterhout et al. (2007) model, we look at
the information flow. The typical problems dealt with at this level are the problems
with data exchange. There are several examples of solutions that increase the SCs
visibility, but most of them are solutions only involving a few stakeholders, and the
integration is a challenge.
At the governance layer, the focus is more on the question of monitoring and
assessing information and material flow. At this level, methods for identifying,
assessing, managing and, monitoring risks are needed. However, the stakeholders
(suppliers, authorities, logistic and infrastructure service providers, manufacturers,
customers, etc.) often have different risk perceptions and tolerances, which can
influence the risk treatment strategy. Furthermore, there is also clearly an asym-
metric information flow between participants in the SC leading to different possi-
bilities of identifying and monitoring risks.
This article will present and discuss how games can be used for competences
development regarding security issues as well as for risk management and decision
making. It discusses how the courses evolve and the lessons learned.

Problem Statement

Dynamic systems such as SCs compel their workforce to be faced with

ever-changing working environments (Baalsrud Hauge et al. 2006). Successful
co-operation does not only rely on a seamless information flow between all partners,
but also on the ability of the participating organizations to learn and to act in a
dynamic environment. The complexity in SCs makes it difcult to predict the impact
Improving the Understanding of Supply Chain Interaction Through 535

of decisions made. Thus, future SC managers need to be trained in taking decisions

under uncertainty and to reflect on how these decisions impact the whole SC (Manuj
and Sahin 2011). Typical risks for SCs are related to collaboration, connectivity,
information sharing, and communication, etc. (Peck 2005; Shef 2005; Waters
2007; Pfohl et al. 2008). Educational institutions need to aim at preparing their
students as best as possible for these dynamic working environments and to give
them the opportunity to acquire risk management skills during their studies.
Within business schools, the criticism between transferring knowledge based
upon research rather than practice, with an emphasis on conflicting benets for
relevant stakeholders, and ineffectively linking research results and actual (or
future) practice have been documented (Starkey and Tempest 2005). Game-based
learning (GBL) (Prensky 2003; Gee 2003) has been introduced in several engi-
neering and business schools. GBL has the advantages of simulating realistic
contexts, it is experientialallowing the students to learn through experience, to
experiment with different decisions and to learn from the resulting feedback. GBL
is an established teaching method (Faria et al. 2009) used at several business and
engineering schools. Serious games can be dened as entertaining games with
nonentertainment goals, used to educate, train and inform (Bellotti et al. 2010;
Raybourn 2007; Michael and Chen 2006; Shute and Ke 2012; Arnab et al. 2014). In
the eld of business and engineering education, serious games are mostly con-
ducted used in a workshop setting (Angehrn and Maxwell 2009).

Research Methodology

The rst step was to identify the needs and requirements regarding the relevant
competences in the eld of supply chain security and supply chain risk management
(SCRM).
Based upon the identied educational needs, a curriculum was designed and the
learning goals were established. In the rst case study, this was connected with the
development of a game, which has been continuously improved. The game and its
curriculum were used in an SCRM course over a period of 5 years. An evaluation
method was developed to assess how well the game met the learning goals. The
evaluation results showed that in the rst versions of the game the students
achievements were lower than expected. Hence, an iterative improvement process
was used for the game, as well as the blended learning concept so that it achieved
the learning goals at a satisfactory level.
In the second case study, a different approach was taken, making the students
themselves develop serious games on the topic of supply chain security. The aim
was to achieve a more interactive educational process and to attain more concrete
results with an advanced practical relevance in contrast to the mainly theoretical
considerations during a conventional ex-cathedra lecture course.
536 J.M. Baalsrud Hauge et al.

Case Study Beware

This section will describe the evolvement of the course and the corresponding game
for a GBL course for master students.
Beware is a web-based multi-player online game implemented in a workshop
setting with three groups spatial separated. The Beware game is an extension of a
game engine, which is developed and used at BIBA (Baalsrud Hauge et al. 2008).
In order to be used in the current setting, several changes were necessary. The game
objective is to handle risks occurring while developing and producing products in a
distributed working environment with a minimum of 98 % quality rate in shortest
possible time and to lowest possible cost, i.e. comprising both elements of con-
current engineering and supply chain management. The game is facilitated, and the
facilitator can monitor the game play via the monitoring interface (Baalsrud Hauge
et al. 2008). It uses a blended learning concept and is used to let students apply
SCRM methods and strategies. At the beginning, each student is assigned to a role
with a more or less co-operative character. During game play, the players have to
complete their tasks, mostly by either taking actions or completing documents,
while continuously monitoring the performance indicators as well as to identify
upcoming risks and manage these risks according the risk management procedures.
Based on the performance, different events will occur. The information is dis-
tributed among the players, so that they have to communicate. Currently, Beware is
designed with two different levels. In the rst level, the players develop a simple
product and experience risks within their organization, whereas at the second level,
the players are faced with the design, development and manufacturing of an
extended product within an inter-organizational co-operation.
The game enables students to identify how different types of risks impact dif-
ferently on the success of a co-operation, both depending on the type of
co-operation and also depending on previous performance and also how the impact
of risks increases and affects the partners success over time, if no actions are taken
to reduce and control the risks. In order to succeed, the students have to apply risk
management methods and thus increase their awareness of risks in production
networks as well as the complexity of decision making in dynamic environments.
The game is used at the University of Bremen as part of a 3 ECTS lab course on
Decision making in distributed production environment. The course is open for
master of industrial engineering, production, and system engineering. The knowl-
edge of risk management in general and SCRM varies. Thus each attendee has to
make a pre-test before starting. This is necessary in order to dene the complexity
level of the risk management parts. The playing time is about 5 h at each level with
an additional 60 min for the debrieng phase. The game concept and the curriculum
used for this course are concurrently developed, so that the learning outcome to be
achieved within the game corresponds to the learning objective of the syllabus. The
gaming scenario is process based and event triggered.
Based on the test results and previous experience with the development of
educational games (Baalsrud Hauge et al. 2013; Hunecker 2009) a user-centred
Improving the Understanding of Supply Chain Interaction Through 537

Fig. 1 Beware development process

development approach was taken, using principles from the Agile Programming
Community after (Beck et al. 2006) and the spiral development approach (see
Boehm 1988). The methodology is illustrated in Fig. 1.
This approach ensures fast feedback from the potential users regarding usability
and also user acceptance (Bdker 1996; Bellotti et al. 2013). The user is the teacher,
who has made the curriculum and the game concept, but has no skills in pro-
gramming, as well as the students. Currently no adjustments are needed.

Case Study Security Game

This section of our paper describes a GBL approach which was taken in the winter
semester 2013/2014 within the lecture Security in intermodal container transport,
being part of the Bachelor course of Transport Engineering/Logistics (Studiengang
Transportwesen/Logistik TWL) at Hochschule Bremerhaven (University of
Applied Sciences). It explains why based on our previous experience we think a
GBL approach will improve the learning outcome and also explains how this will
be evaluated. The course is still under development, and thus we have no prelim-
inary results so far.
This course is designed to meet the fast changing requirements of logistics. Its
curriculum follows the fast changes in technology, information processing and
organization in all elds of logistics and consists of 6 semesters presence. The rst
two semesters focus on the basics of logistics, the following three semesters are
designed to provide the students with professional skills and the last semester can
be used to serve a placement in an industrial environment in order to experience up
to date methods and techniques. Optionally the last semester may be used to solve a
practice project at the university. This practical part of the studies is an integrated,
in its contents dened and monitored part of the education. Generally, the modules
amount to 4 h per week per semester (HWS). There are 35 modules which are
generally credited with 5 credit points (ECTS) (Hochschule Bremerhaven 2014).
538 J.M. Baalsrud Hauge et al.

The course was given several consecutive semesters with different students. The
topics to be taught to the students are e.g. derived from the Container Supply Chain
Compendium (Integrity 2008; Hintsa 2012) developed within the EU project
Integrity (2014) and further developed and extended by risk considerations in the
CASSANDRA project (2014).
In the rst semesters, the course was organized as ex-cathedra teaching com-
bined with several units of students work during quiet time and subsequent dis-
cussion of the results. The content focused on basic knowledge on the topic e.g.
referring to the background of supply chain security, existing laws and initiatives,
and organizational and technical approaches to enhance supply chain security. In
the following semesters, the curriculum was enriched by a special phase of the
course, where the students were developing certain security-relevant scenarios in
container transport, e.g. a terrorist attack or cargo theft. The students had to analyse
the respective scenario in depth and reflect on possible actions or countermeasures
and the resulting consequences, leading to an advanced interactivity of the edu-
cational process and to more concrete results with an advanced practical relevance
in contrast to the mainly theoretical considerations before. Some examples of
scenarios together with relevant questions to be examined by the students are shown
in Table 1.
In order to further develop the curriculum and create an even more interactive
learning environment, it was decided to develop this course phase into a serious
gaming phase. Unfortunately serious games addressing the topic of security in
intermodal container transport are to our knowledge not available at the moment.
Consequently, the decision to include serious games was to perform an experiment,
i.e. to ask the students to develop respective games addressing these topics them-
selves. The students were introduced into this task by providing theoretical

Table 1 Examples for scenarios to be examined during the lectures

Scenario
Thief wants to steel goods from a container
Container laden on a truck is breached
All partners in a chain except the haulier are
Advanced Economic Operator
(AEO) certied
Container laden on a sea vessel to the U.S. is
breached
Container is breached by opening the front
wall
Terrorists plan to place a bomb in a container
A bomb is found in a container laden on a
vessel
Relevant questions
Which container to choose? How to proceed
to achieve the goal?
What happens in case it is equipped with a
Container Security Device (CSD)? Whom to
notify?
Can usage of a CSD compensate the lacking
AEO status?
What happens if the incident is remarked in
the U.S. port only?
Can a CSD detect this incident?
Which container to choose? How to obtain the
necessary information?
Is the vessel allowed to call a port? How to
proceed?
Improving the Understanding of Supply Chain Interaction Through 539

background on supply chain security and respective approaches and projects during
the rst lecture phase. They were made familiar with the expectation that the game
should create a safe learning environment in which the gamers can apply different
strategies and discover the impact of their decisions on the system. Of course the
fact was taken into account that the developed games will most likely not be very
complex due to the lack of experience and theoretical background on game
development by the students and the limited time and effort they can invest in this
task.
Main goal of the game is to design the mechanism between the risks and the
different risk mitigation measures. In detail, the game shall describe the different
risks in the eld of supply chain security like risk of theft, smuggle or terrorist
attack. In order to mitigate these different risks, several risk mitigation measures are
in place, for example, using monitoring devices for containers or screening of
personnel. Consequently, for the design of the game the students have to take into
account which risk mitigation measure is able to cope with which risk. Another
aspect is that the complex structure of SC includes different supply chain actors. In
detail, each actor has a different role, which has to face different risks, and is able to
use different risk mitigation measures. Because of this, the different specialities of
each actor have to be taken into account for the game design process. In addition,
beside typical supply chain actors like shippers and freight forwarders, also the
methods of the different criminals (for example, thieves and terrorists) have to be
modelled for the game design. In detail, these different criminals have different
goals and methods for attacks of the supply chain. In particular, thieves have
different modi operandi to steal contents of the container, the container itself or the
truck with the container.
First discussions with the students made clear that they will most probably
choose the form of a board game or a card game as a platform to develop their
games.
The game is designed by the students. The objective is, according to the theory
of constructivism, to actively involve them in the learning process. In our case, the
students build small groups of two to four persons and choose a topic from their
related theoretical knowledge on supply chain security they have gained during the
earlier lessons. Each group of students will develop a small game in which the
player can learn about specic aspects of supply chain security, e.g. how to react to
certain criminal actions or how to identify criminal interventions. By having this
concrete task, the students will reflect in more detail on what is important and what
is not, as well as deepen the knowledge in a specic area. This anticipation is
supported by discussions with the students during the current development phase of
the games, as it was clearly stated by the students that the educational outcome of
this process was already considered more successful than during a conventional
lecture course.
Based on this preliminary result, we expect that the creation of the game, its
denition and the consideration of the theoretical mechanisms on which the game is
based and the reflection on how these mechanisms are functioning in the real world
might even have an enhanced impact on the understanding of the topic of security
540 J.M. Baalsrud Hauge et al.

in intermodal container transport than just playing the game. The game creation
process targets watching, thinking, and doing, which leads to concrete outcomes
and as such conforms to the Kolbs cycle. We anticipate that this process will
support the students ability to analyse a situation and decide on an adequate
reaction, thereby considering several alternatives, to reflect their actions and to
evaluate the outcomes. Quantitative results from the development and deployment
of the games are not yet available. However, dependent on the outcome, we will
decide if some of the developed games will be included in further education cur-
ricula and/or developed further. We believe that the description of our approach
could be useful for other educators as well.

Conclusions

For subjects conveying skills to be used in complex dynamic systems with rapidly
technology development, it is a challenge to keep curricula up to date. Thus, it is
necessary to look at possibilities to handle this flexible and the type of skilled to be
conveyed requires active participation of the students. GBL has proven to be
effective and was thus considered as teaching method in both cases. However, the
course development was different. In the rst case study, the course was developed
as a game-based course right from the beginning, but the game used needed to be
adapted and extended in order to reach the learning goals. This required develop-
ment of new functionalities and the adaption took place over years. Currently, the
course delivers according to the expectations. In the second case study, the course
was developed as a normal teacher centric course and was slowly adopted towards
using games for increasing the user involvement, and currently, the students are
developing small games to a security related topic in order to deepen the under-
standing of the theoretical gained knowledge.
Moving from theory to practice signies an important step in ones mind-set, and
this was indicated in our results. As mentioned above, the players needed time to
prepare for this step, and consideration for decisions needed effort. Our paper
provides avenues for enhanced teaching in SCM, but it also shows the drawback of
using games build for only one purpose. The development time is high and the
integration difcult. The experience so far has shown that a well-designed game
will not only help the learners to transfer their theoretical knowledge to practical
skills, but also to transform gained experience into knowledge so that they can
assess previously acquired knowledge and generate new understanding. It is also
interesting to notice, that some students did nd it so engaging that they asked to
play the game for a second time. This shows how important virtual practice is as
part of a theoretical course. The observation ts well into Kolbs learning model.

Acknowledgments This work has partially been carried out in the context of the EU project
GALA Network of excellence, FP7.
Improving the Understanding of Supply Chain Interaction Through 541

References

Angehrn AA, Maxwell K (2009) EagleRacing: addressing corporate collaboration challenges

through an online simulation game. Innovate J Online Educ 5(6):4
Arnab S, Lim T, Carvalho MB, Bellotti F, de Freitas S, Louchart S, Suttie N, Berta R, De Gloria A
(2014) Mapping learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis. Br J Educ Technol
(BJET). doi:10.1111/bjet.12113
Baalsrud Hauge J, Duin H, Oliveira M, Thoben K-D (2006) User requirements analysis for
educational games in manufacturing. Proceedings of the ICE conference, pp 4749
Baalsrud Hauge J, Duin H, Thoben K-D (2008) Increasing the resiliency of global SN by using
games. In: Pawar KS, Lalwani CS, Banomyong R Conference Proceedings ISL 2008, Centre
for Concurrent Enterprise, Nottingham University Business School, Nottingham 2008, S.
125132
Baalsrud Hauge J, Boyle E, Mayer I, Nadolski R, Riedel JCHK, Moreno-Ger P, Bellotti F, Lim T,
Ritchie J (2013) Study design and data gathering guide for serious games evaluation.
Psychology, pedagogy, and assessment in serious games. IGI Global 2014:394419. doi:10.
4018/978-1-4666-4773-2.ch018
Barrat M (2004) Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain. Supply Chain
Manage: Int J 9(1):3042
Beck K et al (2006) Manifesto for agile software development. http://www.agilemanifesto.org.
Accessed 12 Jan 2006
Bellotti F, Berta R, De Gloria A (2010) Designing effective serious games: opportunities and
challenges for research. Special issue: creative learning with serious games. Int J Emerg
Technol Learn (IJET) 5:2235
Bellotti F, Kapralos B, Lee K, Moreno-Ger P (2013) User assessment in serious games and
technology-enhanced learning. Hindawi Adv Hum-Comput Interact
Bdker S (1996) Creating condition for participation: Conflict and ressources in systems
development. Hum-Comput Interact 11(3):215236
Boehm B (1988) A spiral model of software development and enhancement. Computer 21
(5):6172
Braziotis C, Tannock J (2011) Building the extended enterprise: key collaboration factors. Int J
Logistics Manage 22(3):349372
CASSANDRA (2014) www.cassandra-poject.eu. Accessed 27 Jan 2014
Christopher M, Peck H (2004) Building the resilient supply chain. Int J Logistics Manage 15
(2):113
Faria AJ, Hutchinson D, Wellington WJ, Gold S (2009) Developments in business gaming:
a review of the past 40 years. Simul Gaming 40(4):464487
Hintsa (2012) CASSANDRA COMPENDIUM, www.cassandra-project.eu/userdata/le/
Publicdeliverables/Cassandra. Accessed 27 Jan 2014
Gee JP (2003) What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave
Macmillan, New York
Hochschule Bremerhaven (2014) www.hs-bremerhaven.de/en/. Accessed 27 Jan 2014
Hunecker F (2009) A generic process simulation-model for educational simulations and serious
games. On the Horiz 17(4):313322
Integrity (2008) Global container supply chain compendium, integrity-supplychain.eu/index.
php?module=Downloads&func=prep_hand_out&lid=82. Accessed 27 Jan 2014
Integrity (2014) www.integrity-supplychain.eu. Accessed 27 Jan 2014
Jttner U (2005) Supply chain risk management. Int J Logistics Manage 16(1):120141
Manuj I, Sahin F (2011) A model of supply chain and supply chain decision-making complexity.
Int J Phys Distrib Logistics Manage 41(5):511549
Michael D, Chen S (2006) Serious games: games that educate, train and inform. Thomson Course
Technology, Boston
542 J.M. Baalsrud Hauge et al.

Peck H (2005) Drivers of SC vulnerability: an integrated framework. Int J Phys Distrib Logistics
Manage 35(4):210232
Peck H (2003) Creating resilient SCs: a practical guide, Centre for Logistics and SC Management.
Craneld School of Management, England
Pfohl H-C, Gallus P, Khler H (2008) Supply Chain RisikomanagementVision oder
pragmatisches Konzept? Ergebnisse des BVL-Arbeitskreises Sicherheit und
Risikomanagement in der Supply Chain. In: Pfohl H-C, Wimmer T (eds) Wissenschaft und
Praxis im Dialog. Robuste und sichere Logistiksysteme. 4. Wissenschaftssymposium Logistik.
Mnchen. Hamburg, pp 446470
Pfohl H-C, Khler H, Thomas D (2010) State of the art in supply chain risk management research.
Empirical and conceptual ndings and a roadmap for the implementation in practice. Logistics
Res 2(1): 3344
Pfohl H-C (2002) Risiken und Chancen: Strategische Analyse der Supply Chain. In: Pfohl H-C
(ed) Risiko- und Chancenmanagement in der Supply Chain: proaktiv - ganzheitlich -
nachhaltig. Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin, pp 158
Prensky M (2003) Digital game-based learning. ACM Comput Entertain 1(1)
Raybourn EM (2007) Interact Comput 19:206214
Shef Y (2005) Building a resilient supply chain. Harvard Bus Rev Supply Chain Strategy 1
(5):14
Shute VJ, Ke F (2012) Games, learning, and assessment. In: Ifenthaler D, Eseryel D, Ge X
(eds) Assessment in game-based learning: foundations, innovations and perspectives. Springer,
New York, pp 4358
Srensen L.B. (2005) How risk and uncertainty is used in SC management: a literature study,
Copenhagen
Starkey K, Tempest S (2005) The future of the business school: knowledge challenges and
opportunities. Hum Relat 58(1):6182
van Oosterhout MPA, Veenstra AW, Meijer MAG, Popal N, van der Berg J (2007) Visibility
platforms for enhancing supply chain security: a case study in the port of rotterdam. Paper
presented at the the international symposium on maritime safety. Security and Enviromental
Protection, Athens, Greece
Waters D (2007) Supply chain risk management: vulnerability and resilience in logistics. Kogan
Page, London