Serious Gaming as a Vehicle for Creating Supply Chain Resiliency in the Department of Defense

In a recent white paper, my colleagues Dan Finkenstadt and Arnav Jhala wrote about a pilot project we developed for the Acquisition Innovation Research Center (AIRC), which is funded by the DoD. The Acquisition Innovation Research Center is a multi-university partnership led by the Stevens Institute of Technology and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) through the Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC)—a DoD University-Affiliated Research Center (UARC).

Our initial research sought to explore how gaming – something that is often thought about in the context of having fun – can be used for serious training. We began by exploring how gaming could help train acquisition officers in how to improve their knowledge of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).

This might sound a little “out there”….but an increasing trend has developed in the last two years where the DoD is interested how to employ gamification for training and education at all levels. It has been demonstrated that the interactivity and fidelity provided by games and simulation environments increase engagement and interest in educational topics (Vogel et al. 2006). (Think how much time young men and women spend gaming today!). The predominant practice in gamification is to design custom games for specific topics. This approach is effective in situations like flight simulators where the mapping with well-specified, precisely documented, and precision engineered real- world machines are simulated in virtual environments. In cases where there does not exist sufficient information to build close-to-realistic simulation models such as modeling adversaries in scenarios for negotiations, this simulation model does not provide a sufficient range of scenarios to be effective. There have been recent efforts to create methodologies for serious game design that are more general purpose (Blackburn and Cardona-Rivera, 2021) but these are early ideas rather than polished theories. Ke (2016) synthesized insights from 69 game-based learning articles and extracted 5 themes for effectively incorporating learning content with games. These themes relate to

1. [Game Design] the type of game-based action in terms of its connection to prior knowledge of material,
2. [Game Content] the degree of richness in the representation, simulation, and contextualization of the learning material in game actions,
3. [Educational Integration] the blended learning actions contrived by the game mechanics,
4. [Assessment] the occurrence of iterative and meta-reflective opportunities during and after gameplay, and
5. [Feedback] multi-faceted in-game scaffolding or learning support. Drawing from these themes, the AIRC gamification project (Phase I) led by NPS and NCSU covered the Game Design form through the development of a taxonomy related to game mechanics that are relevant to the skills acquired in acquisitions training. The Table below lists game mechanics and their definitions that are relevant to some aspect of acquisitions training.

Mechanics	Definitions
Communication	Active listening and clear, concise responses between two or more parties.
Conflict resolution	Process of finding a peaceful conclusion to a dispute
Deception	The act of fooling or misdirecting another person to make them believe something that is not true
Exploration	The process of gathering information or learning about an area or topic
Memory	Accurate recollection of memories information
Quests	Tasks given to player to progress towards some goal or reward.
Resource management	The process of gathering and allocating resources required for some task or goal
Scheduling	Planning and executing a procedure with respect to a set of specified events or times

We further refined the game mechanics vocabulary to incorporate some aspects of acquisitions training that are missing from the general vocabulary of games. The final 15 terms that we identified are: Communication, Logistics, Problem Solving, Resource Management, Risk Management, Planning, Coordination, Trading, Budgeting, Teamwork, Cooperation, Collaboration, Memorization, and Information Gathering. With this more refined set of terms, we analyzed 58 popular existing games across several genres to identify the mechanics that these games were best at communicating through interaction. A detailed spreadsheet with the relevant analysis is presented in the paper.

Research in game design and game studies (Bartle 96, Yee 2016, Hamari et al. 2014, Ip and Jacobs 2005) identified segmentation of players according to the types of experiences that primarily appeal to them. Bartle’s taxonomy of player types is one of the most widely adopted in the game studies literature. Bartle categorizes players into Killers, Achievers, Socializers, and Explorers. Yee and Ducheneaut look at the motivations of players and further refine Bartle’s taxonomy to include other dimensions of interest such as Immersion and Creativity.

Figure 2 – Types of Gaming Activities

Consistent with Bartle’s taxonomy, we labeled the 58 games the type of players that are supported in the play modes for these games across the 15 labels for the type of relevant acquisition skills that could be taught through these mechanics.

Based on our study of player types and game types, we chose to incorporate the development of different genre of games with acquisition and contracting curriculum as a basis for students in the game development concentration at NCSU. The game designs were chosen based on coverage of different types of skill and chance. The four game types that we chose were,

1. Pinball/Pachinko: mostly chance based reactive; short duration gameplay with high replayability
2. Endless Runner: fast paced reactive with more player control; quick multiple- choice type questions
3. Escape Room: slower paced with puzzle solving components that directly relate to curricular materials
4. Base Building Tower Defense: Dynamic pacing with resource management and strategic reasoning

This was a good start – but really fairly basic in nature. Our team believes there is a lot more to be done, that can support the idea of supply chain resiliency in the Department of Defense.

Training in the DoD

Today much of this training in the DoD is being conducted using PowerPoint-guided lectures and role-playing simulations with the enlisted training cadre at the Air Force’s enlisted technical school for contracting. Our current research is exploring the effects of gamified simulations on student learning. Our hypothesis is that gamification of these contracting lessons will make them more appealing for students to practice voluntarily during non-class time and easier to retain and recall. We believe that the core features of games make them wildly attractive to training within areas of nascent corporate knowledge. Games are defined by having goals, rules, feedback systems and voluntary participation[1].  All training, whether business-related or not, acquisition-related or not, or in areas of nascent or common understanding require a sense of purpose. Rules provide the ability to simulate worldly constraints, while allowing the player to explore ‘what-ifs’ in low-risk environments. Feedback serves to motivate continued effort and progress, and the voluntary nature of games makes them seem safe and pleasurable[2]. They also provide a means to attain satisfaction from seeing results of your decisions more immediately One can ‘achieve’ within a game more often than one typically can in a daily office activity or training class. Scores and competition between players may motivate a desire to participate in the game more often than one may wish to participate in a training class.

Serious Gaming for Scenario Advance Planning

Games are ideal for managers and officers who are faced with high-risk, tightly regulated, zero-defect environments (such as business, military and government).  These environments typically offer little room for experimentation and put a high price on failure that can stifle learning. Given such environments, the underlying paradox for business and acquisition professions is how to promote effective and deep learning in professional fields in which the conditions most supportive of learning are perceived as a risk to the ultimate mission or objective?  The answer to this paradox involves development of an environment which is decoupled from the actual operational environment, to create a learning environment where it is acceptable to make mistakes, and to learn from these mistakes.  By experiencing the types of catastrophic failures and experiences in a safe learning environment, individuals can learn how to mitigate and manage these situations, and to be more aware of their potential.

We developed several other scenarios and developed pilots for gaming in acquisition. One of these was a negotiation between a prime contractor, and a DoD Contracting Officer, for the next phase of a development for a major satellite system. We also partnered with Resilinc, and ran resiliency training for a group of USAF Procurement Officers, focused on what might happen if China invades Taiwan, and the vulnerabilities that would be exposed. There are any number of different scenarios that might be designed for a gaming environment! And this could support advance planning for the inevitable supply chain disaster, that keeps executives up at night.

Features of A Gaming Lab

Our research seeks to create a gaming lab, that could exploit the current investments being made in the E-Sports Arena by the state of North Carolina at NCSU. Such a lab would feature an integrated team of faculty, students, and subject matter experts from a variety of disciplines, including supply chain management, engineering, computer science, and political science.  This team would be engaged in the following activities:

• Engage with private and public sector companies to understand the nature of the decision environment and risks being faced, then proceed to ideate and design games and simulations and cases for applied management problems.  It is anticipated that many of these problems would involve “what if…” scenarios that involve potential supply chain disruptions, negotiation planning, contract management, supplier selection, and sourcing decisions, among others.

• Development, facilitating, testing and deployment of games and outcomes.  This activity would be conducted in a interdisciplinary environment, to ensure the right scenarios, environmental factors, narrative and dialogue, and analytical models can back up the scenarios.  Use of Generative AI will be applied in establishing these scenarios. The use of Generative AI leads to both increased creativity and efficiency. At the same time this will establish an education and training model for prompt engineering within the lab. Prompt engineering has become a burgeoning area of occupation since the proliferation of generative AI platforms in 2023.

• Provide executive education, running customized game simulations, supply chain scenarios, and preparation exercises.  Examples might include simulating a complex contract negotiation, mitigating a major disaster, understanding multi-tier supply chain risk events, and others.

• The Lab would be involved in ideation and development of gaming scenarios.  This would include interviews with managers or officers regarding the environmental factors surrounding the game, design and development using a portfolio of existing gaming frameworks, facilitation of gaming exercise, testing and deployment of game and solutions.  The lab would also engage in meaningful analysis of results and interpretation for research and future game design.

• The lab would also develop collaborative and customized game design, within the scope of a class curriculum and research design for gaming in business scenarios, defense, and public policy.  The lab would provide a safe interactive gaming and simulation space for students and faculty to run studies or volunteer as subjects, and would be integrated into the existing course curriculum.

• The lab’s goals would be focused around a commitment to advance general knowledge and theory in gamification of real-world scenarios to improve management decision-making. Data and lessons from business and public policy gaming would be published and made available for managers and policy makers.

Of course, this concept is in the initial stages. Any interested parties should feel free to contact me or Dan.

[1] McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World. Penguin Group. ISBN: 978-1-59420-285-8

[2] Ibid.