sim maasvlakte 2 - create your own future · sim maasvlakte 2 - create your own future ! port...

SIM Maasvlakte 2 - createyour own future !

Port Research Centre, Rotterdam-Delft

Een spelsimulatie over hetontwerpen en bouwen van deTweede Maasvlakte (2007-2037)

SIM Maasvlakte 2 - create your own future ! Een spelsimulatie over het ontwerpen en bouwen van de Tweede Maasvlakte (2007-2037), Januari 2007, I.S. Mayer (red.), G. Bekebrede, A.M.K. Meijer, M. van SchuylenburgMet medewerking van: J. Warmerdam, M. Knepflé

ISBN: 978-90-5638-161-5

NUR-code: 950

© Port Research Centre Rotterdam-Delft.

Gebruik van gegevens en teksten is met bronvermelding vrijelijk toegestaan. Commercieel gebruik van deze gegevens is niet toegestaan.

Voor informatie over de publicaties neem contact op met het secretariaat van het Port Research Centre Rotterdam-Delft, dr.ir. R.M. Stikkelman, e-mail: [email protected], of het Customer Service Center van het Havenbedrijf Rotterdam N.V., tel. + 31 10 252 1111.

B00

2-01

0

Eindrapportage Sim MV2

- 1 -

Voorwoord

In deze eindrapportage doen we verslag van de uitkomsten van het project SIM Maasvlak-te 2 – de computerondersteunde spelsimulatie over de bouw van de 2e Maasvlakte die de TU Delft en het HbR in de periode 2004 en 2006 hebben ontwikkeld. Dit ‘gaming project’ is voor alle betrokkenen is een bijzondere ervaring geweest. We kun-nen gerust stellen dat we de omvang, consequenties en mogelijkheden van het compu-terspel van tevoren in het geheel niet hebben voorzien. Behalve een fraai en leerzaam

computerspel heeft het project veel ‘extras’ opgeleverd. Trainings- en onderwijssessies, presentaties over en weer, wetenschappelijke artikelen en conferentiepapers, de oprich-ting van een game bedrijfje...om maar een paar spin-offs te noemen. Het dus niet vreemd dat de samenwerking rondom Sim MV2 zal worden gecontinueerd. Voor het game ‘Sim-Port’ begint het eigenlijk pas… Het project en de eindresultaten waren uiteraard niet mogelijk geweest zonder de steun,

medewerking en inspanning van een groot aantal personen en instanties. We kunnen niet iedereen persoonlijk noemen maar enkele namen en organisaties kunnen niet onvermeld blijven. Onze dank gaat allereerst uit naar de programmaraad van de TU Delft en HbR die ons in 2004 voldoende vertrouwen (en middelen) schonken om eens iets geheel nieuws te doen.

Veel dank gaat uiteraard uit naar onze contactpersonen en ‘informanten’ bij het Haven-bedrijf Rotterdam en de projectorganisatie Maasvlakte 2: Ronald Backers, Albert Doe, Jos Gommers, Jan Konter, Ruben Mangal, Jolien Paulides, Linda Ristic, Steve Sol, Victor Tim-mermans, Tiedo Vellinga, Jeroen Wortel en vele anderen. In interviews en vergaderingen

hebben ze ons keer op keer geduldig uitgelegd ‘hoe je nu zo’n haven bouwt’ en ons alle informatie ter beschikking gesteld die we nodig hadden om het spel te maken. Anne-Kirsten Meijer, Jan-Willem Koeman en Maurits van Schuijlenburg ontpopten zich als ware product champions binnen en buiten het HbR en hadden veel geduld met ons wanneer het allemaal weer eens langzamer ging dan gepland.

Maxim Knepfle and Jeroen Warmerdam, derdejaars studenten informatica aan de TU Delft en nu de trotse eigenaren van Tygron, bleken zeer professionele en onvermoeibare pro-grammeurs. Net afgestudeerd in Industrieel Ontwerpen aan de TU Delft, ontwierp Tjhien Liao de interfaces van de eerste versies van het spel. We koesteren dierbare herinneringen aan zijn ‘champagnefles’. Zijn collega’s Hasso Schaap en Edwin Branbergen ontwierpen de interfaces van de latere versies. Onze voormalige TBM studenten, Gijs Buijsrogge en

Teun Veldhuizen waren onmisbaar bij het uitzoeken en uitwerken van de vele details in het spelontwerp. Tot slot, gaat onze dank uit naar de inmiddels honderden spelers, studenten en professionals. We hebben minstens zoveel van hen geleerd als zij van ons – al was het alleen maar hoe we het spel steeds iets beter en mooier konden maken. Igor Mayer

Geertje Bekebrede Maurits van Schuijlenburg


- 2 -

Inhoudsopgave

Voorwoord................................................................................................................................................1 Inhoudsopgave .......................................................................................................................................2 Spelend leren over de complexiteit van de 2e Maasvlakte..........................................................3 Achtergrond.............................................................................................................................................3 Sim MV 2: een korte terugblik ...............................................................................................................3 Overige resultaten van het project .....................................................................................................5

Hoe verder?..............................................................................................................................................6 Bijlage 1 – user manual...........................................................................................................................9 Bijlage 2 – artikel ....................................................................................................................................34 Bijlage 3 Resultaten Enquetes SIM MV2/Sim Port ............................................................................60


- 3 -

Spelend leren over de complexiteit van de 2e Maasvlakte Achtergrond

In de periode mei 2004 – september 2006 heeft het CPS, een gaming center van de facul-teit Techniek, Bestuur en Management (TBM) van de TU Delft, in nauwe samenwerking met het Havenbedrijf Rotterdam (HbR) een computerondersteunde spelsimulatie ontwikkeld

over de bouw en uitgifte van de 2e Maasvlakte. De ontwikkeling van de spelsimulatie was onderdeel van de samenwerkingsovereenkomst tussen de TU Delft en het Rotterdamse Havenbedrijf. Inmiddels is het project ‘SIM MV2’ succesvol beëindigd…maar nog niet geëindigd ! Vanaf januari 2006 tot op de dag van vandaag zijn we (in overleg met onze gesprekspartners van HbR) buiten de financiering vanuit het samenwerkingsverband om (in de vorm van

zgn bachelorprojecten en eigen investeringen) volop bezig geweest met de doorontwik-keling en disseminatie van de Sim Mv2. De nieuwste versie van het spel is SimPort (www.simport.nl) genoemd om recht te doen aan de uitgebreide functionaliteiten en toe-passingen. In deze eindrapportage doen we beknopt verslag van wat we hebben gedaan en bereikt en schetsen we de contouren van een mogelijk vervolg. De gesprekken tussen TBM, HbR

en Tygron daarover zijn inmiddels gaande. We staan open voor continuering van de in-breng vanuit het samenwerkingsverband. Doel van het vervolg is om de opvolger van Sim MV2, op grotere schaal te verspreiden en te gebruiken voor leer- en strategische doelein-den van HbR, TU Delft en anderen. Gezien de omvang van het project en de reikwijdte van het eindproduct – het spel en de spelsessies - en de vele data en inzichten die spel en

spelsessies hebben opgeleverd is, hebben we bijlagen toegevoegd die meer inzicht geven in eindproduct en deelresultaten. • Bijlage 1: De manual van het spel SimPort (de opvolger van Sim MV2) geeft inzicht in

het eindproduct dat is ontwikkeld (bijlage 1). • Bijlage 2: Het artikel Build your sea port in a game – and learn about complex systems,

geeft een eerste indruk van de wetenschappelijke inbedding en resultaten van het project. Als gevolg van de lange doorlooptijd bij uitgevers is het artikel gebaseerd op de inzichten en stand van zaken van ruime 1 jaar geleden. Het artikel is inmiddels ver-schenen in het Journal of Design Research 2006 (2): 273-298, in een special issue over Gaming for Engineering Education.

• Bijlage 3: Inmiddels zijn veel meer data en evaluatiegegevens beschikbaar dan ver-

werkt in het bovengenoemde artikel. De tabellen in bijlage 3 presenteren de evaluatie-resultaten. De schat aan gegevens uit computermodel en evaluaties worden op dit moment verder geanalyseerd en maken deel uit van het proefschrift over Gaming en Complex Infrastructures van Geertje Bekebrede (einddatum april 2008). In de tussentijd zullen uiteraard meer artikelen en conferentiepapers worden gepubliceerd.

• Bijlage 4: een CD rom met film van het spel. Deze kan ook worden bekeken op

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm1zZzb7cDUkan een filmimpressie van het eind-product, SimPort, worden bekeken.

Sim MV 2: een korte terugblik

De ontwikkeling van de spelsimulatie Sim-MV2 is voor beide partijen, TU Delft en HbR, een

uitdagend maar ook erg leuk en leerzaam traject geweest. Bij de ontwikkeling van de spelsimulatie zijn diverse personen van het HbR (afdeling strategie en PMV2) en van de TU


- 4 -

Delft (secties beleidskunde, systeemkunde, studenten EWI en IO) betrokken. Voor een na-dere beschrijving van de spelsimulatie willen we hier volstaan met een verwijzing naar de handleiding van het spel (zie Bijlage 1). De CPS website www.cps.tbm.tudelft.nl (ga naar SimMV2 en Sim Port) bevat vele foto’s die een leuke impressie geven van het spel en de sessies die tot nu toe met studenten en HbR medewerkers zijn gehouden. Via de website is

de manual (zie ook bijlage 2) te downloaden en kan de film worden bekeken.

Sim MV2 is als volgt tot stand gekomen. Op basis van vele vergaderingen, brainstormsessies en interviews met betrokkenen van het HbR zijn in de periode augustus 2004 – mei 2005 alle

relevante processen m.b.t. bouw en uitgifte van MV2 beschreven, geanalyseerd en daar-na verwerkt tot een spelsimulatie- concept. Het HbR heeft daarvoor informatie en gege-vens ter beschikking gesteld – klantprofielen, business case, strategieën, bouwgegevens, kaarten etcetera, zodat we het spel zo realistisch en betrouwbaar mogelijk konden maken. Uiteraard zijn in het uiteindelijke spel veel processen en gegevens vereenvoudigd, geano-

nimiseerd en waar nodig verlevendigd. De conceptualisatie – d.w.z. de stap van werkelijk-heid naar spelontwerp – bleek echter moeilijker en tijdrovender dan aanvankelijk gepland. Bovendien bleek al snel dat ook de technische realisatie van het spelontwerp veel meer manuren zou gaan vragen dan begroot. Pas omstreeks mei 2005 kon daarom de stap ge-maakt worden naar de technische realisatie van het computermodel – het eigenlijke pro-grammeerwerk. Het technische deel van het spel – het zogenaamde computermodel – is

uiteindelijk tijdens de zomermaanden van 2005 gerealiseerd door 2 studenten Informatica (EWI) en 1 student Industrieel Ontwerpen (IO), aanvankelijk samen met een Aio van de sectie systeemkunde van TBM. Dankzij de grote inzet van de studenten konden we in au-gustus 2005 de 1.0 (of bèta) versie van de spelsimulatie met medewerkers van het HbR uit-proberen. Hoewel er nog kinderziektes optraden en er duidelijke punten voor verbetering en aanpassing werden gevonden, bleek de spelsimulatie vrij stabiel, leuk en leerzaam. In

de periode augustus-december 2005 zijn daarom in een fase 2 van het project belangrijke verbeteringen aangebracht in het computermodel. Vanaf december 2005 is de 2.0 versie van Sim Mv2, 15 keer in het onderwijs van de TU Delft ingezet; aangezien per sessie 2 of 3 teams van 5 of 6 personen deelnemen hebben inmiddels zo’n 150 studenten van TBM en Civiele Techniek de spelsimulatie met veel enthousiasme gespeeld. De spelsessies met stu-denten werden voorafgegaan door een inhoudelijk gastcollege over het project MV2

door een van de betrokkenen van het HbR. Daarnaast hebben we de spelsimulatie na de eerste life test in augustus 2005, nog 4 keer met professionals van diverse afdelingen van het HbR gespeeld: in totaal hebben zo’n 50 personen van diverse afdelingen van het HbR (PMV2, CZ, Infrastructuur, Strategie, Containers en Stukgoed) aan de spelsimulatie deelge-nomen. De opvolger van Sim MV2 (zie hieronder) is inmiddels 1 keer met 3 teams gespeeld.

Figuur 1: impressie van sessies met HbR (rechts) en studenten (links)


- 5 -

Overige resultaten van het project

Alle sessies met studenten en professionals die tot nu toe zijn gehouden zijn uitgebreid geë-

valueerd via vragenlijsten. Daarnaast geeft het computermodel in het spel een schat aan detailinformatie over beslissingen en overwegingen van de spelers – en laten de visualisa-ties de resultaten ervan zien, bijvoorbeeld in kaarten van de 2e Maasvlakte in 2036. De resultaten van de evaluaties zijn positief en worden naarmate het computermodel sta-bieler werd en de spelleiding meer ervaring kreeg steeds positiever. De globale resultaten van de evaluaties (antwoorden op de enquête achteraf) worden gepresenteerd in bijlage

2. Bij latere sessies zijn ook vragenlijsten vooraf afgenomen, maar de resultaten daarvan hebben we hier niet opgenomen. Alle data en gegevens worden op dit moment geanalyseerd. De evaluatie is er niet alleen op gericht om de spelsimulatie voortdurend te kunnen verbeteren, maar maakt ook deel uit van het TBM / CPS onderzoek naar spelsimulaties (in relatie tot leren en complexe sys-

temen). De spelsimulatie en de resultaten van de sessies en evaluaties worden o.a. ge-bruikt voor een promotieonderzoek naar gaming (van ir. Geertje Bekebrede). Dit proef-schrift zal naar verwachting rond 2008 verschijnen. In het najaar van 2006 is een artikel verschenen met resultaten van het spel verschenen in een special issue over Gaming for Design van het Journal of Design Research. Een ruwe tekstversie van dit artikel is opgenomen in de bijlage. (Om redenen van copyright hebben

we niet de definitieve versie opgenomen maar deze is uiteraard via de bibliografische ge-gevens via Internet te downloaden.) De 2 studenten die het computermodel hebben geprogrammeerd zijn nog steeds nauw betrokken bij het project. Als gevolg van hun kennismaking met deze vorm van gaming zijn zij een eigen bedrijfje begonnen – Tygron, serious games & media. Twee studenten indu-strieel ontwerpen hebben rond de zomer van 2006, de verbeterde interfaces van SimPort

ontworpen. Ook zij zijn nog steeds betrokken bij de verdere ontwikkeling van het spel. Tygron heeft product Sim MV2 in belangrijke mate ‘geadopteerd’ en vanaf januari 2006 veel eigen tijd en studiepunten in de uitontwikkeling van het computermodel gestopt. De-ze extra inspanningen (buiten het project fase 2) hebben o.a. geresulteerd in een geheel nieuwe 3.0 versie van het computermodel (waarover later meer). Deze is vanwege de uit-gebreidere functionaliteiten en toepassingen is omgedoopt tot Sim Port. In de nieuwste

versie is het namelijk in principe mogelijk om met beperkte tijd en inspanning ook andere havens (Antwerpen?) of andere infrastructuren (luchthaven in zee?) te plannen en bou-wen. Inmiddels zijn HbR, CPS en Tygron bezig met de ontwikkeling van een website www.simport.nl over het spel.


- 6 -

Tot slot kunnen we vermelden dat er in de loop der tijd diverse presentaties zijn gegeven in binnen en buitenland over het spel o.a. op de internationale havenconferentie in Rotter-dam en diverse internationale bijeenkomsten over games & learning (Surf / Alt, Digra, Isaga etc.) en een symposium over Spelend Leren in Virtuele Werelden, die we op 17 oktober

2006 in de aula van de TU-Delft hebben gehouden (180 deelnemers). SimPort is bovendien gepresenteerd op de in het kader van SPRINT georganiseerde bijeenkomst ‘Vliegende Hol-landers - Science & Technology Summit 2006’. De bijeenkomst heeft plaatsgevonden op woensdag 15 november in de Passengers Terminal in Amsterdam. Voor het komende jaar zijn nieuwe sessies in het onderwijs gepland en zullen zich naar verwachting binnen en buiten het HbR, mensen en organisaties bij ons melden om het spel

te spelen – in het kader van regulier hoger onderwijs, trainingen, post doctoraal onderwijs over bijvoorbeeld project management of havenontwikkeling, workshops en conferenties of voor team building. Diverse organisaties hebben inmiddels hun belangstelling laten blij-ken.

Hoe verder?

De nieuwste versie ‘SimPort’ [die op dit moment in het eindstadium van ontwikkeling is door ‘de jongens van Tygron’ en waarmee inmiddels 1 keer is gespeeld] biedt ten opzicht van Sim MV2 de volgende extra mogelijkheden, functionaliteiten en features.

� Het technische systeem is veel stabieler, sneller, eenvoudig te installeren en te versprei-den op een CD rom of eventueel via een website.

� De look and feel van het hele spel zijn sterk verbeterd en geprofessionaliseerd. Hierdoor is de user interactie veel beter en sneller.

� De kaartfunctionaliteiten zijn voor de gebruiker veel makkelijker te bedienen [het inte-kenen!]

� De weergave van de haven is in 3D, met een hoge mate van realisme. � Bestaande modules en data [klanten, kaarten, bouwtijden] zijn eenvoudig aan te pas-

sen of te actualiseren. � Er zijn eenvoudig nieuwe modules met nieuwe data en functionaliteiten in het compu-

termodel te voegen. � Het is mogelijk om binnen verschillende omgevingsscenario’s te spelen. De economi-

sche groei van diverse sectoren kan bijvoorbeeld met % worden ingesteld. � In principe kan de basisstructuur van het spel en het model worden aangepast naar

verschillende havens en/of lay outs. Kaarten van bestaande of nieuwe havens kunnen worden ‘geladen’. Het is dus mogelijk om de haven van Antwerpen, Hamburg of Sin-gapore te bouwen of om verschillende designs van MV2 uit te proberen.

� Het systeem kan verder worden uitontwikkeld zodat ook andere infrastructuren zoals

een luchthaven [in zee!] in het spel kan worden gepland en gebouwd. Figuur 1: impressie van de nieuwe user interfaces


- 7 -

Universiteiten zijn in het verleden onvoldoende in staat gebleken om de resultaten van on-derzoek en ontwikkelde (half)producten ook daadwerkelijk tot benutting en toegevoegde waarde te brengen. Disseminatie en opschaling van innovaties en best practices vindt on-

voldoende plaats. De TU Delft hecht daarom toenemende waarde aan kennisvalorisatie: economische en maatschappelijke benutting van kennis. Ook in het wetenschappelijk onderwijs en op het gebied van post academische trainingen (e-learning) wordt het wiel vaak meerdere keren uitgevonden. Simulaties en games staan op dit moment sterk in de belangstelling maar er zijn weinig hoogwaardige producten be-schikbaar. ‘Opschaling’ van goede producten en best practices staat sterk in de belang-

stelling van stimuleringsprogramma’s. Naar de stellige overtuiging van de ontwikkelaars biedt de nieuwste versie van ‘Sim Port’ veel kansen en mogelijkheden voor verdere verspreiding en gebruik binnen en buiten het HbR/TU-Delft. We zien kansen om SimPort professioneel aan te bieden aan een markt die men name bestaat uit:

� Interne opleiding / recruitment etc: huidige of nieuwe medewerkers van het HbR. � HbR PR: Contacten, klanten of relaties van het HbR en of TU Delft. � Strategieontwikkeling / pr: Andere havenbedrijven of havenontwikkelaars, Amsterdam,

Antwerpen � Onderwijs: Delftse faculteiten zoals Civiele Techniek, Maritieme techniek etc.

� Onderwijs: andere hoger onderwijsinstellingen, met name engineering opleidingen (Eindhoven, Twente), (technische) bedrijfs- en bestuurskunde, projectmanagement op-leidingen etc.

� Trainingen: Post academisch onderwijs: trainingen en cursussen projectmanagement,


- 8 -

procesmanagement, management en strategie, opleidingen voor ingenieurs. � Internationaal: Soortgelijke opleidingen in het buitenland. � Beleidsontwikkeling / strategie: Tijdelijke of permanente publiek/private organisaties die

zich bezig houden met havenontwikkeling of vergelijkbare infrastructurele projecten. � Workshops en conferenties

� PR: Brede publiek als voorlichting / communicatiemiddel bijv. aangepaste variant via website.

Op dit moment zijn TU Delft, Tygron en HbR de opschaling van SimPort aan het verkennen. De contouren daarvan zijn als volgt: De verspreiding en PR van SimPort zal geschieden via een website SimPort.nl. De website zal een groot aantal functionaliteiten bevatten die de

organisatie, verkoop, inleiding, installatie en debriefing zal ondersteunen: � Meer over het project MV2 en havens – documentatie, video, animaties, video-

instructie of college etc. Dit materiaal is zelfstandig te gebruiken voor case studies in het onderwijs in combinatie met het spel.

� Verkrijgen van het spel – licentie, verkoop, trainingen etc. � Organiseren van sessies – planning, tips, instructies m.n. voor docenten, trainers. � Train the trainer sessies / gebruikersgroep. � Technisch: installatie, helpdesk, FAQ etc. � Toolkit – downloads zoals user manual, magneet bord. � Chatt en discussie over spel en case MV2/ havenontwikkeling / strategie.

Op basis van de ervaringen van gebruikers en nieuwe klantvragen zal het product moeten worden onderhouden en kan het worden uitgebreid. Sim Port zal daarom actief op zoek gaan naar mogelijkheden voor verdere ontwikkeling, toepassing en uitbreiding. Te denken valt aan de ontwikkeling van vergelijkbare spellen voor bijvoorbeeld Schiphol of andere infrastructurele projecten. Een website variant van het spel kan worden ontwikkeld voor

communicatie en PR doeleinden van HbR. Deze kan worden gehost of gelinkt aan de re-guliere website van het HbR en relevante projecten. Steun vanuit het samenwerkingsver-band voor de continuering van dit project of het verkennen en opstarten van andere sa-menwerkingsprojecten op het gebied van gaming / havens zouden we zeer op prijs stel-len.


- 9 -

Bijlage 1 – user manual


- 10 -

SIM Maasvlakte 2 – create your own future!

A simulation game to design and implement

the 2nd Maasvlakte (2007–2037)

User manual version 3.1

Game version 2.1

Date: September 2006


- 11 -

Introduction

Dear player,

SIM Port is a computer-supported simulation game that mimics the real processes involved

in planning, equipping and exploiting the Second Maasvlakte (MV2) in the Port of Rotter-dam. Briefly, the Second Maasvlakte is a port expansion project to be situated on newly reclaimed land adjacent to the existing port area.

The simulation game is, in the first place, meant for staff of the Port of Rotterdam. But its emphasis on strategizing, project management and teamwork make it appropriate for others as well, such as (master’s degree) students and (young) professionals as part of their

education or training courses.

The game requires no specific prior knowledge of sea ports or of the Maasvlakte. But obvi-ously players’ interest and willingness to explore this subject area using the simulation game would be helpful.

This instruction manual explains how the game is played. Players wanting to learn more about the background of the Second Maasvlakte (and how the real situation was trans-

lated into the game scenario) are encouraged to start reading the additional information about the Second Maasvlakte.

A serious challenge

The players (in teams of 3-6 persons) are faced with a tough and serious challenge: realize the Second Maasvlakte!

The task is as follows:

Make individually and collectively the appropriate planning and implementation

decisions to lead to satisfactory design and exploitation of the Second Maasvlakte

(1,000 ha) over a 30-year period.

Aims The Port of Rotterdam has three aims with SIM Port:

1. Gain better insight into any unforeseen, undesirable and unintentional effects of one or more development strategies and design variations in the medium term (10-30 years) as a result of exogenous uncertainties (economic, market, technological) and due to strategic behavior of the parties involved.

2. Stimulate holistic and multidisciplinary thinking within the Port of Rotterdam on com-mercial and technical/infrastructural considerations, interests and choices.

3. Improve the results of negotiations with respect to contracts (customers) and equip-ment (infrastructure) in the port area.


- 12 -

Version 2.1

These instructions accompany version 2.1 of SIM Port. The simulation game has now reached a stage where it can be used in practice. Although utmost care has been taken in developing the game, (technical) problems may still occur at this stage. Comments and

suggestions for improvements are welcome and can be sent to [email protected] or [email protected].

SIM Port in short

Number of players: minimum 3 players with a maximum of 6

How to play: In teams, partly interacting with the simulation model, but also with a good deal of discussion and communication among the players. The game is played in one room.

Duration: 5 to 8 hours

Competition: A number of teams can play against each other. The winner is then determined by comparing the outcomes and results of the different teams after the game’s completion.

Passage of time: The speed at which time passes and the starting year are set be-forehand by the game leader. The starting year is 2007. The simula-

tion time begins to run after round 1, in which the players choose their strategies. During the game, time passes steadily over a period of 30 years. The current date in the simulation game (month and year) is always displayed on screen for the participants to see.

Evaluations: Internal team evaluations are conducted after each 10-year period,

to assess progress in the game and players’ interim performance.

Debriefing: After completion of the game, an overall evaluation is conducted covering strategy, procedures, collaboration and the end-result. Les-sons are drawn for application in the real world.

Computers: The simulation game is played on 3 laptop computers connected in a local network. Each ‘role’ in the game has the use of 1 laptop. The players enter their own decisions into the computers (in as far as pos-sible). The installation and operation of the equipment, as well as support and clarifications during the game, is done by a game ad-ministrator (at least 1 per team).

Other - Magnetic planning board (part of SIM MV2). equipment: - Maps (A3 - A0) of the port (part of SIM MV2).

- Overhead projector (1 per team). - White board or flipover (1 per team). - Projection screen (1 per team).

- Instructions (this manual).


- 13 -

- Writing materials. - Spacious meeting room with tables and chairs. - Internet connection. - Game leaders and game administrators.

Roles The game is played in teams. Collectively, the (fictive) ‘management team’ (3-6 persons)

from the Port of Rotterdam (HbR) possesses virtually all of the responsibilities and compe-tencies to plan, coordinate and implement the decisions necessary to build, equip and exploit the MV2 in the coming years. The management team works under the supervision of the General Director and is further made up of one or more directors from the Commercial Department and the Infrastructure

and Management Department. Each of the three roles has the use of one of the laptops. Players use the laptops to input their decisions into the simulation game. Thus, two (or more) persons can play one role together, though this means they will use the same laptop. To make it easier to look up information during the game, each team is also given a reference document containing all of the customer and strategy information.

All decisions that are physically possible (in the simulation!) and within legal and ethical boundaries are implemented straight away. Players wanting to confer with parties not ac-tively represented in the game – for example, a minister – can direct their questions to the game leader who, in as far as possible, will take on the role for a short time.

The players in a team are strongly dependent on one another. Some of the players’ re-sponsibilities overlap. A good division of tasks and coordination is therefore crucial. Roles and tasks at the start of the game are delegated as follows:

General is responsible for the strategy and the internal functioning of the

Director: team, including coordination and collaboration among team mem-bers, long-term vision, making any adjustments in course in response to interim performance evaluations, overseeing contracts, chairing team evaluations, contacts with the game leader and inputting stra-tegic decisions to the computer.

Commercial is responsible for commercial processes such as acquisition Director: and negotiations with customers and inputting commercial decisions

into the computer. Director of Infra- is responsible for the whole process of building, equipping and Management: and exploitation of the port, including planning the construction,

starting up the building packages and placing customers on the map.

Several players can play one of the abovementioned roles together. To distribute the pres-

sure of work and hectic periods more evenly across the three roles, players are allowed to


- 14 -

(temporarily) reorganize the division of tasks at any point during the course of the game. A general director can, for example, (temporarily) assist a commercial director by conduct-ing negotiations with customers. However, the team should inform the game leader, pref-erably in advance, of any changes in role divisions.

Play rounds The game starts with instructions and an introduction to the simulation model provided by

the game leader. The game is played in 4 rounds, each lasting a minimum of 1 hour. At the end of the second and third rounds, short team evaluations are conducted of overall pro-gress and interim performance. The team itself takes charge of the evaluations and of im-plementing any improvements considered necessary. Round 1: Determining the building and commercial strategies and drawing up

an allocation plan. Time stands still in this round (2007). Round 2: First period of 10 years (2007-17). The building process must be started

and the first negotiations with customers can be conducted. In year 2016 an update on performance is provided.

Team evaluation: Based on the internal team evaluation, the players can make adjust-ments in role division, strategy, etc.

Round 3: Second period of 10 years (2017-27). The building process is complete,

negotiations with customers are in full swing, and customers are being

assigned land in the port. In 2027 another performance update is given. Again the players can fine-tune the process.

Team evaluation: Based on the internal team evaluation, the players can make adjust-

ments in role division, strategy, etc.

Round 4: Third and last period of 10 years (2027-37). In 2037 a performance up-date is given.

Debriefing: Once the game is completed an evaluation is conducted on aspects such as strategy, processes, collaboration and end-result. Lessons are drawn for application in the real world.

The rest of this manual goes into more detail on how the game is played using illustrations of the different game screens (interfaces).


- 15 -

Game play

Starting screen

Figure 1. Starting screen

Assistant text

Hi, Your team’s objective is to realize and optimize the performance of the Maasvlakte II area over a period of 30 years. We are your advisors and will give you some support. Please enter your team’s name. Then assign roles among the team members. You can opt for General Director, Commercial Director or Build-ing Director. Just click on one of the three advisors to attribute one of the roles to

each of the laptops.

At the start of the game, the players think up a name for their team and enter it into the computer: for example, ‘professional port planners’. Once the name has been entered, it appears at the top of the screen of all of the 3 game laptops. Assigning roles to the laptops

Each of the 3 laptops must be given one of the roles. You do this by clicking on one of the

persons. The game cannot begin before all of the roles are correctly assigned. During the game, decisions made are entered into these laptops.


- 16 -

Logbook (game log)

During the game, a logbook records all important decisions and incoming messages by the simulation time (month and year). The logbook enables the players and assistants to follow exactly what a player in a team did at any particular point in time. The logbook also

provides the basis for the evaluations both during the game and upon its completion. To open the logbook you have to click on the news flash at the bottom of the screen.

Time

A time appears at the top of the screen (see Figure 2) showing the current month and year of the simulation time. The game leaders set the speed at which time passes and the begin

year before the start of the game. Time is at a standstill during round 1. This is the strategy phase! The clock starts only at the beginning of phase 2. The game leaders and the team decide together when to initiate round 2. The game leaders can pause time temporarily during the play, for example, for evaluations or breaks.

Main menu The main menu appears in the upper part of the screen and displays the tab choices for

the following pages (see Figure 2): 1. Strategy

2. Building

3. Negotiation

4. Customer

5. Performance

6. Tools(only for game leaders)

Figure 2. Navigating using the tabs

The Strategy page plays an important role in round 1. During this so-called ‘strategy phase’, time is at a standstill. The General Director inputs the decisions about the building strategy, the commercial strategy and the port allocation plan. The strategy page also provides a dynamic overview of the map of the Second Maasvlakte. The Building page plays an important role from round 2 onwards. It is on this page that

building activities are initiated and land is allocated to customers. The Building Director en-ters the major building decisions into the computer on this page. The Negotiation page plays a key role during rounds 1 to 4. This is where customer informa-tion is presented, negotiations are conducted and contracts settled with customers. The

Commercial Director enters the main commercial decisions on this page. The Customer page is relevant during rounds 2 to 4. This page shows the satisfaction of the contracted clients.


- 17 -

The Performance page is important during rounds 2 to 4. Players may review their perform-ance at any time during the game. The data is updated in each simulation year. On the Tools page the game leaders can start the game anew.

Strategy page

Figure 3. The strategy page Assistant text

Hi. You are now in the strategy phase. Define your team’s building and commer-cial strategies and draw up an allocation plan! For more information click on a strategy. Make a decision by selecting one building and one commercial strat-egy. The building strategy selection is final and cannot be changed. You will have a chance to change your commercial strategy later. You must also draw

up a port allocation plan. Good luck!

Menu

The strategy page menu has 3 parts: 1. Building strategy

2. Commercial strategy

3. Allocation plan


- 18 -

The strategy phase (round 1) is concluded once the team has made its strategic choices and entered them into the computer. Only then does the game leader start the simulation time. During the strategy phase, players may consult the pages related to the building process – the Building page – and the commercial process – the Customer page.

Building strategy

Under building strategy, the team chooses one of the four building strategies. Each build-ing strategy is made up of various ‘building packages’, which lead to the complete realiza-tion of the Second Maasvlakte. The number of building packages differs per strategy, from a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 11. The starting date and the desired date of completion

for the various building packages in the chosen strategy are determined from round 2 on-ward. To assist in planning, each team has a magnetic planning board at its disposal. More information about the strategies and the building packages becomes visible with a click of the mouse on the strategy of interest.

The 4 building strategies are as follows: 1. Fast forward: 2 building packages, quick but little flexibility. 2. Carrying on, but not rushing it: 5 building packages, a compromise between speed

and flexibility. 3. Maximum flexibility: 11 building packages, maximum flexibility but slow and demand-

ing in terms of coordination. 4. All at one go: 4 building packages, the outermost contours of the project are directly

placed in their definitive location. The explanatory texts from the simulation game are presented in the text boxes below.

Fast forward: The Maasvlakte II area will be built in large work packages. This creates a synergy that leads to substantial savings in both time and money. No time is wasted tendering the various building activities to different contractors. The Maasvlakte II area will be operational and generating revenues a.s.a.p.! However, more building materials will be needed to build the project’s outer contours and for land reclamation. Keep in mind that once you have started, the building process cannot be stopped and main-

tenance costs will have to be paid even if the land is not being used.

Carrying on, but not rushing it! The work modules that will be tendered are somewhat smaller in size than those in “fast forward”. This gives more flexibility during the construc-tion of the port. Unexpected events and delays can be managed to some degree. More coordination is needed from the Port of Rotterdam to fine-tune the execution of the various building packages. The combination of activities leads to scale advantages and cost reductions. However, the prolonged building time means that port capacity is lower but costs are higher. This implies that the first containers will cross the quays later

resulting in a delay of income.

Maximum flexibility. All building activities are tendered and started separately. This gives maximum flexibility in the expansion of the port. Plans and schedules can be adapted to changing circumstances and market demands. Contractor prices can be negotiated and adapted. However, the building process requires intensive coordina-

tion by the Port of Rotterdam.


- 19 -

All at one go! The construction of the Maasvlakte II is not separated into two phases. In-stead, the outer contours and main infrastructure are built ‘all at one go’. In the long run, this saves time and money. Keep in mind that the outer contour (phase two) can be built only after environmental compensations have been agreed. Also, the future

evolution of the customer market for the Port of Rotterdam is highly uncertain.

Choice of a building strategy

The team chooses one of the 4 strategies and provides reasons for its choice in the text box provided. By ‘signing’ the official strategy document, the team’s choice of building strat-egy becomes definitive. Changes are no longer possible.

Assistant text Signing this document authorizes the execution of this building strategy. Once a build-ing strategy has been chosen it CANNOT be changed later. Provide reasons for your

choice and then sign the document.

Commercial strategy

Under commercial strategy the team chooses one of the two commercial strategies. 1. Come as they may! For every customer a suitable solution is sought. 2. On top of things! The port authority sets a number of criteria with which customers must

comply to get a contract.


- 20 -

Figure 4: Choice of a commercial strategy

Come as they may! Because it is highly uncertain if and when customers will want to locate in the MV2 area, your commercial and allocation plans (blueprints) are flexible, adaptable and loose. Yes, they give guidance. But there are no rigid criteria for such decisions as tak-ing on customers and allocating land. All customers are treated like kings! Land allocation is determined ad hoc, based on customer preferences and commercial interests. All cus-tomers are seriously considered, even unusual ones and those that don’t seem to fit the blueprint. There is no policy regarding ‘land options’. Distribution is tailored to customers’ needs. Agreements on cargo assurances (transfer per hectare per sector) do not play an

important role. They certainly would not constitute a reason to break off negotiations.

On top of things! Customers wanting to locate in the MV2 area must meet your criteria and conditions on matters such as deep-sea activities, cargo assurances and minimal returns. Your allocation plans and blueprints are binding. The criteria are important enough to war-rant rejection of potential customers or breaking off negotiations. Your team proactively searches out companies that best meet the plans and criteria. You have a policy on land options. Options are valid only for a set time period and only on a ‘first choice’ basis. Cargo assurances (transfer per hectare per sector) are important. Companies that do not meet

the assurance level pay a minimum price.

Choice of a commercial strategy

The team chooses one of the 2 commercial strategies and provides reasons for its choice in the text box (as for the building strategy). The choice of commercial strategy has no direct


- 21 -

quantitative repercussions in the simulation model. By ‘signing’ the document, the team’s choice becomes final. Unlike the building strategy, the commercial strategy can be changed, for example, in response to team evaluations.

Assistant text Provide further details about the chosen strategy in the text box. Provide reasons for your choice and then sign the document. Signing this document authorizes implementation of this commercial strategy. It will be possible to change your commercial strategy later.

Allocation plan

During the strategy phase an allocation plan is drawn up. The allocation plan indicates which clusters of businesses are to be situated in which locations. During the game, the

team may deviate from this plan. The allocation plan is made by shading locations of the map in a desired color, with different colors representing different business sectors (see Fig-ure 5). The master plan is opened by clicking on the vertical ‘master plan’ tab.

Figure 5. Drawing up the allocation plan To assign an area to a certain type of client, first, select the client type in the list on the right side of the screen. Then click on the area you want to assign to the function. The area gets the color of the function. If you want to change, select a new type and click on the area

again. Colors represent functions as follows:


- 22 -

• Containers: red • Chemicals: green • Distribution: yellow • Alternative: blue • Other (still to be filled in): dark gray

Ultimately, a function must be assigned to all of the areas.

Building page The building page has two important activities:

1. Selecting and commencing building activities

2. Assigning land to customers

Commencing building activities

In the building phase, the building packages are set into motion. The Building Director first selects the building package desired, and then inputs the required data: starting date for building and the speed – normal or fast – of implementation (see Figure 6).


- 23 -

Figure 6. Starting a building package

In some cases the date on which a building package can begin depends on the comple-tion of earlier building packages! Assigning land to customers/putting customers on the map

During the negotiations with customers, players must ascertain where a customer wants to be situated and where they can in fact be placed on the map. The location chosen must comply with Infrastructure and Management Department criteria, on the one hand, and commercial criteria, on the other. 1. Click first on a customer in the list of ‘contracted customers’: Figure 7 shows the map on

which players earlier assigned functions to the different areas. Players can zoom in and out using the plus and minus sign below the map or with the scroll function on the mouse. 2. Select the start date of building and the build speed and press plan building. 3. By clicking on with the left mouse button on the map the area is selected. If you hold the button and move with the mouse, you can easily select a bigger area. At the bottom of


- 24 -

the picture the size of the selected area is given. This has to correspond with the contrac-tea area size. If the selected area is too big, you can remove a part by holding the alt but-ton on the keyboard and clicking with the left mouse button. 4. After drawing the area you have to click on ‘Build Building’ and the area is reserved for the client. After the finish dat you can see the building on the area.

Figure 7. Putting customers on the map

A distribution center has to be built before distribution customers can be placed on the map. The building of a distribution center is the same as placing a new customer on the map. Once a distribution center is available, distribution customers will be added auto-matically in a distribution center. But the building director has to start the distribution client.

Click on a distribution customer in the contracted client list, define the start date and start. In addition to the building packages and placing clients on the map, 4 other projects must be initiated in the building phase: 1. A rail service center (not yet possible)

2. A chemical logistics service center (not yet possible) 3. An inland shipping terminal (not yet possible) 4. A distribution center By clicking on a center, more information on it appears on the screen.


- 25 -

Negotiation page The simulation model contains names and information on more than a hundred potential ‘customers’ divided among 4 sectors: 1. containers

2. chemicals

3. distribution

4. Other (alternative), including unusual and special customers! On the customer page five actions can be performed: 1. requesting information from potential customers

2. viewing incoming messages from customers

3. contacting a customer

4. negotiating with customers/making a counteroffer

5. settling/signing a contract

1. Requesting information from potential customers

Information on (potential) customers is presented, alphabetically or by sector, in two lists: The long list: contains the names and summarized data on all of the companies included in the simulation model (see Figure 8).


- 26 -

Figure 8. Long list with information on customers presented below the list

The short list: contains names and data on the companies that have sent a request to the management team or with which the players have themselves sought contact.

More information on a company becomes visible with a click of the mouse on the com-pany’s name (see Figure 8).

Assistant text Hi, You are now on the customer page. The long list provides the names of all ‘sleeping’ companies in the game. Sleeping companies can be contacted. This puts them on your short list. Companies might also contact you and thus appear on your short list. The short list is an overview of all ‘active’ accounts and established contacts. By clicking on a cus-

tomer’s name on the short list, you can start negotiations and settle contracts. Good luck!


- 27 -

Assistant text Hi, The long list provides the names of all ‘sleeping’ companies in the game. Click on a name for more information about it. You can contact sleeping companies on the long list.

They will then appear on your short list of active accounts and contacts.

2. Viewing incoming customer messages

Once the game leaders start the simulation time, some of the customers from the long list will automatically seek contact with the management team. The logbook records all these

incoming messages from companies. Players can view this data and the requests from the contacts on the short list.

3. Contacting a customer

Players can themselves seek contact with a company by moving it from the long list to the

short list. Once the player has sought contact in this way, the company might follow up by making a request to the team. At this point, the team can initiate negotiations. Keep in mind that not all companies will respond.

Assistant text Contact a company: Click on one of the names for more information. You can seek con-tact with the ‘sleeping’ companies on the long list. They will then appear on your short list of

active accounts and contacts.

4. Making a (counter) offer (‘chemicals’, and ‘containers’)

After a request/offer is received from a company in the ‘chemicals’, ‘containers’ the play-ers can make a one-time counter-offer. The players enter the counter-offer into the com-puter (on a screen identical to that for initiating negotiations) and send it to the company (see Figure 9), which accepts or rejects the offer. Companies that reject the counter-offer are unlikely to seek contact again in the near future.

Players can view more information about the variables that they can input when making bids by moving the mouse pointer over the text of the variable concerned.

Assistant text

Hi, You are now about to negotiate and settle contracts with customers. You may want to check whether one or more companies on the short list have sent a request or made you an offer. You can make a counter-offer, but you can do so only once! Add text to explain your offer and/or

make your offer more persuasive.


- 28 -

Figure 9. Making a (counter) offer 5. Settling contracts

By clicking on an active contact in the short list, information about that company’s request becomes visible. The players can handle such requests in several ways (see Figure 10): - agree by signing the contract - reject the request, whereupon the customer will not seek contact again in the near fu-

ture


- 29 -

Figure 10. Rejecting or signing a contract When the Port of Rotterdam and a customer have reached agreement, a contract is signed. Afterwards, the Infrastructure and Management Department must place the cus-

tomer on the map (see the ‘building’ tab). Later on, the customer will appear on the map and income will be generated for the port. This income is tallied on the performance page.

Accelerated commercial process for distribution customers and ‘other’ clients

The commercial process proceeds more rapidly for customers from the distribution and ‘other’ sector. Because the different companies in this sector are very small, a number of the distribution clients are placed in a distribution center at the same time. Similarly, and for the same reason, separate contracts cannot be negotiated with all of the of the distribution companies. When a request from a distribution company or other inter-

ested client come in, players must accept or reject it straight away.

Customer page The contracted clients have reasons to be satisfied or dissatisfied with the management of

the Second Maasvlakte. In the customer page, you can find information about the satis-faction of the contracted clients (see Figure 11). By clicking on a client’s name, the reasons of happiness and the reason of unhappiness are summarized. After every reason several


- 30 -

points are given. The total points determine the satisfaction of the client and this influences the income of the client.

Figure 11. Satisfaction of a client

Performance page

After each 10-year period, a performance update is automatically provided concerning

the preceding play period. When the time comes for a new performance update, a notice to this effect appears in the logbook. In addition, players can check on their performance throughout the game when time al-lows (see, for example, Figure 12 and 13).


- 31 -

Figure 12. Satisfaction of the clients and revenues per client type


- 32 -

Figure 13. Distribution of types of clients on the second Maasvlakte

During the game, the player can always see the finance and client satisfaction at the bot-tom of the screen


- 33 -

About the developers

SIM Port was developed at the request of and in close collaboration with the Port of Rot-terdam (www.portofrotterdam.com) by the CPS (www.cps.tbm.tudelft.nl). The CPS is a center of expertise in the area of simulation games. It is a collaborative initiative of the fac-ulty of technology, policy and management of Delft University of Technology and the Erasmus University of Rotterdam.

Project leader: Dr. Igor Mayer

Port of Rotterdam: Anne Kirsten Meijer, Maurits van Schuylenburg, Jan Wil-lem Koeman

Game design: Geertje Bekebrede, Igor Mayer

Interface design: Hasso Schaap, Edwin Branbergen

Technical development: Maxim Knepfle, Jeroen Warmerdam (Tygron).

Project assistance: Gijs Buijsrogge, Teun Veldhuizen

With thanks to: Ronald Backers (HbR), Nathan Bowden (TBM), Roy Chin (TBM), Albert Doe (HbR), Jos Gommers (HbR), Jan Kon-ter (HbR), Tjhien Liao, Ruben Mangal (HbR), Jolien Pau-lides (HbR), Linda Ristic (HbR), Steve Sol (HbR), Victor Timmermans (HbR), Tiedo Vellinga (HbR), Alexander

Verbraeck (TBM), Jan Jaap van der Wal, Jeroen Wortel (HbR)

Copyright: TU Delft 2005, Port of Rotterdam

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval sys-tem, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,

recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing from the proprietor(s).


- 34 -

Bijlage 2 – artikel ongeredigeerde tekst van het artikel zoals verschenen in het Journal of Design Research, 2006 (2): 273-298.

Build your Sea Port in a Game and Learn about Complex Systems

Geertje Bekebrede Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5015, 2600 GA Delft, the Netherlands

Telephone: + 31 (0) 15 2781139 Fax: + 31 (0) 15 2786439 E-mail: [email protected] Igor Mayer Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box

5015, 2600 GA Delft, the Netherlands Abstract

The authors argue that designers and managers of technological infrastructures, such as seaports, can benefit from experiencing complex system behavior in a simulation game. Complex systems that include multiple, heterogeneous agents, feedback, and emergence

can lead to unanticipated and sometimes undesirable outcomes in real-world interven-tions. The authors demonstrate how simulation games can be used to test and explore ini-tial infrastructure designs before they are implemented. Such games can provide impor-tant learning experiences for (future) designers and managers. This case study of a com-puter-supported simulation game, SIM Maasvlakte 2 (SIM MV2), uses a game whose object is to design and allocate land for the Maasvlakte 2 port area, to be built between 2006

and 2036 in the Port of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. In this study the game was played by two teams of professionals from the Port of Rotterdam and four teams of graduate stu-dents. All sessions were extensively evaluated using observations, questionnaires, analyses of game log files, and port maps. The evaluation aimed at improving the game, examining the system complexity of the seaport, and establishing corresponding learning effects

among the participants. The preliminary findings indicate that SIM MV2 is indeed an ‘im-mersive’ game. The participants felt that it provided insights in the complexities of the pro-ject and could be used to improve communication and cooperation among different de-partments. 1. Introduction

The discipline of design has a wide scope and is clearly not limited to such technological artifacts as iPods or airplanes. Yet, designing such artifacts is extremely intricate because its intrinsic social complexity requires collaboration and coordination among various design-ers. In addition, the complexity of the social political environment also plays a role. The de-sign environment tends to have several sets of stakeholders: clients, competitors, govern-

ments, and societal stakeholders. These complexities and stakeholders are some of the main reasons why design curricula increasingly focus on communication skills for aspiring designers and develop non-linear and collaborative design approaches and methods. Thus, the design of technological artifacts is a complex socio-political process as much as an engineering process.


- 35 -

But ‘design’ becomes even more complicated when the object of design is not an artifact but an institution, such as public policy reform or a socio-technological system. Seaports, for example, are socio-technological systems. They not only consist of many artifacts (roads, cranes, railways, and quays), but also of many different and often conflicting ac-tors, such as port authorities, building contractors, terminal operators, (potential) clients,

shipping companies, governments, and pressure groups. And even when the various tech-nological and logistical components in the port system – the reclaiming of land, the cranes, docks, ships, and quays – have been well designed and optimized, at a higher systems level the long-term behavior and performance of the port infrastructure (5 to 30 years or more) can be very uncertain. Thus, while the subparts of the system seem manageable or under control, the system as a whole may show emerging complex behavior. Studies of the

long-term behavior of complex systems, such as global environmental systems, have shown that rational design and deliberate and well-intended interventions can lead to unantici-pated and undesirable results (Suh 1999). For example: in health care reform or energy lib-eralization, system behavior can cause prices to rise and services to decrease, even when the intervention was designed to achieve the opposite results. We are only just beginning

to understand how such mechanisms work, perhaps they may be the result of strategic or calculating behavior by stakeholders or the physical or social rules built in the system. But in any case, the emergence of complexity in socio-technological systems (ports or other in-frastructures) has significant implications for their designers and managers. And because infrastructures are crucial for the economy and human welfare, it is important to discover how designers can be assisted in their tasks.

In this paper we will argue that designers and managers need to have a better under-standing of complex system behavior. To this end they can benefit from experiencing the long-term behavior and unanticipated and sometimes undesirable consequences of their complex system design before it has been implemented. The ability to manage complexity begins with an awareness of and insights in the nature of complex systems. Direct experi-ence of what can happen or what can go wrong is often very effective for raising aware-

ness and insights. Nevertheless, in most cases, such direct experience is difficult to obtain from real infrastructures or other real-world systems without possibly serious consequences. Therefore, games are a good substitute because they can generate learning experiences in a relatively fast and safe manner. In this paper we will argue that games are very suit-able for experiencing the behavior of infrastructures as complex systems, and aspiring pro-fessionals can learn and benefit from that experience. We will demonstrate this on the basis

of a case study in which players build a seaport as part of a game. We will explain in more detail what complex systems are and how games can be used to understand them. Then we will describe the computer-supported simulation game, SIM Maasvlakte 2 (abbreviated as SIM MV2). The SIM MV2 game was developed by an inter-disciplinary team of staff and students at the Faculty of Technology, Policy and Manage-ment (TPM) at Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) at the request of and in close co-

operation with the Port of Rotterdam (PoR) in the Netherlands. The game deals with the design and allocation of land for the new Maasvlakte 2 area between 2006 and 2036. We will describe how the game was evaluated and present the preliminary results and insights from six trial sessions with a first version of the game played by professionals of the Port of Rotterdam and graduate students.

2. Complex systems and games

A systems perspective


- 36 -

In this paper we maintain that the long-term behavior of technological infrastructures can best be considered from a systems perspective (Holland 1995; Weijnen et al. 2003; Brown et al. 2004). In brief, systems theory helps make designers and managers aware that the ef-fects of deliberate and rational interventions can sometimes be surprising, that while short-term effects may be positive, that may not be true for the long term. Sometimes side ef-

fects occur or results can be the opposite of what was expected. Our task here is not to elucidate a detailed or extensive account of the evolution and dif-ferent branches of systems theory, such as chaos theory (Gleick 1988; Stewart 1989), com-plex adaptive systems (Kauffman 1993; Holland 1995), system dynamics (Goodwin 1951; Forrester 1958), or general systems theory (Bertalanffy 1968). For our purposes, we will draw on insights derived from authors from different schools, especially Senge (Senge 1990;

Senge et al. 1994), Meadows (Sweeney and Meadows 2001), and Holland (1995, Centre for the Study of Complex Systems). We first examine what a complex system is and provide a few examples of how such a system applies to infrastructures. 1. A system is composed of parts that interact and affect each other: ‘A system is a per-

ceived whole whose elements “hang together” because they continually affect each other over time and operate toward a common approach’ (Senge et al. 1994, p. 90). The ‘elements’ referred to in this definition can be diverse. They can be intelligent soft-ware agents, technological artifacts, or socio-political actors (individuals, organiza-tions). In infrastructure systems, such elements can be switches, cables, power plants, energy companies, wind farms, government agencies, regulators, consumers, and

many others. 2. A system is more than the sum of its parts: ‘A system is a collection of parts that interact

with another to function as a whole. A system subsumes its parts and can itself be part of a larger system’ (Maani and Cavana 2000, p.6). Infrastructures do not exist without connections between the parts: for example, to transport energy to the place where it is used.

3. A system combines nature (natural environment), technology (artifacts), and human behavior: systems are ‘structures that combine people and the natural environment with various artifacts of man and his technology. . . .’ (Miser and Quade 1985, p.1). In-frastructures consist of a technical network, such as institutions to regulate the system, and infrastructures are affected by various things, such as, for example, the weather.

Complex systems

The three characteristics of systems described above (parts, interaction, and structure) do not explain the complexity of (infrastructure) systems, nor how this can lead to unexpected behavior. The Centre for the Study of Complex Systems in Michigan defines six characteris-tics of complex systems (http://www.pscs.umich.edu/complexity.html). These can be used to explore infrastructures as complex systems:

1. Complex systems are agent based: a system includes the characteristics and activities

of agents, which are active elements, diverse in both form and capability (Holland 1995). This suggests that the system complexity of infrastructures is caused by the fact that they rely on so many highly interdependent and sophisticated technological and

social agents. 2. The agents are heterogeneous: agents within a complex system are not uniform, but

have various characteristics, functions, and (cap)abilities to learn. This means that in-teraction among these different types of agents is complicated and easily disrupted. The behavior of infrastructure systems, for example, relies on very intelligent software


- 37 -

agents as well as on formal or informal regulation by political and social actors. Policy science theory shows that social and political agents have many different values, pref-erences, objectives, and resources, which makes decision-making and management extremely complex (Koppenjan and Klijn 2004). Likewise, information and organiza-tional sciences show that there can be many communication problems between dif-

ferent computer systems, let alone the many problems inherent in human-computer in-teraction or between organizations and computer systems.

3. Complex systems are dynamic: a system changes over time because it adapts to changes in its environment. System changes can appear as evolutionary or as almost autonomous, perhaps resulting from exogenous influences from outside the system, or they may be manifested as planned or deliberate changes such as policy measures. In

most cases it is a combination of these types. The dynamics of a system can be caused by structural changes in the system (e.g., when new elements are added to the system, such as a situation in which the power generated by small privately owned wind farms is fed to a national energy network, or when influential new actors enter the political arena). Technological and social agents must learn how to cope with the exogenous

and endogenous changes in the system. 4. Complex systems show feedback mechanisms: the complex and dynamic behavior of

a system is determined by feedback relations among its various elements or agents. These feedback relations can cause positive (i.e., self-reinforcing) effects, or negative (i.e., mitigating) effects. Time delays in feedback relations can be another important factor in complex system behavior. Large-scale power blackouts, for example, are of-

ten caused by several loops of positive or self-reinforcing feedback effects in the en-ergy system.

5. Complex systems are organized: although complex systems may seem to be chaotic, they do have an underlying structure or organization. Social and technological agents are structured in subsystems that have the characteristics of hierarchies or networks. One way to understand the relationship between structure and behavior is by looking

at the rules of the system. These rules, like those of physics, law, negotiations, etc., de-termine the behavior of agents, subsystems, and systems.

6. Complex systems show emergent behavior: complex behavior ‘emerges’ from the sys-tem characteristics but is manifested at the macro level, which means at the level of the system as a whole. Emergent behavior is the ultimate manifestation; it shows when ‘a system becomes more that the sum of its parts’ (Maani and Cavana 2000). Complex

behavior cannot be easily explained or managed by decomposition into parts. Even relatively simple systems that are comprised of only a few agents and relations can show very complex, counter-intuitive behavior (Sweeney and Meadows 2001). But in many cases systems will be comprised of a great many agents and links, which are impossible to know in advance, let alone predict or control (Jennings 2000). Therefore, Senge (1994),

Sweeney and Meadows (2001), and others have argued that managers and decision-makers need to develop capacities for systems thinking. In The Fifth Discipline Senge (1990) describes eleven ‘laws of the fifth discipline’. We will only use a few of these to clarify the importance of looking at infrastructures from a system perspective.

1. Unanticipated responses of the system

When a person intervenes in the operations of a system, the system can respond in a num-ber of different ways. One possible response is compensating feedback: ‘when well inten-tioned interventions call forth responses from the system that offset the benefits of the inter-vention’ (Senge 1990, p. 58). Another possible response is ‘self-organization’, which causes


- 38 -

the system to re-organize but not necessarily with the desired effect (Holland 1995; Stacey et al. 2002). A third type of response can occur when system growth becomes excessive. The system's attempts to mitigate that growth may lead to unforeseen consequences. For example, problems may result if a company grows very rapidly. These problems can in-clude poorer quality of its goods or services, and miscommunication.

2. Cause and effect may be greatly separated over time

Many decisions are based on a favorable estimate of the short-term effects, without con-sidering what effect these decisions may have in the long run. One immediate result of en-ergy liberalization, for example, can be an improvement in service, but in the long run, pos-sibly because of underinvestment, blackouts may occur or less satisfactory customer ser-

vice may develop. These discrepancies between short and long-term behavior are caused by the characteristics of dynamics and feedback. This is especially relevant for infrastruc-tures because of long investment and planning horizons. 3. The importance of maintaining the system as a whole

‘Dividing an elephant in half does not produce two small elephants’ (Senge 1990, p. 66). From the perspective of the system, it is not possible to understand system behavior by looking at only a small part. Therefore, to understand the (future) behavior of an infrastruc-ture system in all its social, economic, and physical aspects, we need to see and under-stand the system as a whole and in a multidisciplinary way.

Games

One way of trying to understand the complexity of an infrastructure system is to become system thinkers – and that is how games can help. According to Sweeney and Meadows (Sweeney and Meadows 2001, p. 3-4), systems thinkers need to see the whole picture, and be able to change their perspectives. Managers must also look for interdependencies, pay attention to long-term effects, perceive complex cause-effect relations, and identify the

emergence of the system. Although it is not possible to model the whole world, managers must try to look at the system from a higher level and develop a complete view of the situation. Therefore, the system needs to be modeled (mentally or otherwise) in a dynamic but complete way, focusing on feedbacks, non-linear development, and system behavior over both short and long term. Because complexity is not only caused by technical factors but also by socio-political actors, both factors and actors must be included in the model or

simulation. That is why we (and other authors) believe that simulation games are among the best methods for understanding complex systems. Simulation games are probably the only decision support methods that can incorporate human players and social interactions, social and physical rules, mental and computer models, and individual and collective goals. Thus, games mimic real-world systems in a controlled fashion. They are useful for arriving at

a complete view of a given issue (Duke and Geurts 2004) and for integrating different per-spectives and disciplines (Kriz 2003). By switching roles, players can adapt and learn to un-derstand different perspectives, experience the system from different angles, and learn from these differences (Duke and Geurts 2004; Mayer and Jong 2004). The use of com-puters and other gaming techniques enables simulation of long-term processes within a

couple of hours. We will illustrate how a simulation game about the Maasvlakte 2 was used exactly for this. But before doing that, we will introduce the port expansion case and ex-plain why it is complex.


- 39 -

3. The Port of Rotterdam as a complex system

Port expansion

The Dutch Port of Rotterdam (PoR), one of the largest seaports in the world, needs to be expanded in the coming years. Prognoses indicate that it will be expected to handle

greater quantities of cargo and that many more commercial enterprises will want to locate in the immediate area of the port (Gemeente Rotterdam 2004). Current estimates suggest that available space in the Maasvlakte Area will be fully occupied by 2010, making it im-possible to meet any further space demands after that. The growth of the harbor is not only beneficial for the city of Rotterdam itself, but will also support the economic development of the Netherlands as a whole. Therefore, after a long,

highly controversial public decision-making process, the Dutch government recently de-cided to reclaim some 1000 ha net of new land from the sea in the Port of Rotterdam area. This new land is known as the Maasvlakte 2 Area. The objective of the project is to reinforce the position of Rotterdam as a principal port. Within the Port of Rotterdam authority, a Maasvlakte 2 project team has been established, which has full responsibility for the strate-

gic, commercial, and infrastructure preparations. This responsibility includes design of mas-ter, zoning, and building plans, as well as issuing tenders for contractors and builders, find-ing clients, and managing all legal, political, and environmental issues. How to design and build a seaport?

In the coming decades, various parcels of the new seaport area will need to be reclaimed

in several phases. Recent issues have delayed the expected start of contractor activities until sometime in 2008, and the development phase can take up to 10 years or longer, de-pending on decisions and uncertainties along the way. Given the uncertainty of future market demand and the legal obligation to compensate for damage to nature, the exten-sion and construction of the outer contour (i.e., the main sea barrier) will very likely be un-dertaken in two phases: the second will involve moving the outer contour further offshore

to create additional parcels of land. Only after the parcels have been reclaimed and the land apportioned, can the general infrastructure (energy, roads, docks, jetties, etc.) be put in place. Then, clients can be identified and contracts agreed to. Market and customer demand will be taken into account at three decision points that have been incorporated in the development process. The first of these is the go/no-go decision for constructing the outer contour (that is, the decision to start building in 2008 or to postpone it to a later date).

The central government and the PoR will make this decision jointly, on the basis of actual demand at that time. It will only be able to go forward if at least one commercial organiza-tion announces its intention to locate in the new MV2. The second decision point precedes the commencement of the second phase of the project, where, again, there must be adequate demand. The third decision point is when land use must be designated and ap-portioned in parcels for allocation; this stage calls for a zoning or allocation plan for clients

in four sectors: chemistry, containers, distribution, and alternative or atypical clients. Before construction of embankments and dockside quays can begin, an initial client must have committed to occupancy to launch the project. This client must have already signed a firm contract with the PoR. Because it will involve considerable investment, and costs can only be recouped if enough clients are attracted to the new area, the slogan is ‘build on the

basis of customer demand, with respect for nature’. A highly complex system

The scope and intricacy of the project requires a thorough, well planned approach (Port of Rotterdam 2004). But even then designers and managers face many strategic uncertain-


- 40 -

ties and risks: unanticipated delays in the building process, not enough demand by pre-ferred clients, unoccupied land, inefficient and sub-optimal clustering, co-ordination prob-lems between infrastructure and commerce departments, strategic behavior of contrac-tors, clients, and stakeholders, and many others. The MV2 project contains many charac-teristics of a complex socio-technical system in which different agents must work together

to design and manage it. This design process consists of several subsystems. 1. Complexity in the building subsystem: The Maasvlakte 2 area will be constructed in sev-

eral steps. The size of each of these steps depends on the strategy chosen. The Port of Rotterdam may decide on a system of maximum flexibility for the construction process, contracting and building only those parcels of land for which there are customers. Or

they could decide to build it all in one go, which is cheaper but is commercially riskier. The project involves very high investment costs, which may reach 2.9 billion euros in a 15 to 20 year time-frame. Revenues are uncertain, but will only start to be generated after the first customer becomes operational. By definition, investments must precede income, but if there is insufficient demand, there may be unoccupied space and a

high cost-return ratio. Further, the system shows patterns of path-dependency and lock-in effects. This means that once a strategy has been chosen and the process begun, the ability to alter course decreases markedly. For example, once construction activi-ties have begun, legal, commercial, or technical factors may make it virtually impossi-ble to halt or alter the building process. After a strategy has been settled upon, it influ-ences and restricts subsequent decisions in the building process. But it is difficult to know

which decision would be best under particular economic conditions, or what the long-term consequences or side effects of the strategic options will be. How can the PoR en-sure that the building decisions taken today will not be regretted 10 or 20 years later?

2. Complexity in the commercial subsystem: While the port authority has extensive experi-ence negotiating with customers, this experience does not guarantee success: other, equally experienced port areas have sometimes taken decisions that led to inefficient

distribution of land. Nevertheless, having learned from its experience, the Port of Rot-terdam intends to follow a strategy aimed at efficient clustering of customers and achieving economies of scale. The port could try to stay on top of things by establishing clear criteria for land allocation that maximize long-term revenues (over 50 years). But clients may have different criteria and preferences. If the port is not flexible enough to accommodate these, it may have an unfavorable affect on client satisfaction or nego-

tiating positions. Based on individual client decisions, demand can be flexible and un-certain. Is it feasible to reject less profitable clients when there is less overall demand for land, especially in the early years of exploitation? How can the PoR convince luke-warm, but interesting and profitable clients? What if client demands do not accord with allocation or zoning plans?

3. Decision-making in a network: As indicated above, the construction process and the

commercial negotiations are complex in themselves, but they are also strongly interre-lated. It is very difficult to forecast with any accuracy how many customers there will be, what type of commercial activities they will represent, and what their specific re-quirements will be. Nevertheless, the building of general infrastructures has to start many years in advance, which means there will be feedback between the two sys-

tems, and both systems are dynamic. This will require close coordination among the in-frastructure departments and the commercial departments. The professionals working in those departments can have different backgrounds and orientations: engineers ver-sus marketers, long versus short-term views. Despite common objectives (making a profit), such differences may well lead to communication and co-ordination problems.


- 41 -

Moreover, many influences come from outside the system, especially those in the po-litical and legal areas.

4. Emergence in the long run: The business case for the Maasvlakte 2 area has a time span of 50 years. This makes the system highly dynamic, with many possible feedback loops and uncertain outcomes. Likewise, the nature of the first customer and its loca-

tion in the port area will have significant influence on the location of subsequent cus-tomers. Furthermore, there can be discrepancies between short and long-term per-formance. Strategies or decisions that may not be good for short-term performance (such as rejecting less profitable or interesting clients) may have a very favorable effect on long-term performance. In addition, many decisions in the building and commercial processes are interwoven and interdependent. The feedback loops can also affect ar-

eas outside the direct area of Maasvlakte 2. Transportation of goods also influences the Dutch economy; and projects that stress the ecological balance result in new recrea-tional areas.

The above questions and uncertainties require a system view. Therefore, the Port of Rotter-

dam requested that the authors design and run a simulation game that could be used to try out different scenarios and strategies and allow the players to experience the conse-quences of their decisions. 4. Research and evaluation approach

The development of SIM MV2

SIM MV2 is a computer supported simulation game that mimics the real processes involved in planning, equipping, and exploiting the Maasvlakte 2 (MV2) in the Port of Rotterdam. The simulation game was primarily intended for staff of the Port of Rotterdam. But its em-phasis on strategizing, project management, and teamwork make it appropriate for others as well, such as graduate students and other (young) professionals as part of their educa-

tion and training. While the game requires no specific prior knowledge of seaports or the Maasvlakte, players’ interest and willingness to explore this subject using the simulation game would be helpful. Objectives

In line with the analysis of learning about the behavior of complex systems, the Port of Rot-

terdam has three aims with respect to SIM MV2: 4. Gain better insight into any unforeseen, undesirable, and unintentional effects of one or

more development strategies and design variations in the medium term (10-30 years) as a result of exogenous uncertainties (economic, market, technological) and the stra-tegic behavior of the parties involved.

5. Stimulate thinking about the project as a whole and in a multidisciplinary way within the Port of Rotterdam, considering the commercial and technical/infrastructural aspects, interests, and choices.

6. Improve the results of negotiations with respect to contracts (customers) and equip-ment (infrastructure) in the port area.

Validation

The simulation game was developed in 2004/2005 by an interdisciplinary team of staff members and students in CPS, a gaming research center established by Delft University of Technology and Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR) (www.cps.tbm.tudelft.nl). The game


- 42 -

was developed at the request of and in close cooperation with professionals working in the Port of Rotterdam. The development team, consisting of nine individuals, combined exper-tise in public administration, organization and management, port development and man-agement, game design, interface design, and computer programming. To obtain a clear picture of the MV2 project, many meetings and interviews with experts

from various departments in the Port of Rotterdam were held. Furthermore, real, up-to-date information was made available for our use by the Port of Rotterdam. The information con-tained data about the construction parcels (costs, time-frame, and dependencies), as well as actual business cases, forecasts, and real data about potential customers. The names are all fictitious, and we modified and simplified the data to make the game more exciting and protect confidential information. The computer model consists of a Java based simu-

lation with a Macromedia Flash user interface. The players use three laptop computers connected by a local network. A fourth computer functions as a server and laptop for the game administrator. Sessions so far

Up to now, the game has been played with two teams of professionals (10 players in all) from the Port of Rotterdam and four teams of graduate students (20 players in all). Before starting the game, the graduate students listened to a one-hour explanation of the Maasvlakte 2 project given by one of our contacts at the Port of Rotterdam. In one of the two sessions with students, two representatives from the Port of Rotterdam were also pre-sent, which seemed to encourage the students. Although the sessions were announced as

trials, the game and computer model functioned properly (except for an occasional bug that was solved on the spot). In all sessions the participants were able to play the game completely. We are currently working on a second version of the computer model that will have more features. We also anticipate holding about 20 more sessions with professionals and graduate students in the first half of 2006.

Evaluation approach

All sessions were evaluated extensively. To do this we used observation, questionnaires, and analyses of game log files and port maps. In the trial session with the professionals, the evaluation was mainly aimed at getting feedback to improve the game, but the session with students focused more on the learning experience. As the game becomes more ro-bust, evaluations will increasingly focus on the complexity of the project, and we will try to

establish corresponding learning effects among the participants. At the end of each game session, extensive debriefings were held on what had occurred in the game and why. Players also completed a survey with closed and open questions about various aspects of the game (quality, learning effects, etc.) (n = 28). The computer model of the game logs all information and decisions by the players. It also provides feedback on the team’s per-formance that is based on criteria such as revenues, costs, and client satisfaction. These

data are used to calculate the team's score for in-game comparisons. Furthermore, it was instructive to see the comparisons and differences in the evolution of the port maps for the years ‘16, ‘26, and ‘36. In this paper we present the main preliminary results from observa-tions, questionnaires, and maps.

5. SIM MV2: ‘create your own future’

How does the game proceed? Imagine you are going to play SIM MV2. You had the op-portunity to read the game manual a few days before the session and are now somewhat familiar with it. When you arrive at the location where the game is to be played, you are


- 43 -

welcomed by the hosts who will inform you that for the next couple of hours your team will be faced with a difficult and serious challenge: to bring into being the new Maasvlakte 2 port area in the Port of Rotterdam. Your task is as follows:

Make appropriate planning and implementation decisions, individually and collec-tively, that will lead to a satisfactory design and exploitation of the second Maasvlakte (1,000 ha) over a 30-year period.

Table 1: Main features of SIM MV2

Players Minimum: 3 players, maximum: 6; professionals or students. How to play In teams, partly interacting with the computer model, but also

including a good deal of discussion and communication among

the players. The game is played in one large room. Duration 5 to 8 hours. Competition Several teams can play against one another. The winner is the

team with the highest score, which is determined by comparing the outcomes and results from the different teams after the

game’s completion. Passage of time The speed at which time passes can be changed any time during

the game. The starting year is 2006. The simulation time begins to run after round 1, in which the players choose their strategies. Dur-ing the game time passes steadily over a period of 30 years. The current date in the simulation game (month and year) is always

displayed on screen for the participants to see. Evaluations To assess the progress of the game and the players’ interim per-

formance, internal team evaluations are made following each 10-year period.

Debriefing After completion of the game, an overall evaluation is con-ducted that covers strategy, procedures, collaboration, and the

end result. Lessons are drawn that apply to the real world. Computers The simulation game is played on three laptop computers, con-

nected in a local network. A fourth laptop functions as a server. Each role in the game uses one of the laptops. The players enter their own decisions into the computers. Installation and operation of the equipment, as well as support and clarifications during the

game, are done by a game administrator (at least one per team).

Other equipment - Magnetic planning board (part of SIM MV2). - Maps (A3 - A0) of the port (part of SIM MV2).

Roles in the game

Collectively, your team (3-6 individuals) is charged with virtually all responsibilities and

competencies to plan, coordinate, and implement the decisions necessary to build, equip, and exploit the MV2 in the coming years. Most likely you will play the game in competition with one or two other teams in the same session. Of course, your team wants to be first. And because team scores are stored by team names, your team may even meet or break the best score to that point.


- 44 -

When the game begins, you will be requested to divide roles among the team members. Each management team works under the supervision of the General Director and also in-cludes one or more directors from the Commercial Department and the Infrastructure and Management Department. The players in your team depend on one another to succeed.

Some of your responsibilities overlap. A good division of tasks and coordination is therefore crucial. You will also be provided with some background documents and fact sheets. Rounds

The game is played in four rounds, each lasting a minimum of one hour. At the end of the second and third rounds, your team will have some time to look back on how you worked

together and what you decided and achieved. When the game is finished, all teams will compare and discuss their strategies, team work, and results. All players and facilitators will then try to identify important lessons for the real world. Table 2: Schedule for play

Introduction Game facilitators present game objectives, rules, and tasks. Round 1 Determining the building and commercial strategies and drawing

up an allocation plan. Time stands still in this round (2006). Round 2 First period of 10 years (2006-16). The building process must be

started, and the first negotiations with customers can be con-ducted. In 2016 there is a review and update of performance to that point.

Team evaluation Based on the internal team evaluation, the players can make ad-

justments in role division, strategy, etc. Round 3 Second period of 10 years (2016-26). The building process is com-

plete, negotiations with customers are in full swing, and customers are assigned land in the port. In 2026 there is another perform-ance update. Again the players can fine tune the process.

Team evaluation Based on the internal team evaluation, the players can make ad-

justments in role division, strategy, etc. Round 4 Third and last period of 10 years (2026-36). In 2036 there is a final

performance update. Debriefing Upon completion of the game, there is an evaluation of several

aspects such as strategy, processes, collaboration, and the end result. Lessons are drawn that can apply to the real world.

Becoming familiar with the interfaces

After you have decided on your team’s name and divided the roles, it is time to familiarize yourself with the software. One of the first things you and your team mates must do is to en-ter your team's name in the simulation: for example, ‘professional port planners’. Your team's decisions, performance, and scores are maintained under that name. Figure 1 shows an image of the opening screen where the players enter their team name.


- 45 -

Figure 1. Opening screen Each of the three roles in the team uses one of the player laptops for inputting decisions in the game. If you have never played a computer game, you may feel hesitant in the be-

ginning, but you will soon get used to playing. You will also be assisted by a team of virtual advisors who will tell you where you are in the game and what you must or may do. The advisors automatically appear the first time a screen is opened. Figure 2 shows an image of the virtual advisors.


- 46 -

Figure 2. Virtual advisors Time is important in the game, which is why there is a clock at the top of the screen show-ing the current month and year of the simulation time. Time is at a standstill during round 1 (the strategy phase). The clock begins to run only at the beginning of phase 2. The game administrator can slow down, speed up, or stop the clock at any time. In its fastest mode,

the software can simulate about 10 years in 5 minutes, which is very useful when your team finishes its tasks early, for example, in 2026, if your team is finished early but wants to view the results into the future (2036). At the left side of the screen, a log file registers and lists all relevant events and team decisions.

Round 1: Strategy

After you have become familiar with what you are expected to do in the game, you can begin the tasks for the first round. In round one the team decides on a building strategy, a commercial strategy, and an allocation plan. After the team has made its choices and entered them in the computer, the strategy phase is finished. Only then does the game leader start the time clock for the simulation.

a. Building strategy

Your team can choose one of four building strategies; these will influence costs, flexibility, and lead times in the actual building process later on. There are many trade offs and choices: for example, more flexibility requires more coordination among team members, as well as higher costs and a longer lead time.

Each building strategy is comprised of various building packets: building the outer contours, reclaiming the various parcels of land, and others. Each of these aspects contributes to the


- 47 -

final realization of Maasvlakte 2. The number of building packets varies with the strategy, from a minimum of two to a maximum of eleven. The four building strategies are as follows: 1. Fast forward: two building packets, quick, but little flexibility. 2. Carrying on, but not rushing it: five building packets that represent a compromise be-

tween speed and flexibility. 3. Maximum flexibility: eleven building packets, with maximum flexibility but slow and re-

quiring a great deal of coordination. 4. All at one go: four building packets, the outermost contours of the project are placed

in their definitive location.

The start date and the desired date of completion for the various building packets in the strategy chosen are determined from round two onward. To assist in planning, each team may also use a magnetic planning board. b. Commercial strategy

In this rubric your team must choose one of two commercial strategies and provide reasons for that choice in a text box. The two commercial strategies are: 1. Come as they may: a suitable solution is sought for each individual customer. 2. On top of things: the port authority establishes a number of criteria, and customers must

comply with these to get a contract.

In the first strategy, the port waits for clients to show interest, while in the second strategy the port is proactive; only clients who fit in with the allocation plan are of interest. Unlike the building strategy, the choice of commercial strategy has no direct quantitative repercus-sions on the simulation model and can be changed at any time during the game.

c. Allocation plan

During the strategy phase, your team also draws up an allocation plan for the future port area. This plan shows where each business cluster will be located. The team may make changes to this plan in the course of the game. Allocation plan locations on the map are shaded according to a set color scheme, with different colors representing different busi-ness sectors. Figure 3 shows an image of an allocation plan.


- 48 -

Fig-

ure 3: Drawing up the allocation plan Round 2 and beyond: building and commercial activities

In round 2 and beyond, your team implements various building and commercial activities and evaluates how they perform. These activities include: selecting and beginning building activities, negotiating and contracting with customers, assigning land to customers, and

performance-based evaluation. a. Selecting and beginning building activities

In round 2 the various building packets are set in motion. The Infra Director of your team selects the various building packets, and then inputs the required data, which include the

starting date for building and the speed (normal or fast) for implementation. In addition to the building packets, other projects must be initiated in the building phase, such as a rail service center, a chemical logistics service center, an inland shipping terminal, and distri-bution centers. The entire building process, from sea to 1000 ha of useable land, can take 15 years or

more, and shows many path dependencies. Planning errors and external delays in the building process are very likely to occur, which will impact the commercial process and port performance. The team’s challenge is to minimize errors and manage uncertainties. Figure 4 shows an image of the building activities.


- 49 -

Figure 4. Building activities b. Negotiating and contracting with customers

The simulation model contains names and information on more than a hundred potential customers, divided among four sectors: container terminal operators, chemical compa-

nies, distribution companies, and alternative clients (a category that includes new types of industry such as a biomass production plant or firework storage facility). The computer models allow you to request information from potential customers, view incoming mes-sages from customers, contact a customer, negotiate with customers about lots, prices, etc., and enter into contracts.

Long and short lists

A long list contains the names and summarized data for all companies included in the simulation model; a short list contains names and data for the companies that have sent a request to your team or whom you have sought to contact. After the game leaders have begun the simulation time, some customers from the long list will automatically seek con-

tact with the management team. You may also seek contact with a company. After a re-quest/offer is received from a company, you can make a one-time counter offer, or ac-cept or reject the company immediately. You enter the counter offer in the computer and


- 50 -

send it to the company, which accepts or rejects it. Companies that reject the counter of-fer are unlikely to seek contact again in the near future. When your team and a company have reached agreement, a contract is signed, and the client information can be trans-ferred to the Infra Director for planning and building. Figure 5 shows an image of the nego-tiation with customers.

Figure 5. Customer negotiations c. Assigning land to customers

During negotiations your team must ascertain where a customer wants to be situated and where they can in fact be placed on the map. The location chosen must comply with In-

frastructure Department criteria as well as commercial criteria. After a contract has been signed, the infra director must place the customer on the port map. This means that if and when the parcel of land is reclaimed and ready, customer operations can start. Only then will income be generated for the port. This income is tallied on the performance pages. d. Performance-based evaluation

After each 10-year period, a performance update is automatically provided for the pre-ceding play period(s). Your team is given a summary of incomes (based on port dues and land rental), of expenditures (construction costs), and client satisfaction (calculated on as-pects such as waiting time, parcels delivered on time and the right place, etc.). A port map reveals the status of construction work, how many parcels have been rented out, the

types of company that have located there, and whether there is any clustering of specific industrial activities. Your team results can now be compared with the results of other teams, for previous rounds or the current one in the same session. Figure 6 shows an image of the performance evaluation.


- 51 -

Figure 6. Performance evaluation 6. Preliminary results

Limitations

As stated above, the game has been played with two teams of professionals from the Port of Rotterdam and four teams of students; in all, 30 players have been involved up to now. The objective of the game is to generate learning among (future) professionals about the system complexity of Maasvlakte 2, contributing to better project performance as well as

better players. But three important conditions and limitations make the results from these sessions only preliminary. First, in evaluating the sessions so far, we focused on getting feed-back from the players about the game itself in order to improve it. Second, we used version 1.0 with the professionals and version 1.2 with the students. Some features, such as fast for-ward / slow down and your team / best team comparisons, were available only in the stu-dent sessions. For future sessions version 2.0, with even more and better features, will be

available. Thus, the results from different sessions are not strictly comparable. Third, there is a large amount of data generated by the game log and the computer model; this data can and will be used to examine the teams’ decisions, the underlying arguments, the per-formance of the project, and the patterns of system and team behavior. Analysis of these data is time-consuming, and it will be informative only when we can compare it with more


- 52 -

sessions. Nevertheless, the game and computer model were better than we'd expected. In all sessions the game could be played completely. Focus of the present evaluation Taking into account these limitations, we outline the main and preliminary results of our

evaluation as follows. 1. The quality of the game: Did the participants enjoy the game? Which aspects of the

game were not as good as others? 2. Learning: Did the participants indicate they learned in and through the game, and if

so, what did they learn?

3. Complex system behavior: What aspects of complex system behavior were identified? What aspects of complexity are worth exploring more in depth in future sessions, or through in-depth analysis of system behavior?

We will use information and illustrations from the questionnaires, the various port maps, and

observations to provide preliminary answers to the above questions. 1. Quality of the game

One of the first and most obvious aspects to establish in the evaluation is the quality of the game itself. Indicators such as player satisfaction, degree of immersion, and playability are relatively simple but important; not only for improving the game, but also to establish if the

initial conditions for learning have been met. How did SIM MV2 perform on general quality criteria? Table 3 shows an overview of the participants’ ratings for the quality dimensions of the game. Our observations during the game and the results from the questionnaires indicate that generally the players very much enjoyed the game. The game’s degree of immersion was fairly good: we had to urge a couple of teams to stop for a lunch break, and then

found that they had come back early to start playing again. The active presence of two of our contacts from the Port of Rotterdam in one of the student sessions seemed to engage the students even more and improve their performance. It triggered interesting discussions and interactions between the professionals and the students, and also demonstrated to our client-partners the value of the game for education and training. Our observations on game quality and degree of immersion are corroborated by the results from the question-

naires. Table 3 shows an overview of the participants’ ratings for the game’s quality dimen-sions. The average total score for game appreciation was 4.4 on a 5-point scale (Table 3). Important aspects, such as the objective of the game, the instructions, the background materials, the tasks, rules, and facilitators, showed fairly high scores: in the range of 3.5 to 3.8 (max = 5). All in all, participants indicated that SIM MV2 is an interesting and enjoyable game, with relevant objectives for the Port of Rotterdam. Seventy-eight percent of the re-

spondents indicated that they would like to play it again and expected that their perform-ance would improve. Table 3: Quality of the game

Statements Professionals (n=7)

Students (n=21)

Total (n=28)

The aim of SIMMV2 was clear. 4.1 (.90) 4.1 (.79) 4.1 (.80)

The aim of the simulation game was relevant for the Port of Rotterdam.

3.6 (.79) 4.1 (.77) 4.1 (.74)


- 53 -

The game was built up in an interesting and stimulating way.

4.0 (.58) 4.3 (.64) 4.2 (.63)

The game materials (role descriptions and man-ual) were understandable and clearly written.

3.7 (.76) 3.7 (.73) 3.8 (.723)

The game was well facilitated. 4.1 (.38) 3.8 (.89) 3.9 (.80) The rules of the game were clear and straight-forward.

2.7 (.95) 3.8 (.70) 3.5 (.88)

Given the aims of the simulation game, SIMMV2

was sufficiently detailed.

3.8 (1.17) 3.6 (.74) 3.7 (.83)

Given the aims of the simulation game, SIMMV2 was sufficiently realistic.

3.4 (.79) 3.5 (.87) 3.5 (.83)

I enjoyed taking part in SIMMV2 with others. 4.1 (.38) 4.5 (.60) 4.4 (.57) I would like to play the game again sometime. 4.0 (.82) 3.7

(1.15) 3.8 (1.07)

Interaction with the computer

Player interaction with the computer model is an important aspect of the game’s ‘playabil-ity’. Table 4 shows an overview of participants’ ratings for human-computer interaction. Most improvements following the session with professionals (using version 1.0) were directed at giving the players more sense of and control over ‘simulated time’, and improving the user interfaces, the performance sheets, and the map tools. A comparison between ver-sions 1.0 and 1.2 shows moderate improvements in that respect.

Table 4: Interaction with the computer

Statements Professionals (n=7)

Students (n=21)

Total (n=28)

It was easy to interact with the game's software. 3.4 (.98) 3.2 (1.12)

3.3 (1.08)

I enjoyed using the computer to play the game. 3.9 (.69) 3.8 (.83) 3.8 (.79) I had sufficient control of the interactions during the game.

3.4 (1.13) 3.2 (.98) 3.3 (1.00)

The style attributes on the computer screens are attractive and suitably designed.

3.9 (.38) 3.9 (.73) 3.9 (.65)

The digital mapping materials in the game were

understandable.

3.4 (.79) 4.0 (.59) 3.8 (.67)

Navigation through the user screens was logical and easy to use.

3.7 (.95) 3.9 (.93) 3.8 (.92)

The user screens in the game provided a good sense of the changes in the port area.

3.0 (.82) 3.6 (.87) 3.4 (.88)

I had a clear feeling of time IN the game. 2.0 (.82) 3.1

(1.15)

2.8 (1.18)

The user interfaces provided sufficient insight in the performance of Maasvlakte2.

2.9 (.69) 3.4 (1.12)

3.2 (1.08)

2. Learning

Did the participants gain new insight in the complexities of the project? Table 5 shows an overview of the results from the questionnaire. By and large both professionals and students indicated (by scores in the range of 3.7 and 4, respectively) that SIM MV2 provided insights in the strategic, technical, and commercial complexities of the project. There were marked


- 54 -

differences between the answers given by the professionals and those by the students to the statement, ‘By participating in SIM MV2, I have gained a number of new insights about the real MV2’. These differences are most likely related to the greater knowledge the pro-fessionals brought to the game. Professional involvement in the project also plays a role in the minor differences among the answers to the statements, ‘I think that SIM MV2 can

promote cooperation. . . (and) better communication between different departments. . . .’ The professionals valued this aspect more than the students did. Table 5: Learning from SIM MV2

Statement Professio-

nals (n=7)

Students

(n=21)

Total

(n=28)

I think that SIM MV2 can promote cooperation

between departments.

4.2 (.4) 3.9 (.75) 3.9 (.69)

I think that SIM MV2 can promote better commu-nication between the different departments and individuals.

4.0 (.00) 3.8 (.85) 3.8 (.74)

By participating in SIM MV2, I have gained a number of new insights about the real MV2.

2.4 (.79) 4.1 (.91) 3.7 (1.15)

SIM MV2 provided insights in the technical com-plexity of MV2.

3.7 (.82) 3.8 (1.12)

3.8 (1.05)

SIM MV2 provided insights in the strategic com-plexity of MV2.

3.7 (.82) 4.1 (.77) 4.0 (.79)

SIM MV2 provided insights in the commercial and economic complexity of MV2.

3.7 (1.03) 4.0 (.89) 3.9 (.92)

SIM MV2 provided a clear picture of how MV2 could develop in the long term.

3.0 (.89) 3.8 (.93) 3.6 (.97)

3. Complex system behavior

The characteristics of a complex system, such as multiple and heterogeneous agents, feedback, and emergence, can lead to unanticipated outcomes in real-world interven-

tions. At this stage the main question is what system behaviors (and unanticipated and un-desirable effects) can be identified from the limited number of game sessions so far. Our preliminary analysis of factors such as team behavior, team strategies, decisions, and the evolution of port performance suggests several tentative observations and starting points for further analysis. At this stage we can only provide a few examples.

1. Complex behavior in the building subsystem

The strategic decisions that are made early on in the game have clear, direct implications for later stages, as well as for the commercial process. The strategy chosen can affect how long it takes for the land to be ready: it can take four to ten years before the first parcels of land will be finished and 10 to 13 years before parcels of land are operational. In the meantime, there is increasing pressure from the commercial side to deliver as soon as pos-

sible. Since most teams started up all working packets as soon as possible, players some-times faced a situation where there were empty lots of land for many years. Another mani-festation of the system's complexity is the effect on the building and commercial processes when there were unforeseen delays in the building process. Although there are four build-ing strategies in the game, all teams of players so far opted for ‘carrying on but not rushing it’ or ‘building all in one go’. In the debriefing the players stated that their choice was af-


- 55 -

fected by such arguments as: ‘we trusted that customer demand would be high enough’ (for the ‘all in one go’), and ‘we wanted to go forward but still wanted to have some flexi-bility’ (for ‘carrying on’). The difference observed in performance between the two strate-gies was that parcels of land were finished in different time-frames. This affects the delivery dates of the first parcels to clients and therefore, generation of income for the port and the

time-frame for return on investment. 2. Complex behavior in the commercial subsystem

In the sessions so far, most of the groups chose to be ‘on top of things’ in the commercial process. They argued that they wanted to contract exclusively with the ‘high potential’ cli-ents for the new port area. Especially in the beginning, this strategy is not easy to maintain

because the commercial director must take into account many aspects: building process lead time, various parcels' delivery times, specific client demands, balancing among four categories of clients, and an allocation plan. The selection criteria for high potential clients can also conflict. In some instances the teams wanted to contract with distribution clients but only chemical clients were interested. In others the contracting changed to ‘come as

they may’, which meant accepting any interested clients. Later on, when the port area has already contracted with a number of clients, negotiations become less difficult. The building stage has then been completed, there is less possibility for choosing among differ-ent alternatives or options, and the port can be much more selective. The average nego-tiation time at that stage is much shorter than in the beginning.

3. Decision-making in a network

The building and commercial processes run parallel and are closely interwoven, which makes it necessary for the actors to coordinate and communicate effectively. But this is far from easy, both in the game and in the real world. Contracts were signed in the game, yet poor construction planning prevented promised delivery dates from being met. Efforts (de-tailed plans) to reduce uncertainty in one process can generate more uncertainty: as

things progress, there is much more information to take into account and much less flexibil-ity in the other processes. Moreover, differences in interests and backgrounds between en-gineers and marketers can interfere with co-ordination and communication, which requires that even more processes need to be taken into account. Players begin to learn that communication and coordination are crucial and that construction, land allocation, and commercial processes are closely interwoven. They also need to put mechanisms in place

for continuously improving coordination. 4. Emergence in the long run

At the beginning of the game the teams design an allocation plan for MV2, indicating the location for each type of industry. The game shows whether the teams are able to suc-ceed in that plan or if they are forced to diverge from it. It is also interesting to see how the

teams develop the port area. Since it is beyond the scope of this paper to provide a full analysis of port developments with respect to performance, we can only briefly present two teams' port maps: one of the teams opted for the ‘all in one go’ strategy, and the other for ‘carrying on but not rushing it’. Figures 7a-b, 8a-b, and 9a-b show images of how the decisions of each team influenced the development and final lay-out of port.

Figure 7 a-b: Images of the port maps after 10 years (2016)


- 56 -

a. 2016 All in one go b. 2016 Carrying on but rushing it As can be seen in figures 7a and b, the outer contour for each is different. This is the result of different building strategies. In the ‘all in one go’ strategy (figure 7a), the final outer contour is built at one time, which makes building time longer and means that customers

could not yet be placed on Maasvlakte 2. Figure 8 shows the situation in 2016. In 8a all the parcels are already assigned, and in figure 8b only the first part has been completed. On the other hand, in 8a some parcels are empty, while in 8b Maasvlakte 2 is almost full. Figure 8 a-b: Images of port maps after 20 years

a. 2026 All in one go b. 2026 Carrying on but rushing it

Figure 9 a-b: Images of port maps after 30 years


- 57 -

a. 2036 All in one go and On top of things b. 2033 Carrying on but not rushing it and Come as they may

Figure 9 shows the lay-out in 2036. In both situations the entire MV2 has been built and al-most all the parcels are full. The team responsible for the options shown in figure 9a chose

the ‘on top of things’ strategy. They did that well, so there is almost no difference between the allocation plan and the final lay-out. The other group chose ‘carrying on but not rush-ing it’, and this decision also led to a clustering of activities. It can be seen from these fig-ures that initial decisions can lead to different outcomes after 30 years. 9. Conclusion and discussion

In a recent publication on strategic planning of Canadian ports, one contributor convinc-ingly argued that:

Today's port managers need to help their staff see the 'big' picture - understand

how the parts of the logistics chain interact, how local actions often have longer-term and broader impacts than initially realized, and why certain operating policies are needed for the port as a whole. (Ircha 2001, p.132)

In this paper we have shown how systems thinking and games can contribute to filling these needs. In our experience the SIM MV2 game can help managers see the over-

all picture of building and land allocation for the Second Maasvlakte. It is also clear that there are still many more questions and a need for further in-depth analyses. We also plan to develop the game further, and to hold many more sessions with students and profes-sionals. Preliminary findings, however, suggest that the game is of high quality, that players enjoy it and find it educational and instructive. Student players emphasized that they learned much about the complexity of the port project, while professionals stressed that

the game can enhance communication and cooperation with the Port of Rotterdam. But most important of all may be the fact that the game provided an opportunity for profes-sionals and students to look at the future of a complex project in an engaging and enter-taining way. Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Anne-Kirsten Meijer, Jan-Willem Koeman, and Maurits van Schuylenburg of the Port of Rotterdam for their support and significant contributions to the game. Maxim Knepfle and Jeroen Warmerdam, third-year students of information sciences


- 58 -

at TU Delft and now directors of Tygron, provided skilled and untiring programming for the game. Tjhien Liao, a recent graduate in industrial design, did an excellent job in designing the interfaces. Our (former) TPM students, Gijs Buijsrogge and Teun Veldhuizen, were indis-pensable in assisting game design activities. Roy Chin, a PhD in the systems engineering department of TPM, developed most of the map tools. Last but not least, we wish to thank

the management of the Port of Rotterdam for their willingness to explore new territories in gaming and port management and the players for their engagement and enthusiasm. References

Bertalanffy, L. v. (1968). General System Theory; Foundations, Development, Applications.

New York, Braziller. Brown, T., W. Beyeler et al. (2004). "Assessing infrastructure interdependencies: the chal-

lenge of risk analysis for complex adaptive systems." International Journal Critical In-frastructures 1(1): 108-117.

Duke, R. D. and J. L. A. Geurts (2004). Policy Games for Strategic Management: Pathways

into the unknown. Amsterdam, Dutch University Press. Forrester, J. W. (1958). "Industrial Dynamics: A major breakthrough for decision-making."

Harvard Business Review 36(4): 37-66. Gemeente Rotterdam (2004). Havenplan 2020: Ruimte voor kwaliteit (Harbor Plan 2020:

Room for Quality). Rotterdam, Gemeente Rotterdam. Gleick, J. (1988). Chaos; Making a New Science. New York, Viking.

Goodwin, R. M. (1951). "Econometrics in business-style analysis." In Business Cycles and Na-tional Income. A. H. Hansen. New York, W.W. Norton.

Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden Order; How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Reading, Addison-Wesley.

Ircha, M. C. (2001). "Port strategic planning: Canadian port reform." 00028(00002): 125-141. Jennings, N. R. (2000). "On agent-based software engineering." Artificial Intelligence 117:

277 - 296. Kauffman, S. A. (1993). Origins of Order: Self Organisation and Selection in Evolution. Ox-

ford, Oxford University Press. Koppenjan, J. and E.-H. Klijn (2004). Managing Uncertainties in Networks, A network ap-

proach to problem solving and decision making. London, Routledge. Kriz, W. C. (2003). "Creating Effective Learning Environments and Learning Organizations

through Gaming Simulation Design." In Simulation Gaming 34(4): 495-511. Maani, K. E. and R. Y. Cavana (2000). Systems Thinking and Modelling: Understanding

Change and Complexity. Auckland, Prentice-Hall. Mayer, I. and M. d. Jong (2004). "Combining GDSS and games for decision support." In

Group Decision and Negotiation 13: 223-241. Miser, H. J. and E. S. Quade (1985). Handbook of Systems Analysis; Overview of uses, pro-

cedures, applications, and practice. Chichester, Wiley. Port of Rotterdam (2004). Projectorganisatie Maasvlakte 2, Project initiatie document (Pro-

ject Organization Maasvlakte 2, Project initiation document). Rotterdam, Port of Rotterdam: 87.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline; The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.

New York, Doubleday. Senge, P. M., C. Roberts et al. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook; Strategies and Tools for

Building a Learning Organization. Garden City, Doubleday. Stacey, R. D., D. Griffin et al. (2002). Complexity and Management: Fad or Radical Chal-

lenge to Systems Thinking? London, Routledge.


- 59 -

Stewart, I. (1989). Does God Play Dice? The Mathematics of Chaos. Oxford, Blackwell. Suh, N. P. (1999). "A Theory of Complexity, Periodicity and the Design Axioms." Research in

Engineering Design. 11(2): 116-133. Sweeney, L. B. and D. Meadows (2001). The Systems Thinking Playbook. Durham, Pegasus

Communication.

Weijnen, M. P. C., E. F. t. Heuvelhof et al. (2003). Next Generation Infrastructures, Main pro-posal and subprogram descriptions. Delft, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management.


- 60 -

Bijlage 3 Resultaten Enquetes SIM MV2/Sim Port Na afloop van het spel hebben de deelnemers een enquête ingevuld. De vragen in de enquête bestonden uit de achtergrond van de deelnemers, vragen over het spel en de opzet van het spel en vragen over de leereffecten van het spel. De vragen bestond voor-namelijk uit stellingen waar de deelnemers konden aangeven of ze het eens of oneens waren met de stelling op een 5-punts schaal. Hieronder zullen de resultaten van de enquê-

tes getoond worden. In de tabellen worden de gemiddelde scores weergegeven en tus-sen haakjes de standaarddeviatie. Er is een totaalscore gegeven over alle sessies en de score per sessie is weergegeven. De sessies gespeeld met medewerkers van het Havenbe-drijf Rotterdam zijn zichtbaar door (p) achter de datum. Game play

Een spelsessie duurde in de meeste keren 5 uur, inclusief de introductie, het spel en de de-briefing. Een studententeam heeft het spel in 4 uur gespeeld en 2 studenten teams had-den 7 uur de tijd. De studenten kregen voordat ze begonnen met het spel een introductie

over de geschiedenis en de planning van Maasvlakte 2 van een van de werknemers van het Havenbedrijf Rotterdam. De spelsessie op 31 augustus 2005 was de eerste test van het spel met spelers, die niet bij de ontwikkeling betrokken waren. Het nevendoel van deze sessie was dan ook ervaring op doen en het zoeken naar verbeterpunten voor verdere ontwikkeling. Tijdens de spelsessies in 2005 werd een verbeterde versie gebruikt, maar na

deze sessies zijn er nog punten verbeterd. De laatst gespeelde sessie had de primeur om met een geheel vernieuwde versie van het Maasvlaktespel te spelen. Achtergrond deelnemers

Totaal aantal spelers waarvan: 190

- Professionals 40

- Studenten (TU Delft: Techniek Bestuur en Management en

Civiele Techniek)

150


- 61 -

Helemaal niet (be-trokken)

Enigszins (be-trokken)

Redelijk (be-trokken)

Sterk (betrok-ken)

Zeer sterk (be-trokken)

In welke mate bent u dagelijks betrokken bij strategische as-pecten van MV2?

1 13 12 7 8

In welke mate bent u dagelijks betrokken bij bouw en inrich-tings aspecten van MV2?

14 8 6 5 6

In welke mate bent u dagelijks betrokken bij commerciele aspecten van MV2?

6 12 14 4 3

Hoe geinformeerd was u over MV2 1 8 7 17 6

Table 1: Background knowledge of Maasvalkte 2 (professionals) Relevantie en realisme van SIMMV 2 voor de haven van Rotterdam

Datum van de sessie

Total 31/8/05 (p)1

2/12/05 9/12/05 24/1/06 (p)

13/3/06 14/3/06 15/3/06 16/3/06 17/3/06 22/3/06 23/3/06 28/6/06 (p)

29/6/06 (p)

22/9/06

De doel-stelling van het spel was duidelijk

4.1 (.64)

4.2 (0,98)

4.5 (.52)

3.8 (.92)

4.1 (.64)

3.9 (.88)

4.2 (.57)

4.3 (.49)

4.1 (.47)

4.2 (.43)

3.8 (.56)

4.3 (.46)

4.2 (.66)

4.1 (.60)

3.7 (.82)

De doel-stelling van het spel was relevant

4.0 (.69)

4.2 (.75)

4.2 (.87)

4.0 (.67)

4.1 (.35)

4.1 (.70)

4.4 (.74)

3.9 (.44)

4.0 (.59)

4.0 (.60)

3.8 (.89)

3.7 (.48)

3.7 (.70)

4.1 (.33)

3.8 (1.14)

Het spel was interes-sant opge-bouwd

4.3 (.58)

4.2 (41) 4.5 (.69)

4.1 (.57)

3.9 (.64)

4.2 (.56)

4.5 (.51)

4.4 (.50)

4.3 (.59)

4.4 (.51)

4.1 (.64)

4.1 (.42)

3.9 (.57)

4.6 (.53)

4.4 (.70)

Het spel was vol-doende gedetail-leerd

3.7 (.77)

4.0 (1.23)

3.7 (.79)

3.5 (.71)

3.4 (.74)

3.6 (.91)

3.8 (.86)

3.6 (.62)

3.9 (.58)

4.0 (.69)

3.9 (.64)

3.6 (.71)

3.6 (.96)

4.1 (.60)

3.9 (.99)

Het spel was

3.5 (.83)

3.5 (.84)

3.8 (.60)

3.1 (1.00)

3.5 (.54)

3.7 (.90)

3.4 (.80)

3.2 (.81)

3.7 (.70)

3.8 (.65)

3.3 (1.00)

3.3 (.76)

3.4 (1.15)

3.9 (.60)

3.9 (.88)

1 p betekent dat de sessie met professionals is gespeeld. De andere sessie waren met studenten


- 1 -

vol-doende realis-tisch

Table 2: Relevantie van SIMMV2 voor het havenbedrijf van Rotterdam Facilitation

Datum van de sessie

Total 31/8/05 (p)

2/12/05 9/12/05 24/1/06 (p)

13/3/06 14/3/06 15/3/06 16/3/06 17/3/06 22/3/06 23/3/06 28/6/06 (p)

29/6/06 (p)

22/9/06

De in-structies waren duidelijk

3.9 (.73)

3.7 (.82)

3.9 (.70)

3.9 (.32)

3.6 (.52)

3.1 (.92)

4.0 (.79)

4.2 (.73)

3.9 (.68)

4.1 (.56)

3.7 (.62)

3.9 (.76)

4.1 (.72)

4.2 (.44)

3.6 (.73)

Het spelma-teriaal was duidelijk

3.9 (.72)

3.8 (.75)

4.0 (.89)

3.7 (.48)

4.0 (.76)

3.5 (.92)

3.7 (.77)

3.9 (.64)

3.9 (.73)

3.9 (.60)

4.2 (.41)

4.2 (.41)

3.9 (.62)

4.1 (.60)

3.1 (.99)

De ta-ken waren duidelijk

3.7 (.72)

3.3 (.82)

3.9 (.83)

3.5 (.71)

3.9 (.84)

3.6 (.63)

3.5 (.51)

3.3 (.75)

3.8 (.86)

3.9 (.54)

3.8 (.67)

3.8 (.67)

3.7 (.70)

4.0 (.50)

3.5 (.85)

Het spel werd goed bege-leid

4.2 (.72)

4.2 (.41)

3.6 (.93)

4.0 (.82)

4.1 (.64)

4.3 (.59)

4.5 (.51)

4.3 (.58)

4.1 (.80)

4.1 (.71)

4.1 (.64)

4.1 (.64)

4.1 (.81)

4.6 (.53)

3.8 (.92)

De spel-regels waren duidelijk

3.7 (.86)

2.7 (1.03)

3.9 (.70)

3.6 (.70)

3.6 (.52)

3.3 (.72)

3.4 (1.15)

3.8 (1.10)

4.0 (.78)

3.8 (.79)

3.4 (.93)

3.4 (.93)

3.8 (.78)

3.9 (.78)

3.5 (.71)

Al het beno-digde materi-aal was aanwe-zig

4.1 (.74)

3.7 (1.21)

4.0 (.89)

4.0 (.67)

4.4 (.52)

3.7 (.62)

4.1 (.86)

4.2 (.65)

4.1 (.94)

4.3 (.67)

4.0 (.66)

4.0 (.66)

4.3 (.71)

4.3 (.50)

3.9 (.88)

Table 3: Facilitatie van spel


- 2 -

Kwaliteit van spelopzet Inzet spelers

Date of session

Total 31/8/05 (p)

2/12/05 9/12/05 24/1/06 (p)

13/3/06 14/3/06 15/3/06 16/3/06 17/3/06 22/3/06 23/3/06 28/6/06 (p)

29/6/06 (p)

22/9/06

De taken waren te makkelijk

2.6 (.75)

2.0 (.89)

2.3 (.47)

3.3 (.95)

2.6 (.54)

2.5 (.64)

2.5 (.51)

2.8 (.65)

2.2 (.73)

2.7 (.69)

2.7 (.92)

2.7 (.75)

2.9 (1.00)

2.9 (.90)

2.4 (.84)

De taken waren te moeilijk

2.6 (.81)

3.7 (1.21)

2.9 (.83)

2.5 (371)

2.6 (.54)

2.3 (.62)

2.5 (.72)

2.1 (.76)

2.7 (.69)

2.7 (1.03)

2.7 (.70)

2.5 (.62)

3.0 (.82)

2.2 (.44)

2.7 (1.0)

We had-den te weinig tijd om te spelen

3.2 (1.16)

4.5 (.84)

3.6 (1.43)

2.7 (.68)

2.6 (.92)

3.1 (1.16)

2.9 (1.11)

2.7 (1.19)

3.7 (.97)

2.9 (1.32)

3.1 (1.41)

3.4 (1.09)

3.1 (.93)

3.0 (1.00)

3.5 (.97)

Het spel was te langzaam

2.1 (.78)

1.8 (.41)

2.5 (.82)

2.4 (8.4)

2.3 (.71)

2.3 (.82)

2.0 (.79)

2.0 (.60)

1.8 (.62)

1.9 (.80)

2.2 (1.15)

1.9 (.58)

2.1 (.81)

2.3 (.50)

2.5 (1.08)

De oor-zaak en effect relaties waren zichtbaar

3.5 (.79)

2.2 (.98)

3.9 (1.14)

3.6 (.52)

2.8 (.71)

3.5 (.64)

3.5 (.74)

3.7 (.79)

3.4 (.51)

3.7 (.59)

3.3 (.80)

3.5 (.79)

3.3 (.87)

3.8 (.67)

3.9 (.57)

De feed-back was goed

4.0 (.63)

3.5 (.84)

3.9 (.94)

3.9 (.57)

3.9 (.64)

4.3 (.46)

3.9 (.56)

4.1 (.47)

3.9 (.64)

4.2 (.62)

3.6 (.74)

4.1 (.64)

3.9 (.62)

3.8 (.44)

4.1 (.57)

Table 4: Kwaliteit van het spel


- 3 -

Inzet spelers

Datum van de sessie

Total 31/8/05 (p)

2/12/05 9/12/05 24/1/06 (p)

13/3/06 14/3/06 15/3/06 16/3/06 17/3/06 22/3/06 23/3/06 28/6/06 (p)

29/6/06 (p)

22/9/06

De inzet van de spelers was goed

4.3 (.66)

4.2 (.41)

4.5 (.52)

4.5 (.53)

4.3 (.71)

4.5 (.83)

4.2 (.53)

4.4 (.51)

4.3 (.58)

4.2 (1.04)

4.1 (.59)

4.1 (.54)

4.2 (.83)

4.4 (.53)

4.3 (.48)

Ik heb mij goed ingeleefd in mijn rol

3.7 (.75)

3.7 (.52)

4.3 (.65)

3.5 (.53)

3.6 (.52)

3.7 (.80)

3.9 (.70)

3.7 (.85)

3.9 (.58)

3.9 (.83)

3.1 (.74)

3.8 (.65)

3.4 (.73)

4.2 (. 67)

3.7 (1.06)

Andere spelers hebben zich goed ingeleefd in hun rol

3.9 (.70)

3.8 (.41)

4.3 (.65)

4.0 (.47)

3.6 (.52)

4.0 (.76)

3.8 (.73)

4.0 (.69)

3.9 (.42)

3.7 (.97)

3.4 (.51)

3.9 (.64)

3.4 (.73)

4.3 (.71)

4.0 (.67)

We re-flecteer-den vol-doende binnen ons team

3.8 (.89)

3.3 (.82)

4.2 (.88)

3.7 (.68)

3.0 (.54)

4.4 (.74)

3.9 (.90)

3.9 (.73)

3.9 (.76)

3.6 (1.15)

3.5 (.83)

4.0 (.59)

3.6 (.62)

3.9 (1.05)

3.0 (1.25)

De dis-cussies in het team waren goed

3.7 (.76)

3.8 (.41)

4.1 (.70)

3.6 (.52)

3.3 (.89)

3.9 (.64)

3.5 (.87)

3.9 (.68)

3.9 (.49)

3.6 (1.15)

3.6 (.74)

3.7 (.56)

3.4 (.73)

3.8 (.44)

3.4 (1.08)

We werk-ten goed samen

3.8 (.86)

3.7 (.82)

4.2 (.75)

3.9 (.32)

3.5 (.76)

4.3 (.59)

3.7 (.79)

4.3 (.70)

3.8 (.51)

3.9 (1.18)

3.3 (.73)

3.9 (.64)

3.8 (.75)

4.1 (1.05)

3.0 (1.56)

Table 5: Inzet van de spelers Toegevoegde waarde SIMMV2 voor het havenbedrijf

Datum van de sessie

Total 31/8/05 (p)

2/12/05 9/12/05 24/1/06 (p)

13/3/06 14/3/06 15/3/06 16/3/06 17/3/06 22/3/06 23/3/06 28/6/06 (p)

29/6/06 (p)

22/9/06

SIM MV2 is de moeite waard

3.7 (.74)

3.5 (.55)

3.7 (1.19)

3.6 (.88)

4.0 (.00)

3.9 (.48)

3.9 (.59)

3.9 (.26)

3.9 (.34)

4.0 (.52)

3.6 (1.01)

3.4 (.89)

3.5 (.74)

4.0 (.00)

3.3 (1.34)


- 4 -

SIM MV2 kan sa-menwer-king be-vorderen

3.9 (.67)

4.2 (.45)

3.9 (.83)

3.8 (.67)

3.9 (.64)

4.0 (.76)

4.2 (.53)

4.0 (.00)

3.9 (.47)

4.1 (.60)

4.1 (.74)

3.7 (.77)

3.4 (.96)

4.1 (.60)

4.0 (.67)

SIM MV2 kan commu-nicatie bevorde-ren

3.9 (.69)

4.0 (.00)

4.1 (.70)

3.3 (.87)

3.8 (.47)

3.8 (.68)

4.0 (.70)

4.1 (.24)

4.1 (.54)

4.3 (.70)

4.1 (.83)

3.7 (.75)

3.6 (.91)

4.3 (.46)

3.7 (.48)

SIM MV2 is leer-zaam

3.9 (.72)

4.0 (.00)

4.6 (.69)

3.8 (.79)

4.3 (.71)

4.1 (.64)

3.9 (.70)

3.8 (.38)

4.1 (.54)

4.1 (.58)

3.5 (1.06)

3.8 (.55)

3.5 (1.03)

4.1 (.33)

4.1 (.74)

Table 6: De waarde van SIMMV volgens de deelnemers Fun Factor

Datum van de sessie

Total 31/8/05 (p)

2/12/05 9/12/05 24/1/06 (p)

13/3/06 14/3/06 15/3/06 16/3/06 17/3/06 22/3/06 23/3/06 28/6/06 (p)

29/6/06 (p)

22/9/06

SIM MV2 is leuk

4.2 (.62)

4.2 (.41)

4.8 (.40)

4.1 (.57)

4.3 (.46)

4.3 (.72)

4.1 (.70)

4.3 (.59)

4.1 (.54)

4.3 (.46)

3.9 (.51)

3.9 (.54)

4.0 (.73)

4.4 (.53)

3.9 (.88)

Ik zou SIM MV2 nog wel een keer willen spelen

3.5 (1.05)

4.0 (.89)

4.1 (.94)

3.3 (.1.25)

3.3 (1.04)

3.1 (.99)

3.5 (.94)

2.9 (1.00)

3.9 (1.08)

3.9 (1.02)

3.2 (1.15)

3.5 (.79)

2.7 (1.01)

3.9 (.60)

3.5 (1.18)

De uitkom-sten zullen bij een vol-gende keer beter zijn

4.4 (.74)

3.7 (1.03)

4.5 (.85)

4.0 (.67)

4.1 (.84)

4.6 (.83)

4.7 (.70)

4.6 (.62)

4.7 (.58)

4.4 (.86)

4.5 (.52)

4.4 (.61)

3.8 (.54)

4.0 (.71)

4.0 (0.71)

Table 7: fun factor van SIMMV2


- 5 -

Ervaringen van spelers

Datum van de sessie

Total 31/8/05 (p)

2/12/05 9/12/05 24/1/06 (p)

13/3/06 14/3/06 15/3/06 16/3/06 17/3/06 22/3/06 23/3/06 28/6/06 (p)

29/6/06 (p)

22/9/06

SIMMV2 geeft nieu-we inzich-ten

3.7 (.95)

2.5 (.84)

4.4 (.92)

3.9 (.88)

2.9 (.64)

4.1 (.52)

4.5 (.72)

3.9 (.64)

3.6 (1.04)

4.0 (.69)

3.7 (.70)

3.9 (.68)

2.8 (.86)

2.7 (.87)

3.9 (1.10)

De lange termijn ef-fecten zijn zichtbaar geworden

3.5 (.94)

3.2 (1.10)

4.4 (.92)

3.4 (.70)

3.6 (1.06)

3.8 (.72)

3.8 (.75)

3.3 (1.03)

3.8 (.73)

3.8 (.64)

3.5 (.76)

3.3 (.97)

2.6 (.89)

3.3 (1.23)

3.8 (1.03)

SIMMV2 heeft inzicht gegeven in technische complexiteit

3.3 (1.03)

3.8 (.84)

4.0 (1.34)

3.6 (.84)

3.5 (1.07)

3.8 (.72)

3.3 (1.11)

3.2 (.94)

3.3 (.69)

3.4 (.94)

3.3 (.99)

3.0 (1.28)

2.6 (1.09)

3.0 (087)

3.8 (1.03)

SIMMV2 heeft inzicht gegeven in strategische complexiteit

3.9 (.77)

3.8 (.84)

4.5 (.52)

3.7 (.82)

4.0 (.76)

3.9 (.70)

4.1 (.70)

3.9 (.73)

3.8 (.62)

4.2 (.51)

4.3 (.59)

3.9 (.73)

3.0 (1.03)

3.9 (.60)

4.0 (.82)

SIMMV2 heeft inzicht gegeven in commercie-le complexi-teit

3.9 (.76)

4.0 (.71)

4.5 (.69)

3.5 (.85)

3.9 (.64)

3.9 (.46)

4.1 (.60)

3.8 (.51)

3.9 (.58)

4.1 (.64)

4.2 (.56)

3.7 (.77)

2.7 (.87)

3.9 (.60)

4.2 (.79)

SIMMV2 geeft een helder beeld van de toekom-stige MV2

3.6 (.86)

2.8 (.84)

3.9 (1.14)

3.7 (.68)

3.3 (.46)

4.0 (.66)

4.0 (.82)

3.6 (.85)

3.8 (.92)

3.9 (.73)

3.5 (.92)

3.3 (.84)

3.0 (.52)

3.7 (.50)

3.2 (1.14)

SIMMV2 draagt bij aan een goede rea-lisatie van MV2

3.3 (.83)

3.2 (.84)

3.6 (1.21)

3.6 (.53)

3.1 (.64)

3.4 (.51)

3.5 (.87)

3.0 (.79)

3.2 (.81)

3.6 (.70)

3.1 (.59)

3.3 (.96)

2.7 (.87)

3.2 (.67)

3.2 (1.14)

SIMMV2 heeft laten zien waar-

3.7 (.72)

4.0 (.71)

4.0 (.45)

3.8 (.63)

4.0 (1.07)

3.7 (.62)

3.7 (.69)

3.7 (.67)

3.6 (.51)

3.8 (.65)

3.9 (.74)

3.6 (.86)

3.3 (.94)

3.9 (.33)

4.0 (.94)


- 6 -

om af-stemming noodzakelijk is

Table 8: leerervaringen van spelers Kwaliteit computeromgeving

Datum van de sessie

Total 31/8/05 (p)

2/12/05 9/12/05 24/1/06 (p)

13/3/06 14/3/06 15/3/06 16/3/06 17/3/06 22/3/06 23/3/06 28/6/06 (p)

29/6/06 (p)

22/9/06

Computers waren makke-lijk te gebrui-ken

3.9 (.86)

3.5 (1.05)

2.8 (1.08)

3.6 (1.08)

4.3 (.71)

4.1 (.52)

3.9 (.93)

4.2 (.86)

3.8 (.73)

3.9 (.73)

4.0 (1.07)

3.8 (.79)

3.8 (.68)

4.0 (.00)

4.1 (.88)

Het is leuk om computers te gebruiken

4.0 (.74)

4.0 (.63)

3.8 (.87)

3.7 (.82)

4.0 (.54)

4.2 (.56)

4.0 (.71)

4.4 (.51)

4.0 (.59)

4.0 (.67)

3.7 (1.18)

4.0 (.59)

3.7 (.70)

4.0 (.50)

3.9 (1.10)

Ik had vol-doende con-trole over het spel

3.7 (.81)

3.7 (1.03)

2.8 (1.08)

3.6 (.70)

3.6 (.52)

3.6 (.63)

3.8 (.68)

3.9 (.83)

3.7 (.84)

3.9 (.68)

3.7 (.72)

3.9 (.76)

3.3 (.79)

3.8 (.44)

3.6 (1.27)

Ik had vaak hulp nodig bij de bediening van de com-puter

2.6 (1.13)

3.3 (.52)

3.6 (1.51)

3.2 (1.09)

2.5 (.54)

2.9 (1.28)

1.9 (.97)

2.2 (.88)

2.2 (.99)

2.1 (1.08)

2.7 (1.53)

2.6 (.98)

3.1 (.77)

2.8 (.67)

3.1 (1.20)

Stijlkenmerken zijn mooi en passend

3.7 (.67)

3.8 (.41)

4.1 (.70)

3.6 (.70)

3.6 (.74)

3.7 (.56)

3.3 (.60)

3.8 (.43)

3.6 (.71)

3.8 (.73)

3.6 (.83)

3.5 (.72)

3.9 (.64)

3.7 (.50)

3.9 (.74)

Het digitale kaart materi-aal was over-zichtelijk

3.8 (.72)

3.5 (.84)

4.1 (.70)

3.8 (.42)

4.0 (.54)

4.0 (3.8)

3.8 (.81)

3.6 (.78)

3.8 (.55)

3.8 (.79)

3.9 (.92)

3.3 (.77)

3.7 (.59)

4.0 (.71)

3.7 (.95)

Ik had een duidelijk ge-voel voor tijd in het spel

2.9 (1.05)

1.8 (.75)

3.5 (1.13)

2.8 (1.14)

3.0 (.76)

2.8 (1.01)

2.8 (1.15)

2.9 (1.28)

2.4 (.78)

3.4 (.86)

2.9 (1.19)

3.1 (1.13)

2.6 (.62)

3.6 (.73)

2.8 (1.14)

De interface gaven vol-doende in-zicht in de prestaties

3.3 (.84)

2.8 (.98)

3.5 (1.21)

3.3 (1.06)

3.4 (.74)

3.7 (.59)

3.1 (.97)

3.6 (.61)

3.4 (.80)

3.7 (.67)

3.1 (.86)

3.3 (.67)

2.8 (.54)

3.6 (.92)

3.0 (1.00)

Er deden zich weinig com-puterstorin-

3.3 (1.27)

3.0 (.63)

2.7 (1.36)

2.1 (.99)

3.1 (.84)

2.7 (1.29)

2.8 (1.03)

3.4 (1.20)

3.8 (.92)

4.3 (.97)

3.4 (1.55)

3.7 (1.05)

3.5 (.97)

2.8 (1.79)

4.1 (.99)


- 7 -

gen voor

Computerstor-ingen werden snel verhol-pen

3.8 (.93)

4.0 (1.00)

2.8 (1.25)

3.9 (.32)

4.4 (.52)

3.5 (1.02)

3.7 (.87)

4.0 (.73)

3.7 (.75)

4.3 (.71)

4.1 (.83)

3.9 (1.30)

3.9 (.64)

3.6 (1.27)

3.6 (.98)

Table 9: Kwaliteit computeromgeving

sim maasvlakte 2 - create your own future · sim maasvlakte 2 - create your own future ! port...

Documents