Abstract
Over the last few decades, practitioners and management scholars increasingly criticized the conventional strategy making methods, arguing that rapidly changing environments require emerging and creative approaches. Serious gaming (simulation game or gaming, used interchangeably within the text) discipline is found to be increasingly useful within mainstream strategy literature involved with former strategy making approaches. Serious gaming as an approach for understanding infrastructure is disused in this chapter. This discussion includes concepts game cycle, data negation, scenario development as well as model for estimating consequences and probabilities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ancel, E. (2011). A systemic approach to next generation infrastructure data elicitation and planning using serious gaming methods (Ph.D.). Old Dominion University, United States—Virginia. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.odu.edu/docview/896960555/abstract/C4484A36FA444018PQ/5.
Bedford, T., & Cooke, R. (2001). Probabilistic risk analysis: Foundations and methods. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bekebrede, G. (2010). Experiencing complexity: A gaming approach for understanding infrastructure systems. Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. Retrieved from http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:dae75f36-4fb6-4a53-8711-8aab42378878.
Cleland, D., Dray, A., Perez, P., Cruz-Trinidad, A., & Geronimo, R. (2012). Simulating the dynamics of subsistence fishing communities: REEFGAME as a learning and data-gathering computer-assisted role-play game. Simulation & Gaming, 43(1), 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878110380890.
deLeon, P. (1975). Scenario designs: An overview. Simulation & Games, 6(1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/003755007561002.
Demeter, G. (2007). Symposium article: Role-plays as a data collection method for research on apology speech acts. Simulation & Gaming, 38(1), 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878106297880.
Duke, R. D. (1974). Gaming: The future’s language. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved from https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/45243363.
Bekebrede, G., Mayer, I., van Houten, S.P.A., Chin, R.T., & Verbraeck, A., (2005). How serious are serious games? Some lessons from infra-games. In Presented at the Proceedings of Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA) Conference: Changing Views—Worlds in Play. Vancouver, BC: DiGRA. Retrieved from http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/06278.53186.pdf.
Geurts, J. L. A., Duke, R., & Vermeulen, P. A. M. (2007). Policy gaming for strategy and change. 558. Retrieved from https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/157314.
Greenblat, C. S., & Duke, R. D. (1975). Gaming simulation: Rationale, design and applications. New York: Wiley Inc.
Halleck, G. (2007). Symposium article: Data generation through role-play—Assessing oral proficiency. Simulation & Gaming, 38(1), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878106298268.
IAEA. (1996). Manual for the classification and prioritization of risks due to major accidents in process and related industries. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved from http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/5391/Manual-for-the-Classification-and-Prioritization-of-Risks-due-to-Major-Accidents-in-Process-and-Related-Industries.
Jacobs, C. D., & Statler, M. (2006). Toward a technology of foolishness: Developing scenarios through serious play. International Studies of Management & Organization, 36(3), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.2753/IMO0020-8825360304.
Joldersma, C., & Geurts, J. L. A. (1998). Simulation/gaming for policy development and organizational change. Simulation & Gaming, 29(4), 391–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/104687819802900402.
Kuit, M., Mayer, I. S., & de Jong, M. (2005). The INFRASTRATEGO game: An evaluation of strategic behavior and regulatory regimes in a liberalizing electricity market. Simulation & Gaming, 36(1), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878104272666.
Luna-Reyes, L. F., Zhang, J., Ramón Gil-GarcÃa, J., & Cresswell, A. M. (2005). Information systems development as emergent socio-technical change: A practice approach. European Journal of Information Systems, 14(1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000524.
Mayer, I. S. (2009). The gaming of policy and the politics of gaming: A review. Simulation & Gaming, 40(6), 825–862. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878109346456.
National Research Council. (2001). Maintaining U.S. leadership in aeronautics: Scenario-based strategic planning for NASA’s aeronautics enterprise. https://doi.org/10.17226/5546.
Rosendale, D. (2016). Role-play as a data-generation method. Simulation & Games. https://doi.org/10.1177/104687818902000410.
Vamanu, B. I., Gheorghe, A. V., & Katina, P. F. (2016). Critical infrastructures: Risk and vulnerability assessment in transportation of dangerous goods—Transportation by road and rail (Vol. 31). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-30931-6.
Wenzler, I. (2005). Simulations and social responsibility: Why should we bother? In R. Shiratori, K. Arai, & F. Kato (Eds.), Gaming, simulations, and society: Research scope and perspective (pp. 139–148). Tokyo: Springer Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/4-431-26797-2_15.
Wenzler, I. (2008). The role of simulation games in transformational change. WVB, Berlin: Planspiele Fü r Die Organisationsentwicklung.
Wilson, K. A., Bedwell, W. L., Lazzara, E. H., Salas, E., Burke, C. S., Estock, J. L., et al. (2009). Relationships between game attributes and learning outcomes: Review and research proposals. Simulation & Gaming, 40(2), 217–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878108321866.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Final Remarks
Final Remarks
Calculations of human casualties are associated with ‘accident,’, along with the probabilities of occurrence of accidents. The risk to the public from these activities is estimated by combining these two values. Consequences are categorized with respect to fatalities, and the probability classes are categorized by one order of magnitude of the number of accidents per year. The results obtained from the consequence and probability calculations are represented on the risk matrix, providing an overall picture of the risk. The interpretation of the risk matrix provides the acceptability criteria for the societal risk. The thresholds for acceptable risks can be based on accident frequency/probabilities as indicated in Fig. 8.1, consequences in Fig. 8.2, or a combination of both, which is based on the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle and as suggested in Fig. 8.3.
Acceptability determined by frequency
Acceptability based on consequences
Acceptability based on frequency and consequences
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Georgescu, A., Gheorghe, A.V., Piso, MI., Katina, P.F. (2019). Serious Gaming and Policy Gaming. In: Critical Space Infrastructures. Topics in Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality, vol 36. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12604-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12604-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12603-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12604-9
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)