Advertisement

How Do Architects Think? A Game Based Microworld for Elucidating Dynamic Decision-Making

  • Johan de HeerEmail author
Conference paper

Abstract

How do we think? A puzzling question given that humans may employ various actions, tactics and strategies during complex decision making tasks. Not to mention the influence of personality, style and intentions on judgment and decision-making. In this paper we focus on modeling Dynamic Decision Making (DDM) by utilizing actual in-game observations. We developed a ‘game based microworld’ through which we can capture and analyze players’ reasoning behaviors. The use case is a bid for a complex system, in which we are interested in the contractor architects’ DDM. Further, we explore various methods for game analytics that can be used to understand human reasoning. We conclude with several applications where game analytics may be utilized such as knowledge engineering, business intelligence, and training.

Keywords

Human Reasoning Business Intelligence Dynamic Decision Make Technology Utilization Game Behavior 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thales’ Key Technology Domain Systems group for supporting this research & technology activity, Thales Netherlands Top Class Architecting for providing the trainees for this experiment, Thales Netherlands Naval Systems for development of the game content for the Bid scenario. T-Xchange, a research collaboration on serious gaming between Thales Research & Technology and Twente University that developed the game based microworld. COMMIT/who provided us the means and opportunity to set up a use case for game based knowledge engineering.

References

  1. 1.
    Gonzalez, C., Lerch, J.F., Lebiere, C.: Instance-based learning in dynamic decision making. Cogn. Sci. 27, 591–635 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kahneman, D.: Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mayer, I.S., van Dierendonck, D., van Ruijven, T. et al.: Stealth assessment of teams in a digital game environment. In: GALA 2013 Conference, Paris, 23–25 October, pp. 1–13 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brehmer, B., Dorner, D.: Experiments with computer simulated microworlds: escaping both the narrow straits of the laboratory and the deep blue sea of the fields study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 9, 171–184 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Klabbers, H.G.: The Magic Circle: Principles of Gaming and Simulation, 3rd & rev. edn. SensePublishers, Dordrecht (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schell, J.: In Peters, A.K. (ed.) The art of game design: a book of lenses, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ross, A.M., Fitzgerald, M.E., Rhodes, D.H.: Game-based learning for system engineering concepts. In: Conference on Systems Engineering Research (CSER), pp. 1–11 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bakkes, S.C.J., Spronck, P.H.M., van Lankveld, G.: Player behavioural modelling for video games. Entertainment Comput. 3(3), 71–79 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Jong, T., Linn, M.C., Zacharia, Z.C.: Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science 340, 305–308 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van den Ven, J.G.M., Stubbé, H., Hrehovcsik, M.: Gaming for policy makers: it’s serious! In: GALA2013, LNCS 8605, pp. 376–382 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Thales Research and Technology/T-Xchange NetherlandsTwente UniversityEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations