A Management Model for Effective Team Communication in Business Simulation Games

  • Anna Palyga
  • Marcin Wardaszko
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10711)


The scientific aim of this research is to define how to manage communication effectiveness in teamwork in highly complex and dynamic problem-solving settings. Existing studies on communication processes and teamwork effectiveness are quite numerous but do not offer any coherent results nor precise conclusions regarding communicative effectiveness in teams for business games contexts. This stems not only from the variety of scientific fields examining this matter but also from the differences in paradigms and methods employed. Also important is the fact that the relationship between group processes and teamwork effectiveness derives from highly complex and multileveled phenomena and processes. Thus, there is a need to embrace a dynamic, process-oriented approach. Previous research in this field is based on static diagnosis, meaning: on observation or diagnosis of states at different time-points and comparison between the two. There is very little research on teamwork effectiveness focusing on tracking (1) the “waving” of communication processes in time and (2) the adaptive dynamics in the teamwork course. This research was aimed at testing a method that would make it possible to develop such an approach, and it resulted in the emergence of a behavioral pattern in the examined teams. Based on that, the authors elaborate a management model for an effective communication management process at the team level.


Team communication Process-oriented approach Team work Research method Serious games Effectiveness model 


  1. All, A., Nuñez Castellar, E.P., Van Looy, J.: Measuring effectiveness in digital game-based learning: a methodological review. Int. J. Serious Games 1(2), 3–21 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annetta, L.A., Minogue, J., Holmes, S.Y., Cheng, M.-T.: Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Comput. Educ. 53, 74–85 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bales, R.: A set of categories for the analysis of small group interaction. Am. Sociol. Rev. 15(2), 257–263 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnlund, D.C.: A transactional model of communication. In: Akin, J., Goldberg, A., Myers, G., Stewart, J. (eds.) Language Behaviour: A Book of Readings in Communication, pp. 45–63. Mauton and Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague (1970)Google Scholar
  5. Bitkowska, A.: Zarządzanie Procesami Biznesowymi W Przedsiębiorstwie. Vizja Press & IT, Warszawa (2009)Google Scholar
  6. Chidambaram, L., Bostrom, R.P.: Group development (I): a review and synthesis of development models. Group Decis. Negot. 6, 159–187 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duke, R.L., Geurts, J.L.: Policy Games for Strategic Management. Dutch University Press, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  8. Faria, A.J., Wellington, W.: The effect of time pressure, team formation and planning on simulation/game performance. In: Crookall, D., Arai, K. (eds.) Simulation and Gaming Across Disciplines and Cultures. SAGE Publications (1994)Google Scholar
  9. Girard, C., Ecalle, J., Magnan, A.: Serious games as new educational tools: how effective are they? A meta-analysis of recent studies. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 29(March 2012), 207–219 (2013). Scholar
  10. Hainey, T., Connolly, T., Stansfield, M., Boyle, L.: The use of computer games in education: a review of literature. In: Patric, F. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Improving Learning and Motivation Through Educational Games: Multidisciplinary Approaches, pp. 29–50. Waterford Institute of Technology, Ireland (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hergeth, H.: Team behavior and team success: results from a board game simulation. In: Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, vol. 34 (2007).
  12. Kayes, D.C., Kayes, A., Kolb, D.A.: Experiential learning in teams. Simul. Gaming 36(3), 330–354 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kriz, W.C.: Lernziel Systemkompetenz. Planspiele als Trainingsmethode. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen (2000)Google Scholar
  14. Kriz, W.C.: Creating effective interactive learning environments through gaming simulation design. J. Simul. Gaming 34(4), 495–511 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kriz, W.C., Hense, J.: Theory-oriented evaluation for the design of and research in gaming and simulation. J. Simul. Gaming 37(2), 268–283 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kriz, W.C., Nöbauer, B.: Teamkompetenz. Konzepte – Trainingsmethoden – Praxis. J. Simul. Gaming 34(4), 495–511 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. Levi, D.: Group Dynamics for Teams, 5th edn. California Polytechnic State University. Sage Publications Inc, San Luis Obispo (2016)Google Scholar
  18. Ruszkowska, A., Wardaszko, M.: Process-oriented research method for teamwork effectiveness assessment in business simulation games. Dev. Bus. Simul. Experiential Learn. 1, 233–239 (2016)Google Scholar
  19. Tomaszewski, P.: Interactions of deaf pre-schoolers: a comparison of the communicative behaviours of deaf children of deaf parents and of deaf children of hearing parents. Psychol. Lang. Commun. 12(2), 69–87 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Thavikulwat, P., Chang, J.: Pick your group size: a better procedure to resolve the free-rider problem in a business simulation. Dev. Bus. Simul. Experiential Learn. 37, 14–22 (2010). http://www.absel.orgGoogle Scholar
  21. Thavikulwat, P., Chang, J.: Two free-rider-accepting methods of organizing groups for a business game. Dev. Bus. Simul. Experiential Learn. 39(2012), 26–34 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. Thavikulwat, P., Chang, J.: Hybrid methods of organizing groups for a business game. Dev. Bus. Simul. Experiential Learn. 42, 91–101 (2015)Google Scholar
  23. Wolfe, J., McCoy, R.: Should business game players choose their teammates: a study with pedagogical implications. Dev. Bus. Simul. Experiential Learn. 35, 315–328 (2008). http://www.absel.orgGoogle Scholar
  24. Wolfe, J., McCoy, R.: Those who do and those that don’t: a study of engaged and disengaged business game players. Dev. Bus. Simul. Experiential Learn. 38, 383–389 (2011). http://www.absel.orgGoogle Scholar
  25. Wolfe, J., Chacko, T.L.: Team-size effects on business game performance and decision-making behaviours. Decis. Sci. 14, 121–133 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wrzesien, M., Raya, M.A.: Learning in serious virtual worlds: evaluation of learning effectiveness and appeal to students in the E-Junior project. Comput. Educ. 55, 178–187 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kozminski UniversityWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations