Serious Gaming: TeamUp

1Challenge the future

TeamUp© Dr. Igor Mayer [email protected]

Faculty Technology, Policy and Management (TPM) & Signature Games

Delft University of technology, The Netherlands

mailto:[email protected]




Reference

• Mayer, I. S., van Dierendonck, D., van Ruijven, T., & Wenzler, I. (2013). Stealth Assessment of Teams in a Digital Game Environment. In GALA 2013 Conference, Paris (pp. 1–13). Paris, France: Springer.


SG Research tool (2012 -) Patentometer (2012) Marine Spatial Planning,

(E&I 2011-)CharliePappa(BvB 2011 -)

Achmea Nieuw Zorgbedrijf (2010)

Electricity Market Simulation Game (TU-

Delft )

ProRail games (2010 – 14)

National Intelligence – (Politieac. 2009)

Hugo de Groot (NHM 2008)

Aristoteles, (GHOR, Berenschot, )

SprintCity (Ver. Deltametr. 2009 -)

Hazard Recognition (Shell)

Construct.IT (3TU) Simulatie APM Terminals CSI the Hague (NFI) Road Roles (TU-Delft) Watergame (Tygron) OM Interfaces (2005) SimPort-MV2 (2004 – 2010)

Patentopolis (2008) Levee Patroller (Deltares, 2006 -) Centrumlijn (Tramtunnel) Sieberdam: railway area

reconstruction (2006)Court Management Game (OM, 2005) Ventum Online (2004 -) Global Supply Chain

Game (GSCG, 2002 - )

Urban Network Game (RPB, 2002) DUBES Containers Adrift Infrastratego IncoDelta game

Servant Leadership(Rijkswaterstaat, 2012 -)

Team-Up (TU-Delft)


Research Question

•Why do some teams perform better

than others and how can we know (in

advance)?


Team Research

• ‘A collection of individuals who are interdependent in their tasks, who share

responsibility for outcomes, who see themselves and who are seen by others as an

intact social entity embedded in one or more larger social systems […], and who

manage their relationships across organizational boundaries.’ Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E.

(1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite.

Journal of management, 23(3), 239–290. doi:10.1016/s0149-2063(97)90034-9 (p. 241).

• Personality traits, team roles or leadership styles;

• Identity, conformity, psychological safety and cohesion;

• Team structure, size and composition, reward structures, and task related technology.






Study designVariable Group A Group B Name Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Experiment 3 Experiment 4 Total in freq. Total in %

Purpose of use Trial development sessions

Trial educational and training sessions

Police trainingEducational technologist

demo session

Learning goal Development and user testing

Limited training

Team communication

training and assessment

Demonstration

Game version 1 1.5 2.0 2.0

Earliest date of play 25-11-2010 1-6-2011 6-11-2012 28-11-2012

Most recent date of play 17-3-2011 19-6-2012 29-11-2012 28-11-2012

N respondents 88 87 152 20 347 100%

N game instances (4 pp) 22 22 38 5 87 100%

Male 64 54 147 14 279 80,4%Female 24 17 3 6 50 14,4%Students - 61 0 - 61 17,6%Professionals - 24 152 20 196 56,5%Freq. playing computer games: Never 13 2 65 2 82 23,6%

Couple of times per year 12 25 41 3 81 23,3%

Monthly 18 18 6 42 12,1%Weekly 3 19 17 7 46 13,3%Daily 2 7 9 2 20 5,8%


Measuring PersonalityTeamUp, TU-Delft, 2012


Team RoleTeamUp, TU-Delft 2012


Team Constructs (questionnaire)

No Name Constructs (MEAN & STANDARD DEVIATION)

Definition Reference

1 COMPETENCE Personal competence The expressed confidence in playing computer games before TeamUp starts.

(“Competence example items,” n.d.)

2 JOY Experienced joy The expressed joy of the team while playing TeamUp.

3 PRESSURE Perceived Pressure The perceived pressure while playing TeamUp.

4 ACHIEVEMENT Achievement The need to achieve while playing TeamUp.

5 PERCEIVED COMPETENCE

Perceived Competence

The perceived competence after having played TeamUp.

(“Competence example items,” n.d.)

6 PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY

Psychological safety Psychological safety experienced in the team while playing TeamUp.

(Edmondson, 1999)

7 COHENSIVENESS Team cohesiveness The experienced cohesiveness in the team while playing TeamUp.

(Seers, 1989)

8 EXCHANGE Team exchange The experienced exchange of information, tasks etc. in the team while playing TeamUp

(Seers, 1989)

9 COMMUNICATION Team communication The communication in the team while playing TeamUp


Speak time


Team Performance (per challenge)


Player performance (per team)


Team performance (measured)No Var name Construct Definition

1 TIME TOTAL Time Total Game Time from leaving dock until all buttons pushed at end of game.

2 TIME1 Time Door-Puzzle Time from leaving dock until 4th player passes through door.

3 TIME2 Time Tiles-Puzzle Time from checkpoint before door until 4th player crosses maze.

4 TIME3 Time Maze-Puzzle Time from finishing Tiles-puzzle until all buttons beyond maze pushed.

5 TIME4 Time Bridge-Puzzle Time from checkpoint before initial button until bridge is lowered.

6 TIME5 Time Pillars-Puzzle Time from checkpoint until final bridge is lowered.

7 DISTANCE_TOTAL

Distance total Game Distance in game meters covered by all team members together.

8 DISTANCE 1 Distance Door puzzle Distance covered covered by all team members during the door puzzle.

8 DISTANCE 2 Distance Tiles puzzle Distance covered covered by all team members during the tile puzzle.

9 DISTANCE 3 Distance Maze puzzle Distance covered covered by all team members during the maze puzzle.

10 DISTANCE 4 Distance Bridge puzzle Distance covered covered by all team members during the bridge puzzle.

11 DISTANCE 5 Distance Pillars puzzle Distance covered covered by all team members during the pillar puzzle..

12 ERROR2 Avoidable Mistakes Tiles puzzle Number of faulty tiles stepped upon after a safe passage through the maze was known.


Pressure

Play Time total

Distance 2

Play Time 1

Play Time 2

Distance 1

Play Time 3

Play Time 4

PlayTime 5

Distance 3

Distance 4

Avoidable Mistakes

5

Avoidable. Mistakes

2

Distance Total

Achievement

σ

M

Cohesiveness

σ

M

Communication

σ

M

Competence

σ

M

Exchange

σ

M

Joy

σ

M

-.45

.33

σ

M

Psychological safety

σ

M

PerceivedCompetence

σ

M

-.33

-.38-.37

-.31

-.36

-.34

-.36

-.37 -.34

-.37

-.36

.39

.37

.35

.56.44

.6

.38

.67 Distance 5

-.37

.37

.38

Team Performance

1. Teams with greater standard deviation on psychological safety perform lower.

2. Teams with higher average psychological safety, perform better.

3. Teams with higher cohesiveness, have better total time and distance performance.

4. Competence influences avoidable mistakes.


Speak time and performance

• Teams that have higher speak time, take longer and have more errors.

• When team members have greater difference in speak time, the team takes longer and has more

mistakes

• Best and worst performing teams, speak little!

Entertainment & Humor

Serious Gaming: TeamUp