Playing to Learn: A Business Process Simulation for Disaster Exercises
Keywords: exercise design, simulation, systems thinking, management training, process modeling
Abstract
Testing disaster plans can be expensive and time consuming and the results
are not often remembered or acted upon. This paper describes a methodology
and provides tools to create an alternative solution to typical exercise
designs. The paper describes how a board game simulation can be designed
and used to help key decision-makers experience the effects of a disaster
on an organization's systems. The first section of the paper provides some
background on the implications of systems dynamics for disaster relief and
the use of a board game simulation for training. The second section of the
paper describes the development of a board game simulation for disaster relief
operation decision makers at the American Red Cross. The final section of
the paper provides design considerations for creating a custom board
game.
Introduction
When we think of simulations and exercises for disaster response we tend
to think of elaborate field exercises or sophisticated computer driven control
room simulators. These simulations, while excellent for building specific
skills for disaster responders, do not do as much to reveal the systems structure
of a disaster response. Other exercises tend to be more problem focused and
do not reveal the time constraints and delays that can occur as a result
of the systems design. In typical field and table top exercises the major
driver is the Master Event Simulation List or MSEL.
"The MSEL projects key events that have occurred prior to the exercise, anticipates events during the exercise, and contains the actions that participants could be expected to take in response to situations described in the events."(1)
Contrast this definition with an excerpt form the debriefing of a business process simulation developed at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
"The basic problem with the "events cause events" orientation is that it gives you very little power to alter the course of events. The focus on internal structure greatly enhances the possibilities of influencing the course of events because you are dealing with the underlying source of the process, not just trying to manipulate events."(2)
The simulation design described in this paper moves from the level of events to the level of structure to train relief operations managers in the systems impacts of their decisions. The simulation has the systems design and work processes built into the overall simulation design in a way that allows the managers to see the time delays associated with their decisions. Managers can then learn to manage existing systems more effectively or can begin to engage in process mapping to design more effective response systems. In either case, the managers build and share their mental models of relief operations and, we believe, become more effective as a team in managing relief operations. In this paper we will describe one board game simulation and provide you with tools to create an organization-specific application.
Systems Thinking
At a May 1995 conference entitled What Disaster Managers Can Learn from Chaos
Theory, Gus A. Koehler, Ph.D. of the California Research Bureau, summed up
much of the conference with the following recommendations for emergency managers
and emergency management training.
...EOC status reports could emphasize the emergence of disaster infrastructure and overall fluctuations across the disaster area. There would be less of a focus on individual functional area accomplishments and more emphasis on process, emergent organizations, and the implications of localized strategies and resource use rates.
Disaster managers and responders could be trained to: visualize the whole of the response; do process mapping; form "messy" groups and engage in group problem solving; and be functionally cross trained. The overall goal of the suggested modifications in disaster training would be to produce a creative generalist who is able to visualize large portions of the response, understand the role of process in developing infrastructure, and be capable of forming and working in "messy" groups to solve problems.
...training could emphasize process mapping and tracking to ensure that the disaster response communication and resource infrastructure is in place and functioning at the highest efficiency. Rates, the functioning of emergent process structures, communication linkages and channel capacity, and other performance related measures could be developed. (Koehler, Conference Proceedings, 1995)(3)
Our disaster response simulation puts these recommendations into action. Unlike skills training simulations, or other kinds of table top exercises, this simulation game makes the organization's systems and business processes explicit for the players. Players learn about the systems as designed in the game and share their own mental models regarding an organization's disaster response systems. As such we feel the simulation is a valuable tool for both individual and team learning about the systems an organization has in place and strategies for optimizing those systems. In addition, the board game can be a vehicle for the redesign of existing systems.
Disaster Response
Simulation
The Disaster Response Simulation evolved as a part of a renewed managerial
training effort at the American Red Cross. When a new vice president joined
the Red Cross, one of his concerns was the quality of training. A resulting
study indicated that technical training was adequate but that training for
managers and leaders was lacking. Our first efforts in improving management
training included systems thinking concepts and a computer based simulation
of a disaster relief operation. The results of these courses were good, but
as with many of the computer based business simulations, participants felt
that the simulation did not provide a shared sense of the big picture of
the disaster relief operation. This experience is also described by Arie
de Geus in The Living Company.
(4)
"Despite these successes, we began to see, during the late 1980s, that system dynamics models were not a panacea..."
"So we eliminated the computer. Instead we moved to a distinctly low-tech technique: noting our ideas on magnetic, colored hexagons, which are placed on a whiteboard so that everyone can see what is written on them."
From our computer simulation experience we began to explore board game based simulations and decided to create the Disaster Response Simulation. The simulation goes beyond whiteboards to a playable model.
The Disaster Response Simulation is a board game that simulates a moderate size disaster relief operation. The simulation is played over two days and teaching episodes are interspersed at several critical points. The simulation experience introduces participants to fundamental notions about systems thinking such as constraints and cycle time. To do this, the simulation allows participants to experience some of the key elements of a disaster relief operation from preparedness capabilities through to after-action analysis of the incident. Emphasis is on communication and the decision-making framework with quality service as the goal. Each game board requires 6-8 players. Up to four boards may be played simultaneously, for a maximum total of 32 participants. Participants are disaster leadership staff.
In the simulation, participants manage a relief operation for a flood that affects four communities. The primary decisions revolve around providing service to people affected by disaster, the human resources and training pipeline, the logistics pipeline, and information flow.
The objectives of the simulation are to:
The simulation "game board" is divided into two sections. The top half depicts a series of process pipelines for getting workers, equipment, and facilities where they are needed. The bottom half of the board is a map of the four communities and a river. A visual reference of the services and staff that might be needed is superimposed on the community map. Players use poker chips to represent clients and staff and cups of different colors to symbolize different types of facilities. Participants use phoney money to purchase food represented by Hershey Kisses® (always a popular point in the game).
Play begins with a preparedness round in which the table group selects roles, assesses resources, and discusses the possible disasters that could occur. This round provides an opportunity for the team to consider response strategies and begin to develop communication patterns. After this round of the game is completed, the disaster occurs. At the beginning of each subsequent round of the game, the team receives a situation report that gives updated information and delineates a series of tasks the team must complete during that round. Task assignments might include anticipating and requesting staff and equipment, opening facilities, sheltering and feeding clients, interviewing families, and completing reports. Based on the decisions made by the team, service delivery occurs based on the system performance. The game lasts nine rounds which allows participants to experience the typical decisions required when starting up, maintaining, and closing down a relief operation. Between rounds, the facilitators conduct teaching episodes about coordination through conversations, transitions, service delivery planning, interpreting reports, and estimating costs.
Beyond the task assignments that allow participants to manage the systems of a relief operation, additional activities were built in to specifically address the recurring issues. In order to simulate transition from a local to a nationally supported relief operation, half the members of each team leave their original teams and move to a new one. This move occurs at the beginning of round three, and allows participants to experience what it is like to apply their knowledge and experience in a new context with a new team. At the conclusion of round four, participants practice sharing information and coordinating resources by developing a service delivery plan. Service delivery plans are required on real disaster relief operations. They take the form of a vision statement for the operation and statement identifying the actions required to provide high quality service to all. At the conclusion of round 5, participants must develop a budget estimate for the entire relief operation.
The game has built-in mechanisms to track three main quality measures: quality service to clients, improvements in the chapter's capacity to handle future disasters, and relief operation costs. At the completion of the game, participants debrief first as a team, discussing their decisions around these quality measures and their effectiveness as individual leaders and as a team. Finally, all teams participate in a group debrief which focuses on the impact of the underlying systems of any disaster relief operation.
We are in process of evaluation of the impact
of the simulation on Disaster Response. Our preliminary results are positive.
Our evaluation process has included interviews with disaster operations managers
who have supervised the performance of staff who have attended the simulation.
The comments regarding worker performance include observations such as:
In addition, respondents indicated that on operations in which multiple people had attended the simulation there was even greater performance improvement than when only one person had attended.
We are also evaluating the impact of the simulation on relief operations performance. We have reviewed the evaluations of relief operations including critical success factors that were compiled. Of the eight factors described, the five listed below directly relate to the objectives and design of the simulation and course.
1) Strong initial response by chapters was cited in 92% of the evaluations. We believe the focus on chapter planning and preparedness in the simulation contributes to this finding.
2) The success in fundraising and donations of goods and services was cited in 46% of the evaluations. We believe understanding the connections between quality service and fundraising emphasized in the simulation contribute to this finding.
3) Quality services were provided to disaster victims was cited in 39%. While this has always been a goal, we believe that leadership specifically citing it as a key success factor can be attributed in great part to the clear articulation of this expectation in the simulation.
4) The transition from a local to national response was cited in 31% of the reports as a critical success factor in their relief operations. In these evaluation reports, it was noted that transition at the leadership level went smoothly, and a mutually supportive atmosphere was established among affected units, state leadership, and the relief operation. The transition activity in the simulation centers around the affected units and the relief operation.
5) Proactive service delivery was cited in 31% of the reports. Pro-active service delivery and a flexible approach in developing service delivery plans resulted in quality services delivered in a quality manner. Again, these are goals and skills emphasized in the simulation.
From these preliminary findings we believe that the simulation board game will prove a valuable addition to the training curriculum at the American Red Cross. We are also beginning the design of similar simulations for specific hazards and locations.
Designing a Custom Simulation: Design
Considerations
This section provides a series of questions to consider as you design a custom
simulation.
Objectives:
Consider what you want to accomplish with the simulation:
Audience
Teams of five to eight are optimal.
Process
Maps
The first step in developing a game board is to identify the critical human,
information, and logistical processes required for an organization or community
to respond. These are developed as flowcharts of the major steps in each
process. Develop a macro level flowchart of the steps required to complete
process. Keep the steps at a high level with a minimum of text. Don't try
to capture a lot of detail.
Develop a rough draft of the board. Plan to go through several mock-ups before the final design emerges. After the final placement of items on the board has been determined, create the final board.
Playing Field or Map
The map portion of the game board serves as a visual reference for all locations
involved. It should include the business location(s), and any other pertinent
locations such as storage facilities. Depending on the number and location
of sites, you may want to draw these sites by hand or use a map of the state
or the United States as found in most computer graphics programs.
Playing Pieces
Consider the size of your map and the number and types of playing pieces
needed. Possible playing pieces:
Roles
When deciding on the number of roles and responsibilities of each, consider
the following:
Facilitator
There should be one facilitator available for every two to three table groups.
The facilitator does not play the simulation. Instead his or her role is
to explain the purpose and objectives of the simulation, walk through the
rules, answer questions during play, and facilitate the debrief session.
Rules
A well designed game board can reduce the number of rules required, but there
will always be some rules that players must follow. Rules tend to fall into
three major categories: the movement of pieces, system constraints, and
realism.
Scenario
The scenario is the story of how the disaster unfolds, structured according
to the means of communication your organization is most likely to use in
a disaster.
The initial situation report should include the following:
Subsequent situation reports should include:
Debrief
Playing through the scenario is only part of the learning. Most
learning occurs as participants reflect on their experiences. Concluding
the simulation with an opportunity to debrief provides a structured time
for the group to reflect. Depending on the complexity of the scenario, there
may be one debrief session at the end of the simulation or several mini
debriefings after critical rounds. If multiple teams are playing, begin the
debrief session with a report from each table group. Ask for a summary of
the group's activities, and have them report on any quality measures or costs
that are built into the scenario.
Tailor the debriefing questions to the scenario. Here are some general questions to get started:
How can we take what we learned in the simulation and apply it? (As a group, list specific next steps and make assignments.)
Conclusion
The considerations for designing a custom simulation are really
just a beginning. The Disaster Response Simulation we have been describing
is an ongoing process of design. In this paper we have talked about the use
of the simulation in training others, however, the design process itself
can be a powerful opportunity to create improved workflows in a organization
and create a shared model of the organization's disaster response capability.
As with the simulation play, simulation design requires a willingness to
engage in ongoing learning.
References
1. DoD Directorate for Emergency Preparedness Policy World Wide Web site http://www.defenselink.mil/emerg/eppm/chap3.html
2. Society for Organizational Learning's World Wide Web site http://learning.mit.edu/pra/tool/outline.html
3. What Disaster Response Management Can Learn From Chaos Theory Conference Proceedings Edited by Gus A. Koehler, Ph.D. May 18-19, 1995 California Research Bureau.
4. de Geus, Arie. The Living Company: Growth, Learning and Longevity in Business. Harvard Business School Press, 1997