Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
TeamUp
© Dr. Igor Mayer i.s.mayer@tudelft.nl
Faculty Technology, Policy and Management (TPM) & Signature Games
Delft Unive...
Challenge the future

2
Challenge the future

3
Reference
• Mayer, I. S., van Dierendonck, D., van Ruijven, T., &
Wenzler, I. (2013). Stealth Assessment of Teams in a Dig...
SG Research tool (2012
-)

Servant Leadership
(Rijkswaterstaat, 2012 -)

Patentometer (2012)

Marine Spatial Planning,
(E&...
Research Question

• Why do some teams perform better
than others and how can we know (in
advance)?

Challenge the future
...
Team Research
• ‘A collection of individuals who are interdependent in their tasks, who share
responsibility for outcomes,...
Challenge the future

8
Challenge the future

9
Challenge the future

10
Challenge the future

11
Study design
Variable
Name

Group A
Experiment 1

Experiment 2

Group B
Experiment 3

Experiment 4
Educational
technologis...
Measuring Personality
TeamUp, TU-Delft, 2012

Challenge the future

14
Team Role

TeamUp, TU-Delft 2012

Challenge the future

15
Team Constructs

(questionnaire)

No

Name

Constructs (MEAN &
STANDARD
DEVIATION)

Definition

Reference

1

COMPETENCE

...
Speak time

Challenge the future

17
Team Performance

(per challenge)

Challenge the future

18
Player performance (per team)

Challenge the future

19
Team performance

(measured)

No

Var name

Construct

Definition

1

TIME TOTAL

Time Total Game

Time from leaving dock ...
Team Performance
1. Teams with greater
standard deviation on
psychological safety
perform lower.
2. Teams with higher
aver...
Speak time and performance
• Teams that have higher speak time, take longer and have more errors.
• When team members have...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Serious Gaming: TeamUp

607 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Serious Gaming: TeamUp

  1. 1. TeamUp © Dr. Igor Mayer i.s.mayer@tudelft.nl Faculty Technology, Policy and Management (TPM) & Signature Games Delft University of technology, The Netherlands Challenge the future 1
  2. 2. Challenge the future 2
  3. 3. Challenge the future 3
  4. 4. 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. Challenge the future 4
  5. 5. SG Research tool (2012 -) Servant Leadership (Rijkswaterstaat, 2012 -) Patentometer (2012) Marine Spatial Planning, (E&I 2011-) CharliePappa (BvB 2011 -) Achmea Nieuw Zorgbedrijf (2010) Electricity Market Simulation Game (TUDelft ) ProRail games (2010 – 14) National Intelligence – (Politieac. 2009) Hugo de Groot (NHM 2008) Aristoteles, (GHOR, Berenschot, ) SprintCity (Ver. Deltametr. 2009 -) Team-Up (TU-Delft) 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 Challenge the future 5
  6. 6. Research Question • Why do some teams perform better than others and how can we know (in advance)? Challenge the future 6
  7. 7. 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. Challenge the future 7
  8. 8. Challenge the future 8
  9. 9. Challenge the future 9
  10. 10. Challenge the future 10
  11. 11. Challenge the future 11
  12. 12. Study design Variable Name Group A Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Group B Experiment 3 Experiment 4 Educational technologist demo session Total in freq. Total in % Purpose of use Trial development Trial educational and sessions training sessions Police training 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 Female Students Professionals 64 24 - 54 17 61 24 147 3 0 152 14 6 20 279 50 61 196 80,4% 14,4% 17,6% 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 Weekly Daily 3 2 18 19 7 18 17 9 6 7 2 42 46 20 12,1% 13,3% 5,8% Challenge the future 13
  13. 13. Measuring Personality TeamUp, TU-Delft, 2012 Challenge the future 14
  14. 14. Team Role TeamUp, TU-Delft 2012 Challenge the future 15
  15. 15. 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 4 ACHIEVEMENT Achievement The perceived pressure while playing TeamUp. 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 Challenge the future 16
  16. 16. Speak time Challenge the future 17
  17. 17. Team Performance (per challenge) Challenge the future 18
  18. 18. Player performance (per team) Challenge the future 19
  19. 19. 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_TOTA L 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. Challenge the future 20
  20. 20. 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. Challenge the future 21
  21. 21. 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! Challenge the future 22

×