Hooshmand: Intelligence and Emotion Entangled in a Simulation Game

  • Saeed Shalbafan
  • Elyssebeth Leigh
Part of the Translational Systems Sciences book series (TSS, volume 18)


In Persian “Hooshmand” means intelligence. The simulation Hoosmand-1 creates a clash between intellectual objectivity and emotional reactions to unexpected events. The simulated environment challenges skilled and experienced senior project managers to navigate their way through a set of complex decisions. Initial conditions are complicated but comprehensible, requiring application of knowledge and diligence. Then factors altering the context are introduced to create complex conditions in which standard responses no longer apply. We review outcomes of the project for which Hooshmand-1 was designed. In regard to project portfolio management, cost-benefit ratios and business strategies received more attention than resource availability. In regard to quality decision-making, the effectiveness of team cognition shows up as a key factor shaping performance under stress. “Black Swan” events, Groupthink traps, and Abilene Paradox thinking can all inhibit quality decisions, and Hooshmand-1 provides a context for their emergence and thoughtful analysis.


Simulation Decision-making Groupthink Resilience Uncertainty Black Swan 


  1. 1.
    Christiansen JK, Varnes C (2008) From models to practice: decision making at portfolio meetings. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 25(1):87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Korhonen T, Laine T, Martinsuo M (2013) Varying perfections of uncertainty among managerial actors in project portfolio management in EURAM European Academy of Management 2013, Tampere University of Technology Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ghasemzadeh F, Archer NP (2000) Project portfolio selection through decision support. Decis Support Syst 29(1):73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Unger BN, Gemünden HG, Aubry M (2012) The three roles of a project portfolio management office: their impact on portfolio management execution and success. Int J Proj Manag 30(5):608–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Killen CP (2013) Evaluation of project interdependency visualizations through decision scenario experimentation. Int J Proj Manage 31(6):804–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Taleb NN (2007) The Black swan: the impact of the highly improbable. New York TimesGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lewis J (2011) The black swan in shale gas, cold water for upgrading: expect the unexpected in North America’s oil and gas renaissance. Last accessed 26 June 2017
  8. 8.
    Petit Y (2012) Project portfolios in dynamic environments: organizing for uncertainty. Int J Proj Manag 30(5):539–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kurtz CF, Snowden DJ (2003) The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Syst J 42(3):462–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shalbafan S et al (2017) Application of Cynefin framework to facilitate decision-making in complex conditions in project portfolio management in IRNOP 2017. Boston University, BostonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Snowden D (2002) Complex acts of knowing: paradox and descriptive self-awareness. J Knowl Manag 6(2):85–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shalbafan S, Leigh E (2018) Design thinking: project portfolio management and simulation – a creative mix for research. In: Lukosch H, Bekebrede G, Kortmann R (eds) Simulation gaming. Applications for sustainable cities and smart infrastructures. ISAGA 2017, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 10825. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim Y (2001) A comparative study of the “ABILENE PARADOX” and “GROUPTHINK”. Public Adm Q 25(2):168–189Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harvey M et al (2004) The Abilene paradox after thirty years. Organ Dyn 33(2):215–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hart P, Irving L (1991) Janis’ victims of groupthink. Last accessed 26 June 2017
  16. 16.
    Yetive SA (2003) Groupthink and the gulf crisis. Br J Polit Sci 33:419–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huey-Wen C, Yu-Hsun L, Shyan-Bin C (2012) Team cognition, collective efficacy and performance in strategic decision-making team. Soc Behav Pers 40(3):381–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fernandez R et al (2017) Developing team cognition: a role for simulation. Simul Health 12(2):96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cooke NJ et al (2000) Measuring team knowledge. Hum Factors 42(1):151–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Durso FT et al (2007) Handbook of applied cognition, 2nd edn. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Janis IL (1972) Victims of groupthink. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saeed Shalbafan
    • 1
  • Elyssebeth Leigh
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Built EnvironmentUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations