Quality Uncertainty and Market Failure: An Interactive Model to Conduct Classroom Experiments

  • María Pereda
  • David Poza
  • José I. Santos
  • José M. Galán
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 369)

Abstract

We present an interactive simulation game designed to teach the market effects of quality uncertainty. The instructor can conduct experiments in a virtual classroom, in which students using a computer are embedded in an online market playing the role of buyers. Many industrial engineering programs set aside these market effects because the impact of poor quality in customer behavior is very difficult to evaluate. This work complements traditional classroom approaches to quality improvement and standardization giving engineering students a clear justification for techniques to control and reduce variability in industrial and manufacturing processes. We propose a parameterization for a game and discuss the expected dynamics. Buyers with enough bad experiences form biased quality estimations and stop buying, which can make the market collapse. The game also allows exploring the influence of social networks as mechanism to enhance market performance. The game has been implemented in Netlogo and Hubnet platform.

Keywords

Asymmetric information Quality uncertainty Classroom experiments Engineering education Social networks 

References

  1. 1.
    Pyzdek, T.: The Handbook for Quality Management: A Complete Guide to Operational Excellence, 2nd edn McGraw-Hill (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deshpande, A.A., Huang, S.H.: Simulation games in engineering education: a state-of-the-art review. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 19(3), 399–410 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brauer, J., Delemeester, G.: Games economists play: a survey of non-computerized classroom-games for college economics. J. Econ. Surv. 15(2), 221–236 (2001). doi:10.1111/1467-6419.00137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hazlett, D.: Using classroom experiments to teach economics. Teaching Economics: More Alternatives to Chalk and TalkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frank, B.: The impact of classroom experiments on the learning of economics: an empirical investigation. Econ. Inq. (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Durham, Y., McKinnon, T., Schulman, C.: Classroom experiments: not just fun and games. Econ. Inq. 45, 162–178 (2007). doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.2006.00003.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deshpande, A.A., Huang, S.H.: Simulation games in engineering education: A state-of-the-art review. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 19(3), 399–410 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Izquierdo, S.S., Izquierdo, L.R.: The impact of quality uncertainty without asymmetric information on market efficiency. J. Bus. Res. 60(8), 858–867 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wilensky, U.: “NetLogo (and NetLogo User Manual)” Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/ (1999)
  10. 10.
    Campanella, J., Principles of quality costs: principles, implementation, and use, Milwaukee, Wis. Am. Soc. Qual. 3 Sub edit (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ali, Hassan: Classical model based analysis of cost of poor quality in a manufacturing organization. Afr. J. Bus. Manage. 6(2), 670–680 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schiffauerova, A., Thomson, V.: A review of research on cost of quality models and best practices. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manage. 23(6), 647–669 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Juran, J.M., Godfrey, A.B.: Juran’s Quality Handbook, vol. 1, issue 2, p. 1872. McGraw-Hill, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones, P., Hudson, J.: Standardization and the costs of assessing quality. Eur. J. Polit. Econ. 12(2), 355–361 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miklós-Thal, J., Zhang, J.: (De)marketing to manage consumer quality inferences. J. Mark. Res. 50(1), 55–69 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Akerlof, G.A.: The market for ‘lemons’: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q. J. Econ. 84(3), 488–500 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ben Lakhdar, C., Leleu, H., Vaillant, N.G., Wolff, F.C.: Efficiency of purchasing and selling agents in markets with quality uncertainty: the case of illicit drug transactions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 226(3), 646–657 (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dimoka, A., Hong, Y., Pavlou, P.A.: On product uncertainty in online markets: theory and evidence. MIS Q. 36(X), 395–A15 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • María Pereda
    • 1
  • David Poza
    • 2
  • José I. Santos
    • 1
  • José M. Galán
    • 1
  1. 1.INSISOCUniversidad de BurgosBurgosSpain
  2. 2.E.T.S. Ingenieros Industriales, INSISOCUniversidad de ValladolidValladolidSpain

Personalised recommendations