Serious Gaming in Airport Management: Transformation from a Validation Tool to a Learning Environment

  • Sebastian Schier
  • Maria FreeseEmail author
  • Thorsten Mühlhausen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10056)


Traditional methods to model airport management for e.g. research or training are primarily simulations. These methods lack the ability to model social behavior in collaborative decision making. Serious gaming is an approach to fill this gap. Therefore, the German Aerospace Center (DLR) introduced the serious game D-CITE for research purpose. This paper describes its advancement to a training tool and the results of a first training session with different airport stakeholders. Their feedback emphasizes the importance of a strong communication culture.


Computer Support Collaborative Learning Role Change German Aerospace Collaborative Decision Computer Support Collaborative Learning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    EUROCONTROL: European Operational Concept Validation Methodology (E-OCVM) (Version 3.0) (2010). Accessed 11 June 2016
  2. 2.
    Barreteau, O.: The joint use of role-playing games and models regarding negotiation processes: characterization of associations. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 6(2), 1–20 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abt, C.: Serious Games: The Art and Science of Games that Simulate Life. Viking Press, New York (1970)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kriz, W.C.: Creating effective learning environments and learning organizations through gaming simulation design. Simul. Gaming 34(4), 495–511 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Papenfuss, A., Carstengerdes, N., Günther, Y.: Konzept zur Kooperation in Flughafen-Leitständen. 57. FAS DGLR L6.4 Anthropotechnik, 25.–26.11.2015, Rostock (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mensen, H.: Handbuch der Luftfahrt [handbook of aviation], 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    EUROCONTROL: Airport CDM Operational Concept Document (2006). Accessed 11 June 2016
  8. 8.
    Günther, Y., Inard, A., Werther, B., Bonnier, M., Spies, G., Marsden, A., Temme, M., Böhme, D., Lane, R., Niederstrasser, H.: Total Airport Management (2006). Accessed 11 June 2016
  9. 9.
    Ball, M.O., Hoffman, R.L., Knorr, D., Wetherly, J., Wambsganss, M.: Assessing the benefits of collaborative decision making in air traffic management, Paper at 3rd USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, Napoli, Italy (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jipp, M., Depenbrock, Suikat, R., Schaper, M., Papenfuß, A., Kaltenhäuser, S., Weber, B.: Validation of multi-objective optimization for total airport management. In: Proceedings of the 8th Asian Control Conference (ASCC), Kaohsiung (Taiwan) (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freese, M., Drees, S., Meinecke, M.: Between game and reality: using serious games to analyze complex interaction processes in air traffic management. In: Kaneda, T., Kanegae, H., Toyoda, Y., Rizzi, P. (eds.) Simulation and Gaming in the Network Society. Translational Systems Sciences, vol. 9, pp. 275–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Netherlands Aerospace Centre (NLR): Collaborative Learning & Serious Game Development (2014). Accessed 15 June 2016
  13. 13.
    Maij, A., Nieuwenhuisen, D., Aalmoes, R., Faber, E.: Serious games to advance change in ATM, Paper at Air Transport and Operations Symposium 2015, Delft, The Netherlands, July 2015Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Suttie, N., Louchart, S., Lim, T., Macvean, A., Westera, W., Brown, D., Djaouti, D.: Introducing the serious games mechanics: a theoretical framework to analyse relationships between game and pedagogical aspects of serious games. Poster presented at the “VS-Games 2012”, Genoa, Italy (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Allmendinger, K.: Bedarfsanalysen. In: Haake, J., Schwabe, G., Wessner, M. (eds.) CSCL-Kompendium 2.0: Lehr-und Handbuch zum computerunterstützten kooperativen Lernen, pp. 301–302. Walter de Gruyter (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Filbert, W.: Die PRO-aktive Rollenanalyse. Coaching-Tools, pp 156–162 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Niegemann, H.M.: Selbstkontrolliertes Lernen und didaktisches Design. In: Lernen mit Medien: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven zu medial vermittelten Lehr-und Lernprozessen, pp 121–140. Weinheim (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schulze Kissing, D., Eißfeldt, H.: ConCent: Eine Simulationsplattform zur Untersuchung kollobarativer Entscheidungsprozesse in Leitzentralen. In: DGLR-Bericht 2015-01, 2015 (01), Seiten 157-170. 57.FAS DGLR L6.4 Anthropotechnik, 25.–26. November 2015, Rostock (2015). ISBN 978-3-932182-83-9, ISSN 0178-6362Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Piekert, F., Schier, S., Marsden, A., Carstengerdes, N., Suikat, R.: A high-fidelity artificial airport environment for SESAR APOC validation experiments. In: Air Transport Research Society World Conference 2015, Singapore, July 2015Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schaar, D., Lance S.: Analysis of airport stakeholders. In: Integrated Communications Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS), 2010. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Freese, M.: Game-based learning – an approach for improving collaborative airport management. In: 10th European Conference on Games Based Learning, Scotland, October 2016Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schier, S., Pett, T., Mohr, O., Yeo, S. J.: Design and evaluation of user interfaces for an airport management simulation. In: AIAA Modelling and Simulation Conference 2016, 13–17 June 2016, Washington D.C., USA (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Schier
    • 1
  • Maria Freese
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thorsten Mühlhausen
    • 1
  1. 1.German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Flight GuidanceBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations