Advertisement

Addressing Challenges of Planning in Multimodal Transportation Nodes with Simulation Games

  • Maria Freese
  • Shalini Kurapati
  • Heide K. Lukosch
  • Daan Groen
  • Rens Kortmann
  • Alexander Verbraeck
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10711)

Abstract

Global transportation knows many different modalities – goods arrive from faraway places by ship, plane, railway, or truck. Airports and seaports both represent important nodes within the global transportation network. Both show distinct characteristics, but also similarities when it comes to challenges like required flexibility, robustness, reliability and situational awareness of the stakeholders involved. In this article, we introduce two different simulation games addressing some of these challenges in two complex transportation nodes and discuss the qualitative results of user tests with the games. Within a comparative section, we show how simulation games can be used to address the challenges of multimodal transportation.

Keywords

Transportation nodes Decision-making Information sharing Situation awareness Simulation game 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was partly funded by TKI Dinalog, the Dutch Institute for Advanced Logistics.

References

  1. Aarseth, E.: Playing research: methodological approaches to game analysis. In: Proceedings of the Digital Arts and Culture Conference, pp. 28–29 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. Abt, C.: Serious Games: The Art and Science of Games that Simulate Life. Viking Press, New York (1970)Google Scholar
  3. Ball, M.O., Hoffman, R.L., Knorr, D., Wetherly, J., Wambsganss, M.: Assessing the benefits of collaborative decision making in air traffic management. In: 3rd USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R & D Seminar, Napoli, Italy (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Battles, J., King, H.B.: TeamSTEPPS Teamwork Perceptions Questionnaire (T-TPQ) Manual. American Institute for Research, Washington, D.C. (2010)Google Scholar
  6. Boy, G.A.: Orchestrating situation awareness and authority in complex socio-technical systems. In: Aiguier, M., Caseau, Y., Krob, D., Rauzy, A. (eds.) CSD&M 2012, pp. 285–296. Springer, Berlin (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34404-6_19Google Scholar
  7. Crookall, D.: Editorial debriefing. Simul. Gaming 23, 141–142 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crookall, D.: Engaging (in) gameplay and (in) debriefing. Simul. Gaming 45(4–5), 416–427 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A.M., Fischhoff, B.: Individual differences in adult decision-making competence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92(5), 938–956 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., Converse, S. A.: Cognitive psychology and team training: shared mental models in complex systems. Hum. Factors Bull. 33, 1–4 (1990)Google Scholar
  11. Davidson, C.: Transcription: imperatives for qualitative research. Int. J. Qual. Methods 8(2), 35–52 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duranti, A.: Transcripts, like shadows on a wall. Mind Cult. Act. 13(4), 301–310 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Endsley, M.R.: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors: J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 37(1), 32–64 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freese, M., Drees, S.: D-CITE - a serious game to analyze complex decision-making in air traffic management. In: De Gloria, A., Veltkamp, R. (eds.) GALA 2015. LNCS, vol. 9599, pp. 23–31. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40216-1_3Google Scholar
  15. 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. TSS, vol. 9, pp. 275–289. Springer, Singapore (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0575-6_20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J., Swann, W.B.: A very brief measure of the big-five personality domains. J. Res. Pers. 37(6), 504–528 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heese, M.: The Feasibility of a new Air Traffic Control Concept from a Human Factors Perspective. Magistra rerum naturalium. Karl-Franzens-University, Graz (2005)Google Scholar
  18. Klabbers, J.: The Magic Circle. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  19. Körner, A., Geyer, M., Roth, M., Drapeau, M., Schmutzer, G., Albani, C., Schumann, S., Brähler, E.: Personality assessment with the NEO-five-factor inventory: the 30-item-short-version (NEO-FFI-30). Psychother. Psychosom. Med. Psychol. 58, 238–245 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kriz, W.C.: Creating effective learning environments and learning organizations through gaming simulation design. Simul. Gaming 34(4), 495–511 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kurapati, S., Groen, D., Lukosch, H.K., Verbraeck, A.: Microgames in practice: a case study in container terminal operations. In: Kriz, W.C. (ed.) The Shift from Teaching to Learning: Individual, Collective and Organizational Learning through Simulation Gaming. Proceedings of the International Simulation and Gaming Association Conference (ISAGA 2014), pp. 296–309 (2014)Google Scholar
  22. Lee, D.B.: Requiem for large-scale models. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 39, 163–178 (1973)Google Scholar
  23. Lee, D.B.: Retrospective on large scale urban models. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 60, 35–40 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maij, A., Nieuwenhuisen, D., Aalmoes, R., Faber, E.: Serious games to advance change in ATM. Air Transport and Operations Symposium 2015, Delft, The Netherlands, 20–23 July 2015Google Scholar
  25. Meisel, F.: Seaside Operations Planning in Container Terminals. Physica-Verlag, Berlin (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-2191-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mohiyeddini, C.: Fragebogen zur Erfassung individueller Einstellungen zur Teamarbeit (FIT) [questionnaire for assessing individual attitudes towards teamwork]. In: Sarges, W., Wottawa, H. (eds.) Handbuch wirtschaftspsychologischer Testverfahren, pp. 251–254. Pabst Science Publishers, Lengerich (2001)Google Scholar
  27. Peters, V., Vissers, G., Heijne, G.: The validity of games. Simul. Gaming 29(1), 20–30 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rieber, L.P.: Seriously considering play: designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 44(2), 43–58 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ruch, W., Köhler, G., van Thriel, C.: To be in good or bad humour: construction of the state form of the state-trait-cheerfulness-inventory – STCI. Pers. Individ. Differ. 22(4), 477–491 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Saanen, Y.A.: An approach for designing robotized marine container terminals. TU Delft, Delft University of Technology (2004)Google Scholar
  31. Sitzmann, T.: A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Pers. Psychol. 64(2), 489–528 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stanton, N.A., Stewart, R., Harris, D., Houghton, R.J., Baber, C., McMaster, R., Salmon, P., Hoyle, G., Walker, G., Young, M.S., Linsell, M.: Distributed situation awareness in dynamic systems: theoretical development and application of an ergonomics methodology. Ergonomics 49(12–13), 1288–1311 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Taylor, R.M.: Situational awareness rating technique (SART): the development of a tool for aircrew systems design. In: AGARD, Situational Awareness in Aerospace Operations, 17 p. (SEE N 90-28972 23-53) (1990)Google Scholar
  34. UNCTAD: Review of maritime transport 2014. Technical report, UNCTAD, Geneva, Switzerland. Report UNCTAD/RMT/2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  35. Von Bertalanffy, L.: Perspectives on General Systems Theory: Scientific-Philosophical Studies. George Braziller, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  36. Zhou, Q.: The princess in the castle: challenging serious game play for integrated policy analysis and planning. NGI Infra Ph.D. thesis series on infrastructures, Ph.D. thesis TU-Delft, Enschede. Gildeprint Drukkerijen, The Netherlands (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Freese
    • 1
  • Shalini Kurapati
    • 2
  • Heide K. Lukosch
    • 2
  • Daan Groen
    • 3
  • Rens Kortmann
    • 2
  • Alexander Verbraeck
    • 2
  1. 1.German Aerospace Center (DLR)BrunswickGermany
  2. 2.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  3. 3.InThereThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations