EduSynergy: A Simulation-Based Change Management Experience for Higher Education Institutions

  • Albert A. Angehrn
  • Katrina Maxwell
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 73)

Abstract

Although higher educational institutions are increasingly faced with demands for deep changes and innovations, they have a very distinctive culture which makes rapid change difficult. In order to address this challenge, we have developed and validated a new multimedia, team-based simulation, EduSynergy, which provides a rich, realistic experience of a change management project in a university setting, including individual behaviours, group dynamics and cultural factors. Feedback from 375 workshop participants indicates that the simulation is realistic, and 90% believe that it contributes to their understanding of change management more effectively than a lecture.

Keywords

change management, game, higher education, learning; simulation, university, validation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Harung, H.S., Heaton, D.P., Alexander, C.N.: Evolution of organizations in the new millennium. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 20(4), 198–207 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burnes, B.: Complexity theories and organizational change. International Journal of Management Reviews 7(2), 73–90 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allen, D.K., Fifield, N.: Re-engineering change in higher education. Information Research 4(3) (1999), http://informationr.net/ir/4-3/paper56.html (accessed August 20, 2009)
  4. 4.
    Rowley, D.J., Sherman, H.: From strategy to change: Implementing the plan in higher education. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Becher, T., Trowler, P.: Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines, 2nd edn. Open University Press, Philadelphia (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brown, D.G., Jackson, S.: Creating a Context for Consensus. In: Barone, C., Hagner, P.R. (eds.) Technology-enhanced teaching and learning, pp. 13–24. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Angehrn, A.A.: Learning to manage innovation and change through organizational and people dynamic simulations. In: Proceedings of the International Simulation and Gaming Association Conference (ISAGA 2005), Atlanta, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Angehrn, A.A.: Designing SmallWorld Simulations: Experiences and Developments. In: The 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2006), Kerkrade, July 5-7 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Manzoni, J.F., Angehrn, A.A.: Understanding organizational dynamics of IT-enabled change: A multimedia simulation approach. Journal of Management Information Systems 14(3), 109–140 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gilbert, N.: Computer simulation of social processes. Social Research Update 6 (1993), http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU6.html (accessed August 20, 2009)
  11. 11.
    Pfeffer, J., Sutton, R.I.: The knowing-doing gap. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salen, K., Zimmerman, E.: Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Van der Vegt, G.S., Bunderson, J.S.: Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal 48(3), 532–547 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yilmaz, L., Oren, T.: Towards simulation-based problem solving environments for conflict management in computational social science. In: Proceedings of Agent 2003: Challenges in Social Simulation (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lainema, T., Lainema, K.: Advancing acquisition of business know-how: Critical learning elements. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 40(2), 183–198 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nonaka, I.: A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 5(1), 14–37 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Conner, D.R., Patterson, R.B.: Building Commitment to Organizational Change. Training and Development Journal, 18–30 (1982)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roa, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Allen, J., Fikes, R., Sandewall, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 1991), pp. 473–484. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1991)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Friedkin, N.E., Johnsen, E.C.: Social influence and opinions. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 15, 193–205 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Friedkin, N.E., Johnsen, E.C.: Social positions in influence networks. Social Networks 19, 209–222 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leenders, R.: Structure and Influence: Statistical Models for the Dynamics of Actor Attributes, Network Structure and their Interdependence. Thesis Publishers, Amsterdam (1995)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marsen, P.V., Friedkin, N.E.: Network studies of social influence. Sociological Methods and Research 22, 127–151 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pfeffer, J.: Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1992)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gladwell, M.: The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. Little Brown and Company (2000)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bower, D.E., Lawler, E.E.: The Empowerment of Service Workers: What, Why, How and When. Sloan Management Review 33(3), 31–39 (1992)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kim, W.C., Mauborgne, R.: Procedural Justice and Managers’ In-Role and Extra-Role Behaviour: The Case of the Multinational. Management Science 42(4), 499–515 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kim, W.C., Mauborgne, R.: Procedural Justice, Strategic Decision Making, and the Knowledge Economy. Strategic Management Journal 19, 323–338 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kim, W.C., Mauborgne, R.: Fair Process: Managing in the Knowledge Economy. Harvard Business Review 81(1), 127–136 (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Angehrn, A.A., Schönwald, I., Euler, D., Seufert, S.: Behind EduChallenge: An Overview of Models Underlying the Dynamics of a Simulation on Change Management in Higher Education; SCIL-Universität St Gallen, SCIL Report 7 (December 2005) ISBN: 3-906 528-43-X Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schönwald, I., Euler, D., Angehrn, A.A., Seufert, S.: EduChallenge Learning Scenarios: Designing and Evaluating Learning Scenarios with a Team-Based Simulation on Change Management in Higher Education; SCIL-Universität St Gallen, SCIL Report 8 (January 2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kerr, C.: The uses of the university, 3rd edn. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Blackwell, R., Preece, D.: Changing Higher Education. International Journal of Management Education 1(3), 3–13 (2001)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pellert, A.: Die Besonderheiten der Organization Universitaet und ihrer Veraenderungsprozesse. In: Pellert, A., Welan, M. (eds.) Die formierte Anarchie: Die Herausforderung der Universitaetsorgnaization, pp. 81–112. WUV-Universtitaetsverlag, Wien (1995)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Taylor, P.G.: Making sense of academic life: academics, universities and change. SRHE and Open University Press, Buckingham (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Albert A. Angehrn
    • 1
  • Katrina Maxwell
    • 1
  1. 1.INSEAD, boulevard de ConstanceFontainebleauFrance

Personalised recommendations