Simulation and Gaming for Understanding the Complexity of Cooperation in Industrial Networks

  • Andreas Ligtvoet
  • Paulien M. Herder
Conference paper


In dealing with the energy challenges that our societies face (dwindling fossil resources, price uncertainty, carbon emissions), we increasingly fall back on system designs that transcend the boundaries of firms, industrial parks or even countries. Whereas from the drawing board the challenges of integrating energy networks already seem daunting, the inclusion of different stakeholders in a process of setting up large energy systems is excruciatingly complex and ripe with uncertainty.

New directions in risk assessment and adaptive policy making do not attempt to ‘solve’ risk, uncertainty or complexity, but to provide researchers and decision makers with tools to handle the lack of certitude. After delving into the intricacies of cooperation, this paper addresses two approaches to clarify the complexity of cooperation: agent-based simulation and serious games. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages in terms of the phenomena that can be captured. By comparing the outcomes of the approaches new insights can be gained.


Transaction Cost Economic Industrial Network Herder Organisation Simulation Gaming System Dynamics Review 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Agusdinata, D.B.: Exploratory Modeling and analysis: a promising method to deal with deep uncertainty. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, P.: Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science 10(3), 216–232 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Axelrod, R.: The complexity of cooperation. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bankes, S.: Tools and techniques for developing policies for complex and uncertain systems. PNAS 99, 7263–7266 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barkow, J.H., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J. (eds.): The adapted mind - evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford University Press, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beck, J., Kempener, R., Cohen, B., Petrie, J.: A complex systems approach to planning, optimization and decision making for energy networks. Energy Policy 36, 2803–2813 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colman, A.M.: The puzzle of cooperation. Nature 440, 745–746 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Jong, K.: Warmte in Nederland; Warmte- en koudeprojecten in de praktijk. Uitgeverij MGMC (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duke, R.D.: A paradigm for game design. Simulation & Games 11(3), 364–377 (1980)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Faria, A., Hutchinson, D., Wellington, W.J., Gold, S.: Developments in business gaming: A review of the past 40 years. Simulation Gaming 40, 464 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fioretti, G.: Agent based models of industrial clusters and districts (March 2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garner, A., Keoleian, G.A.: Industrial ecology: an introduction. Technical report, National Pollution Prevention Center for Higher Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA (November 1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herder, P.M., Stikkelman, R.M., Dijkema, G.P., Correljé, A.F.: Design of a syngas infrastructure. In: Braunschweig, B., Joulia, X. (eds.) 18th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering, ESCAPE 18. Elsevier (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kohler, T.A.: Putting social sciences together again: an introduction to the volume. In: Dynamics in Human and Primate Societies. Santa Fe Institute studies in the sciences of complexity. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lazarus, J.: Let’s cooperate to understand cooperation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26, 139–198 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee, D.B.: Requiem for large-scale models. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 39(3) (1973)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ligtvoet, A.: Cooperation as a complex, layered phenomenon. In: Eighth International Conference on Complex Systems, June 26-July 1 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ligtvoet, A., Chappin, E., Stikkelman, R.: Modelling cooperative agents in infrastructure networks. In: Ernst, A., Kuhn, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on Social Simulation, WCSS 2010, Kassel, Germany (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mayer, I.S.: The gaming of policy and the politics of gaming: A review. Simulation & Gaming X, 1–38 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meadows, D.H., Robinson, J.M.: The electronic oracle: computer models and social decisions. System Dynamics Review 18(2), 271–308 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meadows, D.L.: Learning to be simple: My odyssey with games. Simulation Gaming 30, 342–351 (1999); Meadows 1999a Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meijer, I.S., Hekkert, M.P., Koppenjan, J.F.: The influence of perceived uncertainty on entrepreneurial action in emerging renewable energy technology; biomass gasification projects in the Netherlands. Energy Policy 35, 5836–5854 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nielsen, R.P.: Cooperative strategy. Strategic Management Journal 9, 475–492 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nikolić, I.: Co-Evolutionary Process For Modelling Large Scale Socio-Technical Systems Evolution. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nowak, M.A.: Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314, 1560–1563 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pavard, B., Dugdale, J.: The Contribution Of Complexity Theory To The Study Of Socio-Technical Cooperative Systems. In: Proceedings from the Third International Conference on Unifying Themes in Complex Systems. New Research, vol. III B, pp. 39–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roberts, G., Sherratt, T.N.: Cooperative reading: some suggestions for the integration of cooperation literature. Behavioural Processes 76, 126–130 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., van Asselt, M.: More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight 3(1), 15–31 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schieritz, N., Milling, P.M.: Modeling the forest or modeling the trees: A comparison of system dynamics and agent-based simulation. In: 21st International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, New York, Mannheim, Germany (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Simon, F.B.: Einführung in die systemische Organisationstheorie. Carl-Auer Verlag, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    van Dam, K.H.: Capturing socio-technical systems with agent-based modelling. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands (2009)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wierzbicki, A.P.: Modelling as a way of organising knowledge. European Journal of Operational Research 176, 610–635 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Williamson, O.E.: Transaction cost economics: how it works; where it is headed. De Economist 146(1), 23–58 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Technology, Policy and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations