Lessons Learnt from Contextualized Interactive Story Driven Development Methodology

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7528)


The advances in innovative responsive educational and training delivery platforms has not cease, with serious games taking centre stage in new crop of solutions promising to deliver reduced time-to-competence of employees at anytime and anywhere. Irrespective of the technical and pedaogical merit of such solutions, the challenge remains the same, how to develop the required content that is grounded in the relevant learning domains (eg: project management) and provide effective learning experiences at good value. This paper presents the Contextualized Interactive Story Driven Development (CISD2) methodology to develop content for serious games aimed at providing situated contexts for the development of competences, relying on the contributions of a multidisciplinary team. The framework has two distinct strands, one focuses on the contextualization of situated contexts, whilst the other focuses on the desired competences to acquire and their model, leading to the observed behaviours that may be measured and calculated as performance of the desired competences. Both strands have four distinct layers, starting at conceptual level and finishing with the actual story implementation that provides the effective transformation of learners according to the intended learning outcomes and that such transformation can be measured. When progressing through the layers, CISD2 recognizes the need of making decisions to reduce the scope and avoid feature creep.


Game design competence development serious game 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    McKinsey & Company (1997), (accessed July 1, 2012)
  2. 2.
    Sullivan, J.: The War on Talent is Returning; Don’t Get Caught Unprepared, (March 2012),
  3. 3.
    O’Leonard, K.: The Corporate Learning Factbook 2012. Bersin & Associates (January 2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Economist Global Talent Report (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5. (accessed July 1, 2012)
  6. 6.
    Gunter, G., Kenny, R., Vick, E.: Taking Educational Games Seriously: Using the RETAIN model to design endogenous fantasy into standalone educational games. Educational Technology Research and Development 56(5), 511–537Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aldrich, C.: The Complete Guide to Simulations and Serious Games: How the Most Valuable Content Will be Created in the Age Beyond Gutenberg to Google. Jossey Bass (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vidani, A., Chittaro, L.: Conference in Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications. In: VS-Games. IEEE Computer Society, Coventry (2009), (accessed July 1, 2012)
  9. 9.
    Paterno, F., Mancini, C., Meniconi, S.: ConcurTaskTrees: a Diagrammatic Notation for Specifying Task Models. IFIP, pp. 362–369. Chapman & Hall Ltd., London (1997), (accessed July 1, 2012) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fradinho, M., Andersen, B., Lefrere, P., Oliveira, A.: The New Path to Compe-tence Development. In: Cunningham, P., Cunningham, M. (eds.) eChallenges e-2009 Conference Proceedings (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barrows, H., Tamblyn, R.: Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education. Springer Publishing Company, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gabrielsson, J., Tell, J., Politis, D.: Business simulation exercises in small business management education: using principles and ideas from action learning, pp. 3–16. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Petersen, S.A., Heikura, T.: Modelling Project Management and Innovation Competences for Technology-Enhanced Learning. In: eChallenges 2010, Warsaw, Poland (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    IPMA, ICB - IPMA Competence Baseline, v 3.0., (retrieved May 2010)
  15. 15.
    Smyth, H., Gustafsson, M., Ganskau, E.: The Value of Trust in Project Business. International Journal of Project Management 28(2), 117–129 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hubbard, D.: The Failure of Risk Management: Why its Broken and How to Fix it?. John Wiley & Sons (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bedek, M., Seitlinger, P.: PIs and BIs for Communication, Negotiation & Trust Building. TARGET Internal Document (November 22, 2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technology and SocietySintefTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.BIBA – Bremer Institut für Produktion und Logistik GmbHBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations