Endre søk
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Gaming and Simulation for Railway Innovation: A Case Study of the Dutch Railway System
KTH, Skolan för teknik och hälsa (STH), Hälso- och systemvetenskap, Vårdlogistik. Delft University of Technology, Netherlands.ORCID-id: 0000-0003-1126-3781
2015 (engelsk)Inngår i: Journal Simulation & Gaming, ISSN 1046-8781, E-ISSN 1552-826X, Vol. 46, nr 5, s. 489-511Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert) Published
Resurstyp
Text
Abstract [en]

Background. Gaming simulation allows decision-makers to experiment with sociotechnical systems, similar to computer simulation. However, the value of these tools in comparison with each other remains uncertain, especially when focusing on their real-life application in systemic innovation processes. Aim. This article builds a framework based on the literature related to innovation of complex systems in a multi-actor environment and intends to use this framework to differentiate between the value of computer simulation and gaming simulation in innovation processes. Method. Using a case study of the introduction of gaming simulation to ProRail, the Dutch railway infrastructure manager, this article explores the advantages and disadvantages of using the two tools in situations where radical innovations need to be invented, explored, tested, and implemented in an incumbent system. Results. Computer simulations, as closed exercises, allow for more radical innovations to be studied. The openness of gaming sessions as well as the need for gamers to interact with a recognizable system inhibit the use of gaming simulation in envisioning radical innovations. However, they are more suitable for the joint commissioning of research and the stepwise testing of small-scale improvements. Gaming simulation is therefore a more appropriate tool for planning a concerted transition in a multi-actor setting. Conclusion. Computer simulation better allows for the building of experimental niches, and gaming simulation better helps in the concerted planning of the implementation of innovations. The article ends with concrete directions for further research as well as ideas about combining the two tools.

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
Sage Publications, 2015. Vol. 46, nr 5, s. 489-511
Emneord [en]
Complex systems, computer simulation, debriefing, decision support, experimental niches, gaming for research, gaming simulation
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-181993DOI: 10.1177/1046878114549001Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84951864343OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-181993DiVA, id: diva2:902522
Merknad

QC 20160211

Tilgjengelig fra: 2016-02-11 Laget: 2016-02-11 Sist oppdatert: 2017-11-30bibliografisk kontrollert

Open Access i DiVA

Fulltekst mangler i DiVA

Andre lenker

Forlagets fulltekstScopus

Personposter BETA

Meijer, Sebastiaan

Søk i DiVA

Av forfatter/redaktør
Meijer, Sebastiaan
Av organisasjonen
I samme tidsskrift
Journal Simulation & Gaming

Søk utenfor DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric

doi
urn-nbn
Totalt: 269 treff
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf