Although the experience on the whole was educational, and enjoyable as well, a few things could have been done differently that I feel would have further enhanced the experience. Although the class was provided with an introduction to what the game was all about as well as handout materials describing the situation and some possible problems, I feel that a more extensive demo highlighting game issues, concepts, and strategies would have led to a faster learning for some of the students. Although our team scored well, the participation levels was high for some, and lower for others. This may have been a lingual issue, but rather, I tend to feel that it was an issue of conceptual understanding. Even though I believe that learning of new software, concepts, etc., is best done by doing, at bit more theory and background should have been introduced to bring all team members up to speed. It took me a few cycles of the factory operations during week 1 to clearly understand the dynamics of the game. I understand that if you have a background in OR&IE, these concepts may have already covered extensively. As an MAE, I found myself struggling to understand some of the concepts that were being developed in the game situation at first. This discomfort might have been eliminated if more formal theory had been developed beforehand in a more relaxed environment.
Another way I feel the experience could have been enhanced if the students in the individual organizational groups were given descriptions of their responsibilities before that game situation began. That way, each group, and the team as a whole, could have had a better prepared structure in terms of defining roles, procedures, and a culture in terms of completing particular tasks. A final way I think the experience could have been improved is by possibly rotating groups through the positions. This would not be possible with this game, but possibly in another simulation, such that all members of the group could try their hand at trying to manage, make operational,engineering, or manufacturing suggestions. Another way is to have eachindividual in charge of the simulation, to better understand WIP and starts concepts. Overall, the experience is well refined, and provided excellent value.
Although the lessons that I learned were very valuable, there aresome things that I feel could be changed to improve the experience in the future. The following few lines outline and discuss those ideas.
REVEALING SCORE/GRADE POLICY:
At one point during the game, a TA revealed that the score we were working toward didn't really matter, and that a grade was not going to be given for the experience. Students such as myself are driven by the fact that we are working hard for both the experience and the subsequent grade. Any sense that the game isn't going to have a real lasting effect leads many to take is less seriously. Our team went through this sort of a period but was able to regain composure and take things seriously at the end. Adding a competitive edge among different groups based on score may add some incentive.
TIME CONCERN:
Although we had been forewarned that the second session may take longer than planned to finish the entire simulation, I would recommend cutting down the number of days simulated or adding a time constraint. Students grow frustrated when classes last longer than planned and when the additional time may be cutting into other commitments outside of class. Adding a time constraint would further the idea of planning ahead, and would likely add another realistic aspect. Time constraints are certainly present in the real-world.
PRE-GAME INFORMATION:
I believe that having more information provided before the game is actually played would be good for everyone. Identifying the roles of each player and the responsibilities associated with each role before actually sitting down to play would have people more prepared. Our team seemed rather clueless for the first 3 or 4 days, and I believe that a better understanding up-front would remove the uncertainty.
Overall, I enjoyed the Operations Game, and I think it is a great tool to use for OR 416. Too bad that other classes haven't caught on to or developed such games.
Although I thought that the game was run very well, I think that there are some ways that the game could be improved. I think that it should be really emphasized to the students to study the information from the operations game. Secondly, I think that the situations in which the groups are asked to make decisions should be made more clear. Finally, I think that some explanation should be given to how the computer will react to certain situations. Again, these are just suggestions, because I really do think the game ws organized and run in a very effective manner.
I would like to expand on my first idea. I think that the students would do better, and learn more if they understood the scope of the whole game better. This could be accomplished by emphasizing that reading the operations game is essential. I did do the reading before the first lab, like I was instructed, but I didn't think that it would be important for me to know exactly what was going on. It may be my fault, but I think the extra reminder may help. For knowing more about the operations will definitely help make better decisions in the game.
The second way in which I would improve the game is to make the handouts more understandable. These "situations" were often difficult to understand. There was not enough information on them to make a totally accurate decision. We never really knew how the decision would affect the results. I believe that this caused us to lose faith in the program. That is, we never really knew if our results were due to our decision making or maybe some other variable. The information was oftentimes incomplete. I do not know if thus was done on purpose or not. Perhaps the handouts should have been explained a little more by the facilitator. Finally, I think that the students should be taught or shown how the program works. That is, how does the computer react to certain situations. I do not know if that is the whole point of the game is; ie.
let the students find out how the program works and this is the best way
for them to learn. I think that I would have felt more comfortable with
the game and I would have learned more if I knew how my decisions were
being evaluated and processed by the computer. I then could confirm that
what I was doing was either right or wrong. This could have been
accomplished by tell us how our decisions were being evaluated. I would
have actually had confidence and learned how to make decisions in the
manufacturing business.
Three ways to improve
One the ways to improve the project is to assign groups with more
diversity. In our group, we had all ME and only one ORIE student, while
others might have all ORIE students. I think we can improve the result of
this game if we distribute the students more evenly. The MEs have less
experience in seeing problems like these, while the ORIE have these problems
constantly. I think that next time we should assign students with different
background more evenly.
A problem I saw in this was the "PROJECTION" option of the game. I
think that this option should be disabled. One reason is that if people
know about the projection feature, they will tend to rely too much on it.
After our group found the feature, we started to test all the possiblities
and trying to find the one that gives us the best score. I think this
defeats the purpose of the game and people stops thinking about the problem.
They just start testing for best solutions by clicking all the buttons.
Finally, I think that the handout should give more background to the
problems. Sometimes the handouts were so vague that we can't understand
what it is trying to say. Many times, I feel like I am just playing a
guessing game because I don't have all the informations.
II. Three Ways to Improve the Experience
First, each sub-team should have a chance to understand its role before the
game. Although we eventually figured out what had to be done, the process
can be only be described as chaotic at best.
Second, although helps from TAs and Professors are generally appreciated,
they generally disrupt the flow of group discussion. I would like to
suggest that TAs and Professors take a more passive role in the game.
Instead of giving advice during the game, it would be more beneficial to
draw down notes on our performance and give suggestions on how to improve at
the end of the game. This way, we will have more chance to absorb the
suggestions.
Finally, members within the group should evaluate each other at the end of
the game. This will provide invaluable feedback on our own performance that
we wouldn't get otherwise.
Improvements
The first improvement should be, as previously mentioned, increased group
involvement in order to maximize the group decision environment. One method
would be for the group members themselves to "prod" their companions, but
unfortunately, this did not seem to help as they would just agree with what
was already said. Therefore, a more appropriate alternative would be to
have the teaching assistant actually monitor the group dynamics and
encourage the shy to participate more. An additional method to increase
overall group involvement would be to put the group at a huge oval table.
As a result, individuals could not hide quite as well as they do in the
present U-shape.
I would also want to improve the individual knowledge that one could gain
from the technical decisions. This could be done by printing out the
"production page" after each day and also give the students the best
possible choices for the individual problems encountered. This would give
the student a chance to reflect on the technical aspects after the game is
completed and could also be used a useful addendum to go along with course
material.
The last improvement that I suggest is to let each student be a member of
all four groups: management, operations, engineering, and manufacturing.
Yes, this should probably happen naturally as the game is played since all
decisions are group decisions. But, this is what hampered members of our
group. One person, in particular, felt constrained in operations since
information on decisions were usually passed out to engineering and
manufacturing. As a result the team member felt isolated. Thus, rotating
students through the different departments would give them more exposure to
the different departments involved in the decision making.
Three Way to Improve the Experience
Basically, this game tries to simulate a manufacturing activities for a
month in real world. Manufacturers have not all day to figure out what is
the right decision. Sometimes, even the decisions are relatively wrong,
people still follow it. Setting time limit for making daily decision,
providing more background information about the "situations" before the
experience, and reducing the size of group are three ways to improve this
experience.
First, a group need to setup a goal which indicates how many simulation
days should be finish per meeting. After the goal setting, the group can
figure out how many minutes is needed to make a daily production decision.
The same ideology can apply to the "situation" decision. For example, when
the oven is overheated, manufacturers maybe have to make decisions in 5
minutes. Because the production lines are running and the material is
keeping fed into the oven, huge loss and damage could be caused by
overheated oven after 10 minutes. Time limit for decisions will make the
game more real.
Second, some background information about what kind of "situation" will
happen in the experience can help everyone get into the game more quickly.
It is hard to image what the real factory like. People are so easily
getting lost when they face a full screen of figures and a never heard
"situation". Therefore, students will learn nothing since they have lost in
the middle of the game. If more detail information has been provided,
students can learn much more than expected.
Reducing the size of group is the third way to improve the game. Everyone
should fully participate in the game. Truly, there is no enough time for
every member to fully express their opinions. Half of the group members
will just seat there. In a real factory, people always have opinions based
on their positions. Six to eight is the best size of a group.
I honestly do not think the game could be improved much more. I was
impressed at how smoothly the software worked, as well as how well the
assistants were informed. During the game, I thought I would have liked
more information regarding costs, and the plant and machine workings. In
hindsight, however, I think the extra information might have confused the
issues at hand. I might make a suggestion to run a follow-up game at the
end of the semester. Throughout the game, I was faced with several issues
I had not come in contact with before. As some of these issues will be
dealt with in class, it would be interesting to be able to "measure" the
learning through the use of a similar tool.
Although I found the Manufacturing Operations Game a very valuable
and well run experience, there are several aspects of the game which if
changed could improve the overall experience. I will discuss the three
improvements which I think are most important.
The first improvement that I think should be made would be to give
the students more time to play the Manufacturing Operations Game. The
first section that we had was very interesting and a lot of fun because we
did not feel rushed for time. However, the second section that we had,
contained a very different atmosphere. This change in atmosphere occurred
because we knew that we did not have very much time left to complete the
game. This lack of time resulted in poor decisions because we did not have
enough time to adequately think the decisions through.
The second aspect of the game that I think could be improved would
be the presentation of the data on the computer screen. I think it would
be invaluable to the students to have graphs for many of the variables
which were calculated by the computer. These graphs would be invaluable
because they would allow us to analyze the data more rapidly. They would
in turn lead to better decision making on the students' part. Graphs would
also be valuable because they would test student understanding of what was
going on beyond the point that a bunch of data on the screen does.
The third aspect of the game that I believe could be improved would
be decision making processes. I think that it would be valuable to make
the various groups each get up and give a presentation about a section of
the game. Presentations are a very large part of the real business world
and it would not hurt us to get more practice giving them before we head on
out into the real world. If we had more time to play the game, or if there
were fewer days in the simulation, these presentations would also be a good
tool to test that students really understand what is going on in the
process.
The ways I see to improve the game depend on the objective. I believe
that the game would be quicker and smoother if you had less people
working as a group. But, if you are tyring to teach about working in
large groups and real world people problems, then this isn't desirable.
Maybe to be more efficient you could have the group do an activity before
starting the game to initially become more comfortable working together
and make the beginning easier. You could also set time limits on things
to make things runs more efficiently or score on a time constraint.
Lastly the necessay formulas could be known beforehand to make the game
smoother and in our group it would have alleviated some of the conflict.
In the real world the groups would most likely have the correct equations
before trying to meet and solve problems.
First, I think the students will get more out of the experience if
a full lecture was spent discussing the details of the game before the
actual playing. I found the game rather complicated and foreign when I
first encountered it. And it took me almost half of the lab period to
totally grasp what was going on in the game. Some explanation on how to
estimate WIP and Production beforehand could be very helpful in making some
of the decision that encountered.
Second, a predetermined evaluation on every decision we make during
the game will actually help students learn and remember the experience.
During the game, there was only one evalution given ( on the first decision
we made about machine over-heating problem). From that experience, we
learned what is the right thing to do in real life if we were faced with
the same problem (to have a meeting first). Obviously not every problem we
encountered during the game had an absolute correct answer. However, if
the professor can predetermine an evaluation for every scenario that
students will encounter, the students then can have a better idea on
whether or not they have made the right decision.
The third way to improve the game is to required the team to turn
in some sort of written calculation on WIP, Production and Yield
estimation. By doing so, the team can actually learn how to attack the
game scientifically rather then just play it with common sense.
In order to improve the experience of the Manufacturing Operations game I
would suggest the following ideas:
First, I would limit the interruption of the group's discussion at critical
moments in the game. I felt that as important discussion was about to take
place and the group was going to address an issue the faculty supervisor would interrupt and send the discussion in another direction. This may have
been done on purpose so as to keep us from taking too long overall, but it
still seemed to possibly limit our group from discovering some of the same
ideas ourselves and therefore gaining more from the process.
Second, I would like to see a more defined explanation of how overtime
effects the WIP score in a sector. For example, Our team noticed a large
WIP in a sector that we planned to reduce by implementing overtime but when
we did the WIP was still present and the capacity was well under the
estimated capacity of the shift with overtime. There are a few
possibilities for this discrepancy, I understand. However, none of them
seem to be outlined by the instruction about how the game works.
Thirdly, I would like to see the implementation of cost factors associated
with worker overtime and 2nd shift as this is often a main reason given
against implementing overtime and premium shifts. I think it may be
appropriate to include in the game a system that would penalize or reward
accordingly. Even if it is determined to be an unimportant cost in the
overall production plan, it would still be a good learning experience to be
forced to weight this cost verses the many other factors involved in each
decision.
The game is a fairly comprehensive learning tool, but there are a
few ways that it may be improved.
First of all, the TA or professor residing next to the team should
enforce each department to perform their duties within the department
instead of a large discussion between the whole team upon every issue.
This would teach the students the functions of each department.
Furthermore, after a decision has been made upon an issue, the
effects of the particular choice along with the consequences of not
selecting the other choices should be displayed or explained. In this
manner, the students can learn from their mistakes what could have been a
better choice and why or why the choice they selected is the best option.
Finally, there should be a brief game demonstration in class or in
section. By demonstrating some possible types of manufacturing problems
along with the decision process to solve the problems, students will have a
better understanding of the procedures before they begin the game. The
methods used to calculate the relationships between production, WIP, and
yield should be given before the teams begin the game. If the students can
be familiarized with the game before they begin to play, the teams would be
more efficient during the games since they knew what to expect.
Improvements to the Experience
One improvement our team could make to improve similar experiences
would be to create a timeline. People would have worked more effectively
if they knew exactly how much time they had to work on a particular
problem. Often we would spend more than 30 minutes to make one decision.
This was unreasonable considering our time constraints.
Second, our team could have improved the experience by maintaining
the roles that we were assigned. By the end of the game, we were making
most of our decisions as a group of 12 which is not very efficient. By
allowing each group to make a knowledgeable decision on it's own and then
making only the final decision as a group, we would have been more
effective. Most likely, more issues would have been addressed more
carefully and a greater number of viewpoints would have been considered.
Lastly, trust within the group would have improved our experience
with the Operations Game. Unfortunately, in real plant, everybody can't be
involved in every decision. It is important for different functions to
trust one another and the decisions that they make. For example, it is
important that engineering trust the decision that manufacturing makes
about overtime without seeing every detail of the calculations that led
them to their decision.
Three Ways to Improve the Experience:
Three ways to improve the experience are 1) to define the roles and
responsibilities of the different departments more clearly, 2) to review
the decisions the team made and how it affected the results, and 3) to
discontinue the use of the projection function on the computer.
In our project team, it seemed as if everyone was thrown together
in one room. Even though everyone was given a title, no one exactly knew
what their actual functions and contributions to the group actually was
suppose to be. This caused everyone to try to make their own individual
decision wasting a lot of time debating on the same problem. It was not
until the TA told us to try to work together in our departments when we
increased our pace in making our decisions.
Another way to improve the experience is by actually reviewing the
decisions the team made and how it affected the results. What would happen
if we chose an alternative solution? Is there any "right" way to make the
decisions? What would real project team specialists do in those
situations? If we had an extra lab section or even 15 minutes to explain
the consequence of our decision and the other decisions we could have made
would have been a better learning experience.
I feel the use of projections in our project also lessened our
learning experience. I would be lying if I said it wasn't helpful, but by
the end we didn't bother with calculations any more. Everytime we wanted
to decide whether to do anything, we did a projection. When we found out
that our score was located on the Production Summary Report, we did
projections and looked at the projected score.
IMPROVEMENT
The Manufacturing Operations Game offers a variety of learning
experiences to students in a unique way. However, the experience can be
improved in some ways. First of all, the amount of time to complete the
game should be longer than what's scheduled or maybe there could be more
sections time provided for the game. Therefore, everybody can focus more
on the qualitative part of the game's objective without worrying about
the time constraint. Secondly, a guideline for a decision procedure
should be enforced to every team. This will serve the purpose of
consistency in making every decision or otherwise a misunderstanding may
occur. The third way to improve the experience is to form smaller teams.
Two people in each department of every team should be ideal. They can get
to know each other better and moreover there is a balance participation
within a team. By making the number of people in a group smaller,
everybody will have more opportunity to apply their ideas more equally.
That is to say that every individual will get a chance to be an active
participant of the game.
Ways to Improve the Experience:
1. We appreciated all of the guidance that the professors gave us in
getting started, in performing calculations, and in understanding our
objectives. But having the TAs lingering around the classroom tended to
inhibit some people from participating or from being themselves and
voicing their real opinion. Also, we had a slight disagreement with one
TA about the extra shift issue. We feel he didn't adequately explain our
options and requirements and was trying to make it harder for us. I can
understand making us follow rules, but it seemed like he made them up as
he went along and did everything he could to keep us from our plan.
2. I was glad at the time that there were not many decisions to be made
at the end of the exercise and that the projection button was available,
but I almost feel like it was too easy to simply fiddle with numbers and
see how they project until the last day. I suppose this is somewhat
realistic in that forecasting is usually rather precise, but it seems
like it may have been teaching us a dangerous lesson.
3. One way to improve the experience may be to suggest a time limit on
decisions. This is something that we learned to do as we went along, and
maybe that was the point, but for those who tend to discuss things at
length when the rest of the group is ready to move on it may be a way of
politely letting them know that it's time to move on.
Three Ways to Improve
1) Include a better description of what each division can do in order to
run smoothly. Suggest using the blackboard to the management so that
everyone can have avisual of what's going on. Also each person has a
better understanding of their role, rather than 12 managers and 12
engineers and so on.\
2) I felt that our TA (helper person) on the first day was interceding way
too much. His ideas were good, but I had the same ideas in my head. He
was just beating us to it. The group may go slow at first, but the ideas
will flow. He was good at making sure we kept focus at the beginning.
It is key to help focu the group, but not sway it with too many personal
ideas. (Ex: "Remember what's important...Production and Yield")
3) I suggest a more informal meeting of the group prior to the beginning
of the game. An ice breaker if you will. Get to know the group before
you are put in the crisis situation. (Free Pizza from the OR
department???) Much of the time wasted at the onset was due to feelling
each other out. Eliminate this by an earlier meeting.
Three ways to improve the experience:
The simulation was spread over a duration of twenty fictitious days. Our
group was just starting to understand all of the variables which we had
control over by the very end of these twenty days. I think that we would
have gotten more out of the simulation if this duration had been at least a
few days longer (maybe five). I am of this opinion because the first five
days we had very few variables to alter, the last five days we were
restricted in the parameters we were allowed to change, and the ten days in
between were spent trying to learn the effects of changing the variables.
A valuable addition to the simulation software would be a means of looking
at the main screen of data from previous days. (We looked around a bit for
this option and did not find it, however there may well have been a way to
do this that was unnoticed.) Our group tried to maintain important data
from each day, but this procedure of manually taking down series of numbers
for each day became too time-consuming to be considered worthwhile. These
numbers were valuable in terms of making correlations between changing a
particular variable and deciphering its outcome on the data. Whether there
would be a way of looking at previous logs or simply printing out important
screens, I think this would be a means of improving the game.
I think that reducing the group size by one person per division would
significantly increase both the productivity of the group and the amount
learned by each member. I understand that one of the important lessons to
be learned from this project had to do with how difficult it is to maintain
a large company, however I feel that a more important aspect was for every
member to learn exactly what was going on in the entire simulation. I think
that some members could have gotten more from the project if they were
forced to do every calculation associated with their division, instead of
helping one of the other two members preform the calculations.
I think that this experience would be improved if the teams were smaller.
The teams were probably the size they were because of limited resources, but
they were definitely too large. There was too much arguing within the
groups and within the teams. It was difficult for everyone to have input,
and some people ideas were completely ignored. Perhaps if the groups had
only two or three people in them more people would have an opportunity to
participate.
I think another way to improve the game is to give more instruction at the
beginning. It seems that some general directions were given and then the
team was left on its own. My team spent the first twenty-five minutes
trying to figure out what we were supposed to be doing. Maybe more
directions aren't necessary, but instead a hand-out explaining the goal and
variables that could be manipulated to reach the goal. This ditto would be
a good reference and should be put in the course packet.
The final way to improve this game would be to allow more time. I think
that if there wasn't such a time rush, the groups would be able to make
better decisions, instead of saying "let's just pick something, the class is
almost over". If one more section was allowed, the teams would: get a
higher score, be given another week to think about it , and not be so cranky
because they had to stay late on a Friday afternoon.
In the beginning of the exercise most of the people in my
group did not know what to expect. Because of this, we did not have a plan
on how to best attack this exercise. Once we realized exactly what we
needed to do, we were better off. Retrospectively, I think we should have
spent more time planning, divided up the tasks more effectively, and figure
out a way to communicate in an organized fashion.
In order to operate more efficiently, we should have planned
out what the "ideal situation" would be. We could have figured out where
the bottlenecks in the process were. Basically, we should have had more of
an idea of what we were doing before we started the game. Once we know
what we wanted to happen we could have made the appropriate adjustments as
the problems arose.
We jumped into our roles without realizing what exactly it
meant to be in the positions we were in. It is important to realize
precisely what your role is and work within your groups to establish
criteria and solutions. In the future, we should put an emphasis on
working effectively within the smaller groups.
In order to figure out what exactly we wanted to do, people
just contributed their ideas randomly. We did not have an organized method
of communication. Although this allowed us to realize what issues were at
hand, our conversations often went in circles. Instead, we should have had
our discussions more organized by first discussing in the smaller group and
then meeting as a whole group while writing down the ideas so they are not
repeated. This more organized structure would also allow for those who
are not as loud spoken to give their input as well.
The game was a good learning experience. It is easy to
mention things that you would have done differently now because we have
learned so much from the experience. However at the point in time that we
were making those decisions, we worked pretty well together to complete the
job.
Time restrictions should be instituted on making a decision on any day. Too
often minor issues are brought up and the problem is not focused upon. If
there was more pressure to make a decision, than people would remain more
focused and work more efficiently. At the very least, a schedule should be
somewhat enforced so that not too much time is spent analyzing one small
factor of any problem.
There should be a clear format or agenda on daily meetings. If an agenda is
used, specific goals can be focused on in a clear and orderly manner. When
a problem is discussed, one topic should be concentrated on individually and
huge overlapping debates can be avoided. One single problem should be
brought up, analyzed, and a decision instituted before focusing on the next
problem or item. Only issues of one particular problem should be decided
upon. This will avoid jumping from problem to problem and a lot of
confusion and disorder.
Only the division that the problem applies to should be allowed to debate on
a problem that occurs and make a proposal to management. Otherwise, the
divisions are almost meaningless. When problem topics are not divided,
there are simply too many people debating and progress becomes very slow.
Only the expert group should deal with a problem and then propose a solution
to the management. If the management finds a conflict with different
divisions, they can choose to focus on priorities or resolve differences.
First, I think a marketing group should be added to the teams, as well as
related scenarios whereby cost becomes an important factor. In this way,
the game would become considerably more realistic than it is, as cost
never comes into play in the current setting. Yet, we all know that cost
is usually the bottom line in the 'real world'
Second, I think that even though the game stresses a high level of
communication between the groups, as well as team work, still more
interaction should be encouraged. For example, it is clear that the
operations group was responsible for most of the logistic work during the
game. However, I think that the manufacturing and engineering department
should take a more active part in the calculation process, as they both
have a vested interest in accurate results.
Finally, I think another dimension could be added to the game in the form
of product/design engineering. In this way, even more of the concurrent
engineering philosophy would come across throughout the course of the
game. For example, one of the engineering roles could be that of a
product development engineer, with associated scenarios whereby design for
manufacturability becomes a factor in some of the process decisions that
the manufacturing department must make.
Overall, the operations game was a useful, productive exercise that helped
familiarize us with manufacturing terminology and the dynamics of
successful team interaction.
There were many ways that the experience could have been
improved. The members of each team with the best leadership skills and
"take-charge" personalities should have been assigned to the management
positions. I felt that members of departments were leading the meetings
because two of our managers were not talking at all. When certain
departments were running the meetings, their interests were what was
predominantly discussed. A more effective way to assign management roles
might be for each team to choose its leaders at the beginning of the
session. Most of us have been in classes together for the past three
years and know the personalities of our class (at least undergraduates
do).
I also feel that the help of professor and TA facilitators was
not needed. During the first afternoon meeting, our faculty leader acted
as management instead of letting us lead ourselves. Occasional helpful
suggestions are ok, but I felt like our professor didn't have confidence
in us as a group when he stood in front of us and told us what to do for
most of the day. Each time we got close to a decision he would try to
sway us in another direction.
I understand that one of the points of the game is to keep us on
a time schedule, but I think that one more lab period would have made the
experience more "real-world". We stayed an hour beyond the end of
section on the last day to complete the project, and our last few
decisions were made hastily, without thought or calculations. Some
groups may have worked faster from the start, but in our effort to cover
every angle and make wise decisions we could have used another day.
One way in which the experience could be improved would be to
provide some type of graphical view of the actual manufacturing setup on
the screen, perhaps as something that the team could refer to as the game
progressed. Something in the form of a layout or floorplan would be nice,
showing each stage of the process in block form with arrows denoting flow.
At times I felt a bit dizzy just staring at the production summary report
for long periods of time. The pictoral view would reinforce what was
actually behind the nubmers, and I think it would be helpful in that it
would provide a logical map for the team members to follow, helping to
reinforce their decisions.
Another thing that I think would improve the experience is to
delete the projection function. Although we discovered this function late
in the game, and we were upset that we had not discovered it earlier, I am
now glad that we did not. It would have simply provided us with a crutch
of sorts for guiding our decisions. I think that playing without any idea
of what would actually happen at the next step is more beneficial to the
learning process.
The third thing that I think would help to enhance the experience
would be to spend just a bit more time up-front explaning the game and its
nuances. While I realize that more explanation was not given probably to
incite the chaos and confusion that typically occurs in real life
situations, I would have felt a bit more comfortable with the game if I had
some of the concepts explained in greater detail before we actually began
playing. But then again, perhaps people working in a manufacturing
environment are not supposed to feel any comfort...
There can be some ways to improve the manufacturing operations
game. First, the number of members in each team can be minimized to 8
people and two people are assigned for each position. This can encourage
the members to get involved into the group discussion while they have
greater opportunities to speak up. Since time-controlling is a very
important element for being successful in the real world, we can input a
time limit on completing the tasks or there is a penalty for running
overtime. In this way, the game will be more challenging, Finally, each
team member can rotate in the job positions every five days so that
everyone can know better the responsibilities of each position and gain
some experience in different tasks.
First, as engineers assigned to keep our production activities
smooth, we must understand production line itself well; for example, the
nature of equipment used in the process and the operators' operation
procedure. Sitting in the office and managing production by relying only on
the output data of control system would easier for engineers. However, this
attitude would lead wrong or inefficient solutions because in some cases we
cannot find why the problem occurred if we only stay in the office and do
not see the site. In the process, there are many situations which we could
not predict to occur. By walking through the production floor, examining
process from various aspects, and talking with floor workers, we could see
many potential problems hidden in the process. Through settlement of those
problems the production system would be strengthened against various
unpredictable situations.
Second, we need to have the capability of viewing a thing from many
point of view. People tend to focus on their own concerning; for instance,
in the Game, people in the manufacturing section tended to see the raised
problem only through in terms of yield rate, Indeed, this is an important
attitude but this looks like seeing not a wood but a tree. by observing a
raised problem from other person's stand point, we can see the problem from
other aspects and would find out that our potential solution for the problem
would not work. We could also see the heart of the problems and figure out
how to persuade colleagues in other sections in order to be accepted our
proposal. Furthermore, by doing so, we can avoid unnecessary conflicts with
our colleagues, which would be occurred by very different perspectives.
For the last, we should learn various management methods and the
nature of human in terms of behavior. Having only good technical knowledge
might not lead successful work implementation. Some degree of human
interaction is necessary to execute assigned job. We need to interact with
floor operators as a manager or with technician in other sections as a
colleague. Thus, having broad aspects of managerial and psychological
knowledge will be helpful for us to implement our work successfully.
One way to improve the experience would be to allow 3 section
periods to play the game. I believe this is necessary to allow full
participation of all members, especially those who are slower with English.
(see lesson learned #3)
I also believe it would help to have more instruction on the
organization and responsibilities of each sub-group. In our group we ended
up having most subgroups work together on all problems except when
instructions specifically stated two subgroups must have a differing opinion
on a problem. This was beneficial in some ways, (see lessons learned #1)
but it also greatly slowed down the game because at times people in all
subgroups performed all calculations on throughput, starts, labor levels
etc., rather than dividing up the tasks.
A third suggestion would be to somehow provide more detailed records
of the data on all the days already played. There were times when this
information could have been quite useful. One of those times was when we
were trying to straighten out a calculation disagreement (see lessons
learned #2). We had no good way of showing how the differing
recommendations from the different calculations had affected the wip and
throughput over the course of days. This information may have cleared up
the disagreement sooner.
Overall I was very impressed with the game though. It was very
educational and fun!
Even though this game was a very creative activity to put school
learning to practical use, there is always room for improvement.
To make the Operations game a better experience for students, more
defined roles may have aided us in the allocation of tasks. Since, many of
us haven't worked in a manufacturing plant it would have been helpful to
have a job description of each function to help us understand our role in
the production process. I was able to catch a glimpse of what each role
does, however, I'm still not clear to what the differences are between
engineering, manufacturing and operations. This information would
definitely be helpful, since many times people working in manufacturing or
other divisions in a company have difficulty understanding the roles of the
other functions.
Another improvement to the game would be to implement some type of
time mechanism on the decision making process. For example during the time
spent on making a particular decision, so and so would occurred, to reward
groups that make quick intelligent decisions and to penalize groups that
deliberate for too long of a time. This would make things a little more
exciting.
My last suggestion for the game would be to create some type of
graphing tool on the simulation, because it is easy to get lost in all the
deliberation when every one is throwing out ideas when all you can see are
numbers on the screen. I know for me I understand things better visually,
therefore if some type of capacity/throughput vs. cycle time graph could be
viewed during our decision making process, it would be very helpful and
would give students a better understanding of what's going on because
towards the end many groups were just taking guesses at what to input and
change.
I hope that you find these suggestions helpful. The fire at the
end of the simulation was quite entertaining.
Three ways the experience could be improved are:
1) Review decisions made and not made.
2) Continue the unexpected problems even toward the end.
3) Go through decision guidelines before the start of the exercise.
One thing that I think is really valuable that needs to be improved is the
interpretation of decisions made. After the group makes a decision, a score
flashes on the screen but what does it mean. It would be valuable if the
professor or the TA could comment on the decisions. Whether the process to
which the decision arrived from was incorrect or certain things were left
out, etc. The biggest thing I think is what would happen if an alternative
option was chosen. What would happen if we picked A instead of B? I don't
think we got that enough from this exercise. Toward the end, most of the
decisions made were from trial and error by using the projection button.
The unexpected problem scenarios should also continue into the simulation.
It seems like most of the problems happened in the first 5 days of
production. Toward the end of the 20 day production period, nothing broke
down, all employees were working, and the factory was running smoothly. All
we had to decide on was how much to produce and how to keep up with the
demand and WIP. As mentioned above, the decisions made toward the end were
mostly by trial and error with the projection button. I'm sure that there
are decisions, big or small, constantly in a manufacturing facility. The
continuity of this part of the lab would keep students on its toes for
problems and have second plans in case something goes wrong.
Its also good to go through the decision making guidelines before the lab
started. I remember the first decision we made was incorrect because we
decided before we got all the information to the problem. It wasn't until
after the decision was made that a set of guidelines were provided for
decision making. I wonder if we had gotten that first decision right, if
anything would of been said at all. I guess in a way I'm glad that we got
that decision wrong.
First of all, smaller groups are a necessity, for reasons mentioned above.
Second of all, some people are on a real ego trip - they are loud, they give
their comments all the time, it does not seem like they know what they are
talking about, and yet, because they are so omnipresent, they get undue
attention. This is not good. There should be a thinking period of three
minutes where people formulate their arguments and then they procceed -one
by one - to explain themselves. A lot of nonsense would be gutted and more
rational arguments could be heard (an additional benefit would be that the
shy types would have to speak up). Lastly, the theory should be explained
more in depth before one starts the game. I was in operations and I had a
hard time figuring out the first time we played what exactly WIP was and how
the WIP figures were related to the other figures on the PSR. The second
time, after more theory was explained, I had much fewer problems.
3 ways to improve the experience
1) Define the roles of the groups better.
We all ended up sharing all of the work. In the real world, different
divisions are resposible for certain decisions. We were not too sure what
the difference between the groups was. For example, maybe manufacturing
alone should have been given the information on releasing material.
2) Define the rules better.
We were confused by the second shift rule. We thought that we just had to
say that we planned a second shift, we didn't realize that we would be
forced to use it when the time came. The rules such as these should be
written down clearly to avoid misunderstandings.
3) More information about decision making on paper.
We were given a brief description of the way to figure out how much WIP
would actually make it through the system, and therefore how much we were
ahead or behind in production. It would have been a lot easier if
manufacturing was given that information on a sheet of paper. It saves
time, reduces mistakes, and is more realistic that that information would
be on paper.
How to Improve the Experience
I think the best way to improve overall game play would be to enforce the
roles assigned to each team member. Perhaps even in real life, the
meetings would become a bedlam, but at least the groups would work toward
separate agendas. Several times during the game, groups would receive
information sheets detailing a portion of a problem and some possible
answers. It seemed to me that the point was for each group to decide on a
solution and propose it to management, who would then have to choose
between the recommended answers. Since we were all concerned with our
overall score, though, we all got involved in each other's decisions.
Perhaps "breaking down the walls" is an ideal situation for corporations,
but we need some sort of structure for decisions to be made.
Another useful improvement would be to better prepare us for the opening
day of production. The sample exercise in our packet was too simple on its
own to fully illustrate the intricacies of the game. I know I was slower
than some to catch on to the subtle points, and that did hurt my overall
effectiveness during the bedlam. I hate making excuses, but as a ME I have
very little experience with balancing acts like that. Those of us who
caught on most quickly took charge of the game (if for no other reason than
to go home), and left the rest behind.
A third, perhaps impossible suggestion to implement would be to avoid
critical staff meetings on Friday afternoons. From my experience in the
"real world," I have learned that no one out there is very productive
beyond lunch time at the end of the week, and it appeared that we students
are not much different. It is one thing to have the motivation of a Friday
evening to get our work done, but it is something else entirely to think
clearly when the clock signals the start of the weekend at 5 PM. A good
deal of our frustration came not from our indecisiveness but from the
delays to the week's conclusion. Had we met on Tuesday mornings, I believe
we would have been a much more cohesive team.
Three ways to Improve the Experience
The Manufacturing Operations Game was a very good way of picturing
what a manufacturing plant is all about in the real life, and a great way
to show students how a product is run. One of the things that I feel could
be improved about this game is the accessibility of the data. If each of
the four departments had its own computer, each group could work with the
data needed for their specific decision, and it would have been a lot
easier for each department, plus it would have resulted in less time
consumed in the decision-making process. There was evidently a problem in
that each department needed different data off the computer at the same
time, and sometimes one group had to wait for another department to finish
getting their data before this group could get the one they needed.
Another way to improve the operations game would be by giving the
students previous guidelines as to what is each of the department's
responsibilities. This way, each group can start, since the beginning of
the game, to focus on what their team is supposed to do. This would cut
the group's decision-making time and it would also result in more precise
solutions as to why something should be done this or that way. Some of the
students (the majority in my case), didn't have any background in a
manufacturing environment, so it was a little more difficult for them to
get the idea (quickly!) of how things worked. This is a minor detail, but
in my own experience, when I started my job this summer, in a manufacturing
plant, I didn't understand who did what, or who should I go for questions
on different things that had to do with my product line. In the same way,
students who didn't have this background were a little less receptive of
why things were happening and at the pace they were happening.
Lastly, when the groups were asked by the computer to decide about
a problem that had aroused, sometimes the choices the game offered were
kind of vague. This caused discomfort on different groups and discussions
were geared towards understanding the question or choices given, and not to
the problem in question. This problem could be fixed easily by looking
over the questions and "fail-safing" it. In other words, ensuring that any
person who didn't have a thorough background on the game, or even in
manufacturing, could understand the basics of the game, of what was being
requested from them
There are ways that the experience of playing the Operations Game can be
improved. Firstly, the management team should control the time better to
prevent over-time. If it was in the real industry, over-time would mean
extra cost to the company, and was not desirable. Each team could have a
representative who speak out the opinions of the team. This would minimise
the chance of getting into the situation that more than one person spoke.
If more than one opinion was voiced out at the same time, not all people
could hear and understand the message, which in turn would lead to going
back and forth on the same issues and hindering the efficiency.
Also, each team could have a short meeting of about 1 to 2 minutes each day
if a problem came up. Then, the 4 representatives could speak in turn and
there would be at most 4 opinions being discussed. This would also make
sure that everyone was involved in the process of making decisions.
Finally, we should consult the Operations Team more frequently as they knew
when we would have problems coming up. So, participants of the game would
not be discussing on what should be done on the work in progress, yield, and
production for each sector and came to a consensus but only found out later
that special incidents happened on that day. This would enable the whole
team to step right into the problem and solved it quickly without wasting
any time and effort on discussing things that would not apply.
In my opinion, these are the three things that are important for improving
the experience of all the participants in the Operations Game.
There are numerous ways to improve our experience with this manufacturing
game. One of them is to set clear rules for the decision process to run
more smoothly. Time limits should be set, responsibilities be divided and
rules for communication are some rules that pertain to efficient operation.
Decision making was time consuming in my group because management failed to
create rules in the beginning. This lead to hostility among departments
which in turn lead to poor communication, poor teamwork and poor decisions.
Perhaps to encourage better performance and adherence to set rules a
penalty system should be developed. A penalty might be charged for exceeded
the time limit or even for poor decision making. This more correctly models
the real world where poor performance leads to terminations or poor reviews
. Of course each department should not be judge simply by its own
performance but by the company as a whole because the goals of individual
departments might not match the goal of the company.
"Practice make perfect." Improvement will result if a similar exercise is
to be repeated. Solution to problems will definitely arise as members
realize that they must work together to run the manufacturing line
effectively and efficiently. Members will be better acquainted thus
relieving any doubts about voicing out opinions concerning decisions. With
practice I believe the manufacturing line will not only operate better but
faster.
Although the Operations Game was a successful learning experience, there
are some ways in which the game could be further improved. By improving the
game, the lessons learned will be more obvious to more of the participants.
Three things which could be improved are: the selection of room, the
preparation for the game, and the setup of the divisions.
The first thing in the game which can be improved is the room in which it
was played. A computer lab is no place to have a meeting. There are a
variety of problems with playing the game in the computer lab. Since it is
a computer lab, there are computers at every desk. This cuts in on each
member's participation because he/she may have a terminal in front of them.
The lighting in the room was also poor leaving many people in the room
detached and fatigued. Lastly the arrangement of seats in the room was not
conducive to a team environment. Everyone was detached from the rest of the
group, leaving no feeling of togetherness. These problems can be solved
very simply. By putting the meetings in rooms better fitted for such an
exercise, even more could be accomplished. I would recommend a room with
one large table such as those in Rockefeller or Goldwin Smith Hall.
The Second problem with the game was the preparation. The members were
totally unprepared for the game. If each member was supposed to play a
role, they should have been given more time to prepare for their role.
There should also have been more background information provided to each
member so that decisions could be more easily established.
The third item concerning the game which could be improved is the setup of
the actual divisions. There should have been a time where each division
could meet to discuss the issues that affect them. This would allow each
division to discuss and debate their own issues. After they come up with a
unified standpoint, it should be presented to the rest of the group. This
would have avoided a lot of the excess chatter that was experienced during
the last game.
First, I think there should be more time allowed to do this simulation. As
a result of the time constraint, we were given the pressure of making
decision fast. An extreme example was that we were still in day 18, and we
passed the 4:30 time. Because many of my team members wanted to go home, we
projected our actions until day 21, and when we thought it was pretty good,
we just went to day 21 without considering other alternative. I was
disappointed with this action, but I do not know who to blame.
Second, I think that the rights among the various department in the team
should be clarified. For example: does the management division has the right
to over ruled other division's decision. Another example: does a decision
have to be a consensus from all members or can it be just a majority vote.
These kinds of ambiguity can create confusion among team members and it can
result in confrontation. One member might think that the management division
is taking dictator control over other divisions and as a result she/he might
rebel against the team. However, if from the beginning the management team
has been given the authority to make decisions without having a consensus
then other team members might concede with the action.
Third, I think we should be told the alternatives affect the overall
performance, and not only from the ones we chose from. In the beginning,
when we faced the oven problem, we were told how our decision as well as
other alternatives affected the overall performance. However, after that
there was none. I thought that was a very good idea to know how each
decision affects the manufacturing performance. It will enhance students'
understanding about the cause and effect relationships between variables in
a manufacturing environment.
If I had to do this Operations Manufacturing Game all over again,
there are a few things that I would change. First of all, I would make
sure that things became more organized right off the bat. We spent a long
time making the first few decisions and then our productivity increased
tremendously. Perhaps setting a time limit or having a set agenda would
improve the flow of conversation. Secondly, I would try to get everyone
involved. There were several people that had some very good ideas but
would not share them unless prompted. Maybe occasionally stopping to have
everyone give there opinion would help. Although it may take a little bit
more time it may result in some great ideas. Lastly, I might make cost a
factor in the performance measurement. It seemed unrealistic that money
was never a consideration in our model. Sometimes we chose the most
expensive option when a less expensive one may have done just as well. In
real life money is always a constraint. However, for the most part I
believe that this game was a good experience as well as a great way to
learn about may facets of the business world.
The Manufacturing Operations Game can be improved by allowing
members of the group to determine their own roles, thereby using their
skills most effectively, rather than being randomly assigned a role in the
group. This will especially help in identifying and placing leaders in the
appropriate roles to facilitate the best group dynamic possible.
Building a function into the game which better allows you to see
the effect of your group's previous decisions, such as graphs of WIP and
yield per day, would also be welcome. This would enable us to better
understand the effects of the various decisions available to us and
therefore help us learn quicker.
The game can also be made more realistic if all functions, such as
changing overtime and starts, were allowed from the first day. This would
make the game more realistic and offer more insight into actual
manufaturing operations.
II.Three Ways To Improve The Experience
II.1. Dealing with uncertainty
In order to avoid the unpredictable consequences of accidents that can
occur on the line and slacken or disturb the planning of production; it can
be interesting to take some advance on the theoretic planning of production
at the beginning of the game; because it is far easier to decrease the
throughput at the end of the game, to avoid overproduction, than to
increase it to make up for the missing production.
II.2.Operational Decisions
With some experience of the game, in order to make decision taking easier
and quicker, it could be possible to define, for each stage of production,
a threshold for the difference between planned and actual production, above
which the situation is considered as "anomalous", that is to say, needs a
corrective action (give priority to a product over the other, increase
overtime or set up second shift).
II.3.Definition of everyone's task
To improve the experience, it would be necessary to define precisely the
role of each member of the team and the "subteams" (manufacturing,
operations, engineering and management) to have the work really shared by
everyone instead of having 4 or 5 persons who discuss and take most of the
decisions ( even though they were not member of the management board ) and
the others who hardly participate to the game.
Perhaps the team could be more efficient if everyone had the posssibility
to choose the post that correspond best to his character.
For example, in the management team, there seemed to be only one person who
liked and actually took the decisions; as a result all the team lost a lot
of time discussing strategies (take some advance over the planning or, on
the opposite. not change too many parameters in order to not disorganize
the whole system) instead of analyzing the data and take concrete
decisions. However, the strategies choice must, normally, be only
determined by the management team.
Three Ways to Improve the Experience
1.The biggest problem with this Manufacturing Operations Game and how it
was organized was the time constraint. There simply was not enough time to
get done, properly, what we had to do. The only way to fix this would be
to allow more class time. A reasonable assignment would be either double
the class time allowed and still work through 20 business days or keep the
same amount of class time and cut the working days down to 10. Because the
single biggest problem we had was as it got closer and closer to 4:25 P.M.
we started putting less and less thought into our decisions. We ended up
going through the last 5 days in about 30 seconds simply because noone
wanted to be there on their own time plus a majority of the people had
other commitments.
2. The next item on my improvement list is the general preparation, or
lack thereof, of the sub-divisional teams. First of all, we should have
had class time allotted to meet in our divisions before we even met as an
entire team. That way we would not only have been more organized in a
group setting but we wouldn't have had to "talk amongst ourselves" in front
of the entire team. Each group would have been more organized internally,
which would have lead to a stronger group meshing of ideas. In the case of
my division, we didn't even have time to meet each other let alone get a
game plan and team objective in mind before we had to participate with the
rest of the team, really, especially at first, not even knowing what we
were doing. Also, there should of been a preset order for each team to
present their ideas in. This should have been Management's job, however at
first they were just as clueless as everyone else and chaos ruled.
Everyone was talking, giving their ideas and suggestions at once, it really
was very unorganized and impossible to be productive. You literally had to
shout to be heard or get everyone's attention, which even then was
difficult to hold. Anyway, all of this random chaos could have been
prevented, or at the very least controlled, had there been better
preparation and organization on a team level.
3. Finally, a better room would have made the whole experience a lot more
productive and easier to work through. The problem was we needed one
computer =, yet we had ten of them just sitting around in the way. Had we
been in a conference room with one large table in the middle which we could
all sit around on three sides and have Operations with the computer and
overhead screen on the fourth side we would have physically been layed-out
more effectively and efficiently. It just would have facilitated a group,
working environment in a far more positive manner.
Although the game was very helpful, there are a few things that
could be done differently. First of all, I think it is relatively
important to assign separate tasks for each individual in the group. This
makes everyone get involved, as everyone is responsible for something.
To discourage the trial and error guessing we resorted to, the
exercise should span less than the twenty days. Pressed for time, we
resorted to guessing.
The final suggestion, if the exercise isn't shortened, should
definitely be considered. Historical data from the very beginning should
be readily available. Data in the form of a graph would be the most
helpful in not only historical data but projections as well.
In terms of getting a feel for a company and its everyday
decisions, this project was very helpful. The overall value of this
exercise was very high.
Suggestions:
To create a situation that more closely parallels the real world, we could
have limited the amount of time that a group spends on each turn. Applying
a maximum time allowance for each day would force groups to make decisions
quickly. Of course, we should still allow a group to skip easy days.
I don't think the allocation of team members was optimal. I assume the
professors made it a random selection. If we could have picked our own
leaders and groups based on their skills we may have had a more productive
outcome.
I don't know if the projection option should have unlimited use. Since we
had a really small number of options each round, we could have enumerated
all the possible decisions and checked the outcome of each. I don't think
this should be allowed.
Also, at times, it seemed that the instructor guided our decisions more
than he should have. I don't know if this was part of the game. If so, I
suggest they use a little more discretion.
One of the things that I would have changed about the game is to
possibly give more data in the decision making process. Although I think
there was a good deal of data for most of the decisions we made, there were
times when we had questions about certain aspects of production, but the
data was not provided for us, therefore we were unable to use those in our
decision making process.
Another change I would make is to either reduce the length of the
game, or to give us more time to play the game. By the time we finished, it
was almost six o'clock, and by that time, we didn't want to make decisions
any more, we just wanted to get it over with so that we could go home and
work on our other problem sets that we had to do. For example, the first
day we only got five days done, which meant we had fifteen days left to do
for the second day.
The third way I would improve the experience, and I don't know if
this is possible, is to provide a computer for everyone or every group,
disallowing altering decisions. If this could shomehow be implemented, then
each group could look at a different group of data (e.g., overtime, starts,
WIP deficit, etc.) and be able to present it, thus cutting down some of the
time in which we are all telling the one computer controller to do ten
different things at once.
The Manufacturing Operation Game could be improved in several ways. First,
I feel that the scoring of the project could have been done better. There
should have been a category for total cost. It would have been possible to
waste much money through the use of overtime and extra shifts to make up for
bad decisions in the beginning. It was possible to, as we did, catch up in
the end of the simulation through large increases in inputs and overtime and
still end up with a good score, 98.7. Though our group worked well together
once some problems with group dynamics were worked out. The fact remains
that we, in real life, spent much more money accomplishing our goal than
what was necessary.
Second, the simulation was difficult to begin, because we were not really
sure about all the extra possible operation, such as overtime, second
shifts, priorities, etc. If these, and their implications had been better
explained it would been easier for us as a group to make more informed
decisions. Though this may seem trivial, because of the brevity of the
simulation a few days of miscalculation really effected our factory. A
better briefing of the project and what was expected of us would have aided
our learning and ability to succeed at the simulation.
Finally, it would have been beneficial for all the groups, if the types of
group that we were in was varied. For instance, the people in the
operations group probably would have appreciated spending some time in the
role of management. This would probably require the simulation to have
lasted several more days, but it would have added much to the learning
experience of the people that did not have to coordinate the ideas and
opinions of the other groups.
2.) Three Ways to Improve the Experience :
Three suggestions to improve the game are as follows. The first is
to allow more time. More time should be given to teams to prepare and gain
a better understanding of the game and information given. It is perhaps
most important to be able to gain a correct understanding of what some of
the numbers on the production summary report were telling us. Our team
took a lot of time to do analysis of the numbers, but I can see that at
times of confusion there is a tendency to just press go and see what
happens.
The second suggestion is to give the teams a better understanding
of how the programs worked and how certain things were calculated. For
example, we had long discussions as to whether there was any effect on
adding overtime to machines operating below capacity. Our team also did
not find out about such functions of the program like "projection" until
very late in the game.
The third suggestion is to correct some of the program bugs that
were discovered. Small things such as a reversing display of scores and
delays in the update of machine capabilities after the addition of overtime
that caused some group confusion.
All in all though, the experience was very positive and I believe
it gave all the members of the team the opportunity to learn a few valuable
lessons.
On the whole, the exercise was a success in terms of learning
experience. However, certain improvements could be made. I felt that
the time constraint made forced many decisions not to be clearly
thought out as not everybody could stay back after class to complete
the exercise. Hence, decisions tend to be rushed. Besides, with
more time, there perhaps could be a experimental run for 5 days where
we could also make the decisions before starting the game proper.
2. Three ways to improve the experience are as follows.
In the first place, we concentrated our attention on the subject to take
good score ,especially for the production score, on the final stage. That
is, we did not consider each data in detail, so we could not analyze other
factors except the number of production. We understood that score was
important for this game and we did not have much time to analyze much data,
but if we had analyzed data of each day in detail, we might have taken good
score not only in product but also other sections.
In the second place, we should have taken action for decreasing yield. Since
we kept producing in spite of decreasing yield, our production became
inefficient. I do not have any ideas why the yield decreased at this time,
but I think we had to pay attention to this matter.
Furthermore, from the first stage, the number of actual production was not
enough for the number of planed production. This caused lack of the number
of production till the end of this game. Of course, we tried to increase
working time and increase raw materials for a period of some days, so we
could recover the number. As it turned out, I think it was late to consider
how to cope with this matter. Anyhow, in order to avoid spreading this
problem over whole period, we had to consider this problem as soon as
possible when it happened.
The manufacturing operations game was a valuable learning experience. It
effectively demonstrated the complexity of manufacturing problem solving.
However, the game could be improved in a few areas. These areas include
better initial explanation, the ability for each individual to assume
multiple roles , and more complete scoring.
The need for better initial explanation about the available management
options and program capabilities was apparent during the beginning of the
simulation. Tools such as projecting, capacity assessment, and other tools
did not become evident to our group until we accidentally stumbled upon
them while playing with the program. Better explanation would help to
facilitate the speed of the game in the first few days because there would
be no need to search haphazardly through the program for options or miss
options that could speed decisions.
The ability of group members to play the game from more than one division
would be useful in analyzing the different concerns and issues associated
with each department. This would help people understand the need to
recognize the different concerns and interests that are involved in the
manufacturing decision process.
The need for better scoring results from the fact that the economic
implications of instituting new technologies and scheduling overtime and
second-shifts were not taken into account in the simulation scoring. This
element of the manufacturing decision process has a large influence on
decision making and should not be ignored. I do not suggest a specific way
for it to be scored , however I feel that it should be included somewhere in
the final scoring and analysis.
Three Ways To Improve the Experience.
The first way I feel to improve the experience is to make sure the team
divisions are followed. By this I mean that the Engineers work on the
engineering problems and not manufacturing problems. In our team, at the
end each problem was looked at by the whole team and not just the divisions
that were effected. Managers in our team had no real power to make final
decisions which meant they were serving no real function. I think it is
important that the TA's explain that each division should handle their
problem only and that management has final decision making power. I feel
this is needed to better simulate what would be happening in the real world.
The second improvement I believe that should be made to the experience is to
give the team a grade based on their score. Towards the end of the second
day, the entire team was tired and just wanted to leave. We started to rush
our decisions and did not really evaluate all our options with the Predict
button. We didn't care much because we were not being graded. That means a
score of 50 would not really have any adverse effect (except of course being
ridiculed by friends). If we were assigned a grade based on our score our
motivation would have increased dramatically. This would simulate the
motivation that workers have to beat the competition and succeed. Finally,
I would put the game on more than one computer. The team found it very hard
to work with just the one active computer. Sometimes the computer operator
would change screens when someone else on the team needed information from
the previous screen. If the game had been on more than one computer, then
it would have been much easier for people to get information and calculate
predictions. When a decision is reached everyone can input it into the
decision and move onto the next day. I feel that these three improvements
would greatly improve the manufacturing game.
I believe that the game was a good experience for me because I was able to
practice a leadership type role. I think the game could be improved by
making the room more conducive to project work. We were in UPSON 360 and it
was very hard to communicate with all the different teams. I was constantly
standing up to try and see and hear everyone. I thought that it also
would've been nice if we'd each had our own computers and access to the
information. I also thought it would've been helpful if there'd been
someone to guide us along more. Professor Jackson helped a little but I
still felt as if I was "flying blind." Lastly, I guess I wish there was
some way that I could have better prepared myself because I found it very
frustrating that I knew there was a way to solve the problems analytically,
but I didn't know what it was. I didn't feel like I knew enough to play the
game as best as I could.
All in all, I learned from the experience. I'm still a little uncertain as
to how realistic it was but at least I walked away from it feeling like I'd
benefitted.
[ Three Ways to Improve the Experience]
1. Each member's role should be more clear
since the Operations Game only defines the job to each department of a
team but not the role of each member in one department, sometimes
communication occurs only among a few people but not among the whole team.
If each member's role could be more clear, the participation of each member
would be more balance.
2. Use diagram instead of numbers
as the game going, every problem occurring during the manufacturing
process needs sufficient quantitative information to make decision. In the
process of decision making, the only available source of information od the
production summary report. If there is diagram, which can interpret the
whole bunch of numbers into some relative diagrams, in this program, that
would effectively save time for achieve decision.
3. Add some hints to each question
There are different types of questions about the manufacturing in this
game. Every question its critical to the final outcome. Sometimes what the
team did in the process of decision making was guessing. If some hints
could be added to each question, it would surely help each team realize the
purpose behind each question and learn more from this game.
Three Ways to Improve the game
I can't really think of three things to improve. I think the game
is pretty well structured in trying to create a simulation of the real
situation. Perhaps on some parts, it would be better if we were provided
with more informaiton. For example, one of the problems we were to solve
the instablity problem with the oven temperature. We do not know enough
about the process to give any wise suggestion, where in the real world
someone in the department should know more about the production process and
mechanics to the machines on the floor.
The game has four groups of people representing four main
departments to a manufacturing system. I think we should be given more
information on the roles of the particular department we were assigned
into. We could have been more 'in character' if we had more information
about the particular department and their general area of supervision in
the company.
I basically had a lot of fun with the project, and learned a lot
from it. It is a very good way to get a better idea about the process
behind a good manufacturing system.
Three Ways to Improve the Experience:
=09Three possible ways to improve the operations game experience are=20
to increase the number of recitation periods used, allow more supervision=
=20
/ interaction with professors, and to reduce the number of problems faced=
=20
in one day.
=09I feel that it would be very beneficial if the game was spread=20
out over three recitation periods, or the number of days in a cycle=20
reduced from twenty. During the second recitation, we felt pressured to=20
finish the game, and ran through some of the decisions too fast. If the=20
game was prolonged, I think there wouldn=D5t be that rush to finish, and it=
=20
would also help in that at the end of the second day, everyone is in such=
=20
a hurry, that we stop caring about the quality of the decisions we are=20
making.
=09Although one of the greatest things about this game is running=20
the entire factory by yourselves, and being accountable, I think that at=20
times more interaction would have been helpful. This would have been=20
useful if a team shows that it is really going off of the true path. I=20
think allowing a team to stray and make bad judgments is OK - a very=20
useful learning lesson, - but after a while it would help if by the end=20
of the day, they knew the proper way of going about some of the=20
decisions. For example, after the entire game is over , give out a sheet=
=20
explaining how to go about making start number and overtime decisions.
=09Finally, it seemed that some days we were bombarded with=20
problems. It felt as if you were never going to make it to the next day=20
because every time you went to run - a new problem would show up. I=20
think that maybe spreading out these problems might help in that you=20
could spend more time weighing each decision instead of just hoping to=20
get through the day - which is how you felt by the last decision.
I think the experience could be improved,though. First, I don't
think that the students should be told how the final score is calculated.
We should have to decide and figure out which of the three performance
measures was most important or if they were all equally important. Since we
knew, we focused more on the areas that were scored higher and tended to
forget about the other areas sometimes. Further, I think that there should
have been more production problems with the GD components. A lot of the
time we didn't even look at the GD parts especially since everything was
going much better than with the GA parts. Finally, I think that the project
button should not be available for smaller increments of time. Once we
realized that we could project everything, it took us longer since people
would project every decision. It took the focus off the hard analysis that
we had been doing up to that point. Maybe the project button should only
allow you to look at a minimum of five days from the present.
In conclusion, I had a really good experience with the operations
game. I worked with a good group of people, and I had fun. It allowed me to
really learn about what was going on without having to worry about getting a
bad grade or getting fired.
As for the game itself, the administration could have been better, when
questions arose it seemed that the TA wasnt ever in the room. The
actual program ran smoothly. I think one improvement would have been
making the amount of labor count in the final score (overtime, double
shifts). This would give more incentive to try to run the line within
some bounds.
Three ways of improving the game
First, as I just said, a graphical result would have helped to fill the gap
between each one of us. But maybe one goal was to find out ourselves how to
build one.
Second, we should have been aware of how the game works before. The exercise
we were given was much too easy compared to the real game. No way this
training could have helped us understand the important links between the
numbers. If the objective was to create a gap in the group among the ones
who quickly understand and the others, it worked! Maybe the objective was to
learn how to cope with such a gap, but then we should not have had a 99.1%
score but 0%, because we failed!
Last, I do think we should have had a time at the beginning to organize our
group and not wait the end of the first lab to do so because we were all
tired, I personaly was extremely upset about how things went, and we all
wanted to leave as quick as possible - last course before week-end!
The four first days of the game should be a small training, each step would
highlight one important relationship and explain the basic calculations.
Maybe handouts with the same exercises for each one would be helpful to make
sure everyone follows.
Overall, I enjoyed this simulation exercise. I think that most of
the problems was in our group as a team. Everyone were intelligent and they
were doing their own jobs. Our performance level was good, yet I felt that
our team did not run too smoothly. It was very tiring because we went too
slow. Also, the dominant people in our team just tried to convince the
others without trying to listen to everyone's opinions. Thus, in a way
management failed. He excelled as in making decisions but did not do too
well in managing the team. I also felt that some team members did not fully
respect other team members. Maybe I felt this because I did not know anyone
in my team but since everyone else were Mechanical Engineers, they knew each
other well. For me, it took a me awhile to get into the game due to the
lack of manufacturing background, so I wished that my team members were more
supportive when I got lost. I don't think that I was the only one who felt
this. To improve our team, I think that we should have respected each and
every member on the team and listened to others, not just shouting out one's
own opinions.
Another improvement might be to define the roles of the players
before section such as in lecture. I understood the general factory
process, but I didn't know what I was supposed to do first. It is really
difficult to play role you were assigned 5 min. before the game begins. I
knew that I was in Management (first) but I didn't know what I was supposed
to do or how I should have prepared myself. If everyone knew their role,
this might have made the team dynamics and the game run more smoothly.
Else than these factors, I cannot find a fault in this exercise. I
enjoyed the idea of running a factory through simulations. It was
educational as well as beneficial experience.
As for the suggestions, I would say get rid of the first problem at the=20
beginning of the game. It worried us all right, but after thinking about=
=20
it, it=D5s obvious that this problem is a trick. As we were not yet=20
familiar with the program, it would be unrealistic of you to expect us to=
=20
fall behind in production at the beginning of the game, and then discover=
=20
the game plus catch up with the production. =20
At the end of the simulation, a cumulative flow plot would be very useful=
=20
for review. Maybe at this point the instructors could make some comments=
=20
about our performance. I felt as if the end of the simulation was just=20
left hanging in the air. A good opportunity for us to learn from our=20
mistakes was missed. Our competitive thirst was also left unquenched. =20
We made all the effort to keep our score high, but how we performed=20
comparatively, we never found out. For example, in lecture, a ranking of=
=20
the teams and their individual scores would have been appreciated.
The physical layout of the room could have been better. The amount of=20
light in the room was too much to see the projection clearly but too=20
little to read our own notes. In terms of working space, the setup was a=
=20
little constrained. The working style changed considerably during the=20
course of the simulation. Initially everybody set down with their=20
respective groups and discussed the issues within the group. As we=20
became more familiar with the game and discovered the general trends,=20
people gathered around the projection screen and discussed the issues as=20
one big group. The individual roles disappeared and everybody in the=20
group became equals. Towards the very end, the decision making became=20
quite chaotic due to the time pressure. Without falling to the two=20
extremes, a working environment that encourages more participation from=20
each member and one that makes all the information easily available to=20
all would have been useful. For example a second overhead projector=20
where we could display the problem at hand or copies of important=20
information that was distributed would have been very useful. =20
We spent a good deal of time trying to get around in the program and=20
waiting for the computer to finish its calculation. A faster computer=20
and a more user-friendly program would be big improvements.
The experience can be improved in various ways depending on your point of
view. From a professor's point of view, the experience could be improved
through the following:
1) More work periods, not cramped into two sessions
2) Better working spaces and meeting areas
(important for group dynamics)
3) Give more guidance or direction in estimating overtime,
double shifts, and priorities.
I have assumed that this is what is meant by "Three Ways to Improve the
Experience", not how the group could interact different to improve our 20
day simulation experience.
The simulation shouldn't be grouped into two 10-day periods. This puts
time constraints and a mental drain on the members involved. I believe
that our group would have been more focused and more enthusiastic if there
were four 5-day periods. This can be accomplished by having the group meet
at night or during specified office hours. Like I stated before, as the
time neared 4:30, our decisions became more "art than science". There is a
loss of morale seeing problem after problem crop up and then realizing that
we spent 30 minutes on one day and we still have eight left to finish.
The working conditions were terrible. The room was set up so that it
became engineering vs. manufacturing and operations vs. management.
Ideally, there should be one large meeting table (like Rhodes 253) were all
members can sit around and slide papers back and forth. Instead, we were
left to contend with a mess of wires, cords, computers, etc. I understand
that room availability is the major problem. Regardless, the environment
was not suited to a teamwork environment.
The final way the experience can be improved is through additional
instructor feedback. Members of my group felt that we were essentially
given a problem that we were unsure how to deal with and told to go ahead.
By the scores indicated from the other rooms, I believe that those
instructors provided some insight or additional help. It is extremely
frustrating to work without truly understanding the processes underlying
the system. Although this doesn't seem important, it could have made the
entire experience more enjoyable and helped us understand our work better.
Three Ways to Improve the Experience:
1. First of all we have to sit down for a while and clarify the goal of a
team. (Also keep in mind the goal for each group) We then have to define
team responsibilities. Each team have to point out if the decision that
have made effect any of your group's goal. And then let the team together
make the concensus decision with someything in mind what is gonna be the
effects.
2. To shorten the process, we have to establish a groundrule and a
decision procedure. That might have allowed time for ecah group
discussion and then come up with thier recommendation with advantages and
disadvantages of each alternative. Then the team together discuss and
make a concensus decision.
3. We should apply more theory into it. But to do that may be the chart
or some computer aid might be useful. We should write all important facts
on the board so everyone can see it. One more feature which is useful is
to test some of our theory by using the projection feature. That might
help us in chossing between some alternatives.
Three Ways of Improving
1) Smaller Working groups. The groups were to large. The discusions
took too long and attention from several members of the group was lost.
All the work towards the end of the simulation was done by half the
group. Because the group was too large it was hard to achieve consensus
and people got lost.
2) More time was needed to complete the simulation. the time assigned
for the simulation was too short. Since we had very little time for
discussion (8 min. per day, due to religous holiday) we could not achieve
consensus in the decisions and people lost interest. We also lost
interest from the begining of the people who had to leave at 5:00 pm.
3)Have training for each of the subgroups. The responsibilities of each
subgroup were not clear. At the start the people of each subgroup had no
idea of what they had to watch out for. Management was also lost and did
not know how far they could go into the decisin process. Towards the end
of the simulation there was a restructuring in the decision process,
memebers of different groups took upon others responsibilities.
Decisions were taken by a small group and the rest of the members were
ignored.
Operations Game Improvements: As well as taking away a few lessons from the
project, I was also able to see a few areas where the game lacked. The
first area in which the game lagged was the lack of the financial effects of
decisions. One decision that our team decided to implement was the use of a
double shift. The only facet of our operations that was decremented due to
the use of the double shift was yield. This was not substantial enough a
decrement for our team to feel the ill effects of having used the second
shift. If there was an added financial penalty for having used the second
shift, there may have been a more realistic simulation of the manufacturing
system. Such a factor was involved in all the decisions that our team made.
When we were faced with decisions, the lack of financial tracking led us to
take the best solution to benefit production while ignoring the effects of
finances. This seemed to be a little unrealistic.
The second area that the operations game lacked was in the inability to
view past performance. Just as our team learned the benefits of projecting
the effects of our present decisions on the future it would have been very
helpful to have had the ability to look at past days performance in order to
better understand the system on a whole. Due to our time constraints it was
unrealistic to ask operations to copy down the entire screen for us to use
on the following day. The ability to look back at past days performance
would nicely complement the addition of the projection tool.
The final problem that I saw with the entire exercise was the lack of
preparation. I feel that there were many important techniques that I
learned during and after the game that would have been very helpful during
the project. I think it would be a more beneficial project if students are
taught the techniques of monitoring and changing starts, WIP, and yield
before the exercise. Having the knowledge of the techniques involved would
give us the opportunity to put what we learned to work. Now that I have a
much better understanding of some of the techniques used to monitor the
manufacturing process I would like to go through the game again to see if I
would perform better.
Three ways I think would improve this experience are
=85 Not setting a time limitation
=85 Have some way to look back at previous days (without the ability t=
o
change any data) for comparison
=85 Should not empower the Management group to the extent that they
could make decisions without reason or consent from the team.
Between the first week and the second week of the Manufacturing Operations
Game, many people (especially our Management group leader) got the
impression that the Game will run well into the afternoon and night.
Under this condition, our Management group announced that our goal was to
"get out of here" by 4:30PM at the beginning of our conference in the
second week. He then proceeded to making quick but not necessarily good
decisions based on the goal he set. I think that if there wasn't a time
limitation of the Game or if the students did not find out about the
possibilities of running over time before we even began the second
conference, we would have achieved much better results as well as more
satisfaction.
During the Game, we could not go back to previous days to look at our data.
I believe we should have been able to do this but without the ability to
change any of the previous decisions and data. This way we could have
compared our current results with the previous days to see if we improved
our production systems with the decisions we made. It's also an indication
of whether we are making the best decisions or if we delineated from our
goal.
Lastly, I think our Management team did a poor job in making the final
decisions. When time pressure were put on us, they just didn't care about
whether our solutions were optimal or not. If the problem indicated that
the Manufacturing division should advise the decision, then Management will
accept their choice without even asking for the justification. And when
the Operations or Engineering division dispute the decisions or ask for a
reason, all Management will say is "because the Manufacturing division has
made their choice and I'm going with that." Also when the Engineering
division was working on a problem, the Management and the Manufacturing
division demanded to know what they were doing and why it was taking so
long. When the Engineering division replied that they are making some
calculations and would need 10 minutes, Management just went on making the
decision without their input because he can't want that long. Such cases
discourage the team spirit as well as split it up and without a whole team
working together, we did not get good results and I did not enjoy the
experience during the second conference.
Although there are always ways to improve, I honestly can't think of any
meaningful change. The group size was great, the professors and TA
informative but not too interfering, the program was graphically
appealing and easy to use, and the whole game wasn't too timestaking nor
trivially easy. I learned alot and recommend that the game be done in
following years in the same way.
To improve the game I would probably deal largely with group dynamics issues.
First, everyone in a group should get a paper copy of situation
instructions. That way, no one has a control advantage by just having
the paper in their hands.
Second, if possible, each member of a group should be forced to present
their teams ideas at least once. That way, everyone keeps their head in
the game.
Finally, teams should switch areas, time permitting after every several
rounds, so as to get a feeling what its like to be in other positions.
This especially affect the management position, because they should learn
to understand the other people's points of view.
Granted, these changes might take away from some of the issues learned in
the game, and if they are an integral part of the experience ignore them,
but otherwise, the group dynamics stuff is part of the required
Organizational Behavior class all ORIE students take.
Overall, I enjoyed the Operations game a lot, but I think either
the number of days should be shorter, or some accidents or happenings
should happen a few times in the last 7 or 8 days. When we found out that
there were no more happenings, we started playing with the start numbers
and projected after every change. People were tired of thinking and wanted
to just get it over with. I think there needs to be some sort of
fluctuation in the facility to make the game interesting. It doesn't have
to be a disaster or something bad happening. It could be a positive thing
or a happening that doesn't do anything to the facility, but a comment that
gives the players a little bit of a chuckle.
Also, since we were all given certain departments, maybe those
departments could be stressed more to bring out real situations in a
manufacturing firm. In other words, we didn't really think of him or her
as part of "Operations" or "Manufacturing." We just played the game as a
group. Although one of the reasons that happened was because of the
management style, I think different departments from each group should be
given some sort of idea what they should be doing prior to the simulation
game. That way, the Management group sort of have an "edge" over other
people in other departments to become management. That goes along with
other departments. Maybe the "Manufacturing" department can be given a
lecture of how to actually calculate to optimize throughput, WIP, and yield
so that they could present it to the whole team at the managers'
digression. That way, the departments would actually play a stronger role
in the game and may motivate people to become more active because they hold
a certain responsibility.
I thought the game was great, but the follow-up to the game was
insufficient. I understand that the results of other teams were put up on
the blackboard, but I think there should be a discussion on how or why some
teams did better than others. Or if a team got lucky, they should discuss
why or how that that was luck. I understand that by writing this paper,
I'm reflecting on what I learned from the game, but as I give my own
opinion, I would like to hear other people's opinion about the game as well
as the manufacturing process and ideas of team play. I wished that we
could get into small groups of 10 to plainly discuss and reflect what we
had done.
Three ways to improve the experience:
1. ROTATE: Although it was easy to see how the other groups performed, I=20
think it would have been interesting perhaps if we had gotten the=20
opportunity to rotate through all the 4 different groups and experience=20
the different attitudes ourselves.
2. TIME CONSTRAINTS: I noticed that some members of the team were very=20
eager and impatient to get out at the assigned hour, especially the=20
second time around. This caused some friction I think because one group=20
wanted to get things done fast, and coincidentally happened to be more=20
powerful, and the other group wanted to get things right, but was not so=20
influential in the decision making process.
3. THE PHYSICAL SURROUNDINGS: This might seem like a trivial and minor=20
issue, but I think it is important because the way a person is sitting=20
and the direction s/he looks at you is very crucial sometimes, and there=20
are instances where this is governed by the way the physical surroundings=
=20
are setup. So, I think a roundtable kind of a setup would be much more=20
efficient and would, atleast superficially, put everybody at par. Also,=20
nice comfortable chairs to sit on would be amenable to a good 2 hour=20
discussion!
<Three Ways to Improve the Experiences>
First, the important thing is to change the process of
decision-making. We practiced the traditional style of management which is
that management must do the final decision for itself after hearing the
opinions from all divisions such as manufacturing, engineering and
operations. However, the style is strongly influenced by the ability or
knowledge of management. The preferable method is to pursuit the flat
organization structure. That is to communicate between each division for
holding information in common, and then to lead to optimize the
decision-making. In this case, manager must be a good moderator during the
decision making process.
Secondly, its is to rank the priority of our target, which is the
score of production, WIP and yield. It is too difficult for us to optimize
all three scores at the same time, so that we must decide the first
priority. If we do not understand the whole process, we cannot understand
the dependence of each object function. Therefore at first we should assume
that each function is independent. Upon understanding the process, we can
optimize all object functions simultaneously.
Finally, the way to improve the experiences is to record the
history of simulation or decision-making processes. We had some problems in
the game, but they are included the similar problems. However, I am not
sure whether we would have done decision-making by the same criteria
continuously. Individual memory is not reliable. Therefore I would like to
propose new data base system, which is called history base so for want a
better name. The point is to record the process of decision-making in the
simulation or discussion. I think this concept would be very useful in real
engineering design. General data base system is concerned with the data of
products or materials. However, the most important thing is how to make
decisions and what to manage in design and production, so that the history
base is a process oriented system. These kind of information is generally
accumulated as individual knowledge. In manufacturing, the importance of
team based activities has been recognized. Therefore simulation software
must be improved from individual to team oriented tools.
It would have been easier to jump right into the game if there had been
an in-lecture demo of the game itself, possibly running through a couple
of days' production. As it was, the groups had to become familiar with
the screen displays that they were seeing for the first time, and time in
the beginning was wasted trying the software out. Also, a set of
exercises that are more similar to the way the game actually works would
have been helpful. The problems assigned did not really promote more
understanding of the exercise - they were too simple.
Despite any number of suggestions, the biggest obstacle to productive
group time can't be fixed easily. Especially with undergrads, lack of
experience with these kinds of activities can only be cured by time.
However, one feasible improvement to the sharing of information would be
to have a printer along with the computers, so the day's stats can be
printed out and distributed to each department at the beginning of each
"day". There were usually several decison-making processes going on
simultaneously, requiring viewing of a decision screen and the planning
screen. Time was wasted switching back and forth between screens and
waiting for people to write things down. It would have also been easier
to backtrack and see mistakes that were made if a record of past
decisions had been available.
A third improvement to the experience would have been to ensure that
there was an even mix of people in each group, i.e. not too many quiet
people in one group. However, this is difficult since the course staff
doesn't know each person. Also, no group in the real world is perfectly
balanced either. It is not a realistic suggestion, but in our case it
would have moved things along at a much more efficient pace.
There are some recommendations for improvements in this game there
was no cost performance measurement over time and second shifts are normally
cost premiums. Implementing capital improvements also entails financial
analysis. Future versions of the game could include a way of keeping track
of manufacturing costs.
The way this game was organized gave most of the decision making to
manufacturing and engineering, but not much responsibility to operations and
management. The team shall be structured as to assign all of the members to
engineering and manufacturing. Team members shall decide on a general
manager to lead the discussion and two computer operators representing
engineering and management.
The last improvement lesson is to give more analytical problems to keep more
people involved. I feel that by adding a cost factor and a better team
structure will improve the learning experience.
The major drawback with the operations game was the time requirement. Our group spent at least 3 hours over normal section time working. While the time was well-spent and instructive, there were problems. The first week, people had to leave before we were done, and so we were working with a short group. Towards the end of the second week's section, some people in the group didn't care about the game anymore - they just wanted to go home. I would suggest either devoting three weeks of section to the game or giving the students a better idea of what to expect as far as time and commitment go. Another problem we had was either too much or too little involvement from the instructor. The first week, people who had not been in the room would come in and
basically stop the group activities to lecture on something we were already doing. It would have been better to present these ideas to the groups before we got started and were deeply involved with the game. Some things we were told were valuable and would have been helpful throughout the game, and yet we were not told until about halfway through the second week. The second week, our problem was that nobody was around when we had questions. The TA who was in charge of our room did not make some important points clear, especially with regard to adding second shifts to the factory. A general overview or perhaps a handout detailing the "rules of the game" would be helpful. Even if the group doesn't need all the information or guidelines right away, it is better to have the information too early than too late.
II) Three Ways To Improve the Experience:
Although the exercise we went through for the last two weeks was a very
positive and enriching experience, I believe that there is room for some
improvements that could render it even more educational and enriching for
future students.
First, I was a bit surprised that all the data that was given was only
represented in tabular form. We did not even once see any graph that
could have otherwise made apprehension more easily achievable. This was a
problem for students like me who have a hard time visualizing the data
and its significance without visual aids. I do not believe that the
addition of such aids take anything from the seriousness of the game, on
the contrary. I believe that if the data, say for wip, was presented in
bar charts, the participation in the discussion would have been greater.
It might be costly to effect such a transformation to the already
existing software, but for 20,000+ a year, it is fair to say that we
probably deserve such an expense.
Another area of improvement would be allowing students to store the
information of previous production days in order to more clearly monitor
the development of the changes they are implementing. It would be great
for example if all departments, not just operations, had access to all
the data from all the previous dates.
Finally, and in order to make the lessons learned in this game more
lasting, having some sort of solid copies of the complete game, including
the decisions taken, the impediments and the daily results, and
distributing individual copies of this print out to the entire team would
be great. Because frankly, and speaking for myself there were several
things that I was not able to understand and was also unable to inquire
about due to time limitations. If I had the entire process in my
possession I could back and review all the decisions made and the manner
in which they affected the development of the game. I could the n have a
better grasp of the intended purpose of this game.
1) The size of the team should be cut down and each team member
should have a specific task assigned to him over and above the tasks
assigned to the team. I noticed that in each team there were only 1 or 2
member driving the team, rest of the people were "twiddling their
thumbs" and not participating in the overall discussion. Hence there
wasn't true team interaction rather a few key people dragging the rest of
the team.
2) The moderator (or professor) should monitor the interaction
and involvement of each team member and assign points to it.
This will prompt the less active students to participate in the game.
Also the grading system should include the quality of team interaction
by the members. Because according to me how you are going to interact
with your co-workers and how you approach a problem are going to be more
important criteria for success rather than what result you achieved.
At least this was my experience from working for a year in a professional
fast-pace environment.
3) Each team should be asked to justify their reasoning in making
a decision. I noticed that a lot of decisions were "shots in the dark".
They were more like guessing an answer (between options A,B and C) on a
paper. Unfortunately, real-world decisions are not that simple and
straight forward to make. Hence students should be forced to justify
their decisions and wherever possible even asked to justify not selecting
the remaining selections.
Though, I have more suggestions to make to the Manufacturing Operations
Simulation, I will limit them to three because of the requirements of the
essay. However, overall I think that this was definitely a very good
exercise for all students. It was fun and a good learning experience.
Such simulations/games should be encouraged in other courses also. These
definitely add flavor and dimension to the 1-dimensional reading from the
book or listening (or pretending to listen!) to professors in lecture.
>>In order to improve the Manufacturing Operations Game, first of all, the
>>number of team members should be decreased. This would eliminate the
>>possibility of disregarding or ignoring some member's ideas. Also, it would
>>enable better communication, and therefore, better desicions.
>>
>>Second, the problems which occur during the process of the game shoiuld be
>>projected to the rest of the team members via better information systems.
>>Only the concerned group had the details on the problem, whereas the whole
>>team should have been fully informed. The details should be communicated
>>throughly for best understanding of the situation before making any desicions.
>>
>>Lastly, The simulation screen should be redesigned. The current data screen
>>is full of listed numbers, which is very hard to read and follow. Also, when
>>a problem screen pops up, it was a pain to go forward and backward inorder
>>to keep track of the data.
Three Ways to Improve the Experience:
1.) If there existed a way of looking back at the past problems and
situations which had come up throughout the game and how we had responded
to and answered these problems. This would be helpful because several
times later on in the game we could recall a situation which had come up
in the past which was similar to the current problem but could not
remember how we had responded. Thus, some type of reverse button through
the scenarios and responses list would be helpful.
2.) The game could be enhanced by placing a financial analysis on the
program, such that, when our production goal is achieved at the
completion of the month, we could see where our major costs lied. This
would help us analyze our costs and determine whether they primarily
lied in inventory holding cost, production cost, or scrap cost. In
addition, this would help us realize the need for optimizing both
production and total costs. For it is not enough to meet your
production goals if your costs are soaring through the roof. We would
need to optimize production in terms of meeting demand for the month as
well as optimize costs, in terms of keeping them minimal.
3.) Another enhancement which could be made is the creation of a
production chart, which would display production level on the y axis
and days on the x axis. This chart would be helpful in that it would
allow us to see how our production fluctuated over the course of the
month. Also, another feature which would be helpful would be a feature
which calculated the number of "Good" units in the system. This
calculation was quite time consuming and wasted much time in having to
calculate it each or every other day. Thus, if halfway through the
program (say day 10), after students learned how to calculate the value
themselves, this enhancement could be used. This would help to speed up the
overall time of the game, and allow more time for discussion and analysis of
the specific situation being encountered.