IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/simgam/v31y2000i4p509-527.html

A Review of Policy Exercise Interactive Learning Environments

Author

Listed:
  • Shigehisa Tsuchiya

    (Chiba Institute of Technology)

  • Tomoaki Tsuchiya

    (Tokyo Gas Company)

Abstract

The most successful corporations of the next decade will be those that include learning as a key element within the organization. This is because the problem of ambiguity is conspicuous and change has become both pervasive and persistent. The rate at which individuals and organizations learn may be the only sustainable competitive advantage. The challenge, then, is to discover new management tools and methods to accelerate organizational learning. In this article, the authors clarify the theoretical meaning of the learning organization using their model of double-loop learning and, based on several case studies, claim that policy exercise, a managerial support system using gaming/simulation, can prove to be a powerful methodology in creating a learning organization. Policy exercise can provide interactive learning environments based on systems thinking, which is essential for organizational double-loop learning. The paucity of empirical study on double-loop learning shows among other factors the difficulty in observing and analyzing change in interpretative frameworks. Because it is a cognitive process, such change can hardly be observed from the outside. In the cases reported in this article, the authors had the opportunity to get involved in the process of the change within the organization.

Suggested Citation

  • Shigehisa Tsuchiya & Tomoaki Tsuchiya, 2000. "A Review of Policy Exercise Interactive Learning Environments," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 31(4), pages 509-527, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:31:y:2000:i:4:p:509-527
    DOI: 10.1177/104687810003100405
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/104687810003100405
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/104687810003100405?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    2. Hammer, Michael & Champy, James, 1993. "Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 90-91.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shigehisa Tsuchiya, 2011. "In Search of Effective Methodology for Organizational Learning: A Japanese Experience," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 42(3), pages 384-396, June.
    2. Shigehisa Tsuchiya, 2005. "Utility deregulation and business ethics: More openness through gaming/simulation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 36(1), pages 114-133, March.
    3. Warren Thorngate & Mahin Tavakoli, 2009. "Simulation, Rhetoric, and Policy Making," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 40(4), pages 513-527, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bryan Hong, 2020. "Power to the outsiders: External hiring and decision authority allocation within organizations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(9), pages 1628-1652, September.
    2. Teng, J. T. C. & Grover, V. & Fiedler, K. D., 1996. "Developing strategic perspectives on business process reengineering: From process reconfiguration to organizational change," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 271-294, June.
    3. Steven Groß & Thomas Grisold & Jan Mendling & Jennifer Haase, 2024. "Idea generation in exploitative and explorative business process redesign techniques," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 527-555, September.
    4. Onexy Quintana-Martinez & Antonio-Rafael Ramos-Rodriguez, 2016. "Changes in the Axes of Convergence of Innovation Management Research," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(5), pages 1-96, April.
    5. Arman Avadikyan & Gilles Lambert & Christophe Lerch, 2016. "A Multi-Level Perspective on Ambidexterity: The Case of a Synchrotron Research Facility," Working Papers of BETA 2016-44, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    6. Henri A. Schildt & Markku V.J. Maula & Thomas Keil, 2005. "Explorative and Exploitative Learning from External Corporate Ventures," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 29(4), pages 493-515, July.
    7. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    8. Tomasz Helbin & Amy Van Looy, 2021. "Is Business Process Management (BPM) Ready for Ambidexterity? Conceptualization, Implementation Guidelines and Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-25, February.
    9. Son K. Lam & Thomas E. DeCarlo & Ashish Sharma, 2019. "Salesperson ambidexterity in customer engagement: do customer base characteristics matter?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 659-680, July.
    10. Alan Hevner & Isabelle Comyn-Wattiau & Jacky Akoka & Nicolas Prat, 2018. "A pragmatic approach for identifying and managing design science research goals and evaluation criteria," Post-Print hal-02283783, HAL.
    11. Jonathan H. Reed, 2022. "Operational and strategic change during temporary turbulence: evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 589-608, June.
    12. Felipe A. Csaszar & Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2010. "How Much to Copy? Determinants of Effective Imitation Breadth," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 661-676, June.
    13. Bruneel, Johan & Clarysse, Bart & Bobelyn, Annelies & Wright, Mike, 2020. "Liquidity events and VC-backed academic spin-offs: The role of search alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(10).
    14. Sylvie Héroux & Mélanie Roussy, 2020. "Three cases of compliance with governance regulation: an organizational learning perspective," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 24(2), pages 449-479, June.
    15. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    16. Freeman, Steven F., 1997. "Good decisions : reconciling human rationality, evolution, and ethics," Working papers WP 3962-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    17. Zhang, Feng & Jiang, Guohua & Cantwell, John A., 2015. "Subsidiary exploration and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 224-234.
    18. Avimanyu Datta, 2016. "Antecedents To Radical Innovations: A Longitudinal Look At Firms In The Information Technology Industry By Aggregation Of Patents," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(07), pages 1-31, October.
    19. Liu, Zhiqiang & Yan, Miao & Fan, Youqing & Chen, Liling, 2021. "Ascribed or achieved? The role of birth order on innovative behaviour in the workplace," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 480-492.
    20. Nicolai J. Foss, 1996. "Firms, Incomplete Contracts and Organizational Learning," DRUID Working Papers 96-2, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:31:y:2000:i:4:p:509-527. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.