IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/simgam/v46y2015i5p489-511.html

Gaming and Simulation for Railway Innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Jop van den Hoogen
  • Sebastiaan Meijer

Abstract

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

Suggested Citation

  • Jop van den Hoogen & Sebastiaan Meijer, 2015. "Gaming and Simulation for Railway Innovation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 46(5), pages 489-511, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:46:y:2015:i:5:p:489-511
    DOI: 10.1177/1046878114549001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1046878114549001
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1046878114549001?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. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    2. Igor S. Mayer, 2009. "The Gaming of Policy and the Politics of Gaming: A Review," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 40(6), pages 825-862, December.
    3. Arwin van Buuren & Jurian Edelenbos, 2004. "Why is joint knowledge production such a problem?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 289-299, August.
    4. Puffert, Douglas J., 2002. "Path Dependence in Spatial Networks: The Standardization of Railway Track Gauge," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 282-314, July.
    5. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    6. David J. Teece, 2008. "Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 11, pages 265-296, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Floortje Alkemade & Koen Frenken & Marko Hekkert & Malte Schwoon, 2009. "A complex systems methodology to transition management," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 527-543, August.
    8. Christoph H. Loch & Christian Terwiesch & Stefan Thomke, 2001. "Parallel and Sequential Testing of Design Alternatives," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 663-678, May.
    9. Margot P.C. Weijnen & Ivo Bouwmans, 2006. "Innovation in networked infrastructures: coping with complexity," International Journal of Critical Infrastructures, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(2/3), pages 121-132.
    10. Willy C. Kriz, 2003. "Creating Effective Learning Environments and Learning Organizations through Gaming Simulation Design," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 34(4), pages 495-511, December.
    11. Daniel A. Levinthal, 1997. "Adaptation on Rugged Landscapes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(7), pages 934-950, July.
    12. Koen Frenken, 2006. "Innovation, Evolution and Complexity Theory," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2939.
    13. Sanjiv Erat & Stylianos Kavadias, 2008. "Sequential Testing of Product Designs: Implications for Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 956-968, May.
    14. Geels, Frank W., 2002. "Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1257-1274, December.
    15. Geurts, Jac. L. A. & Joldersma, Cisca, 2001. "Methodology for participatory policy analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(2), pages 300-310, January.
    16. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    17. Kauffman, Stuart & Lobo, Jose & Macready, William G., 2000. "Optimal search on a technology landscape," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 141-166, October.
    18. Geels, Frank W., 2004. "From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 897-920, September.
    19. David Crookall, 2010. "Serious Games, Debriefing, and Simulation/Gaming as a Discipline," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 41(6), pages 898-920, December.
    20. Jan Rotmans & Derk Loorbach, 2009. "Complexity and Transition Management," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 13(2), pages 184-196, April.
    21. Geels, Frank W. & Schot, Johan, 2007. "Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 399-417, April.
    22. Paul Bratley & Bennett L. Fox & Linus E. Schrage, 1987. "A Guide to Simulation," Springer Books, Springer, edition 0, number 978-1-4419-8724-2, March.
    23. John E. Ettlie & William P. Bridges & Robert D. O'Keefe, 1984. "Organization Strategy and Structural Differences for Radical Versus Incremental Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 682-695, June.
    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. Carlos Jiménez de Parga & Sergio Calo & José Manuel Cuadra & Ángel M. García-Vico & Rafael Pastor Vargas, 2025. "A Novel Method for Virtual Real-Time Cumuliform Fluid Dynamics Simulation Using Deep Recurrent Neural Networks," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-31, 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. Safarzyńska, Karolina & Frenken, Koen & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2012. "Evolutionary theorizing and modeling of sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1011-1024.
    2. Giulio Cainelli & Massimiliano Mazzanti & Roberto Zoboli, 2011. "Enviromental Innovations, Complementarity and Local/Global Cooperation," Working Papers 201104, University of Ferrara, Department of Economics.
    3. Batinge, Benjamin & Musango, Josephine Kaviti & Brent, Alan C., 2019. "Sustainable energy transition framework for unmet electricity markets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1090-1099.
    4. Kounetas, Konstantinos & Mourtos, Ioannis & Tsekouras, Konstantinos, 2012. "Is energy intensity important for the productivity growth of EET adopters?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 930-941.
    5. van Geenhuizen, Marina & Ye, Qing, 2014. "Responsible innovators: open networks on the way to sustainability transitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 28-40.
    6. Khraisha, Tamer, 2020. "Complex economic problems and fitness landscapes: Assessment and methodological perspectives," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 390-407.
    7. Dijk, Marc & Orsato, Renato J. & Kemp, René, 2015. "Towards a regime-based typology of market evolution," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 276-289.
    8. Khatoon, Tohmina & Kivimaa, Paula & Brisbois, Marie Claire & Saadi, Shah Abdul, 2024. "A global south perspective on the interplay between innovation policy mix and technological innovation systems dynamics: The case of Dhaka City's road passenger transport system," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    9. Geels, Frank W., 2020. "Micro-foundations of the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions: Developing a multi-dimensional model of agency through crossovers between social constructivism, evolutionary economics and neo-institutional theory," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    10. Rakas, Marija & Hain, Daniel S., 2019. "The state of innovation system research: What happens beneath the surface?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    11. Christopher M. Chini & James F. Canning & Kelsey L. Schreiber & Joshua M. Peschel & Ashlynn S. Stillwell, 2017. "The Green Experiment: Cities, Green Stormwater Infrastructure, and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-21, January.
    12. Smith, Adrian & Voß, Jan-Peter & Grin, John, 2010. "Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 435-448, May.
    13. Qu, Guannan & Chen, Jin & Zhang, Ruhao & Wang, Luyao & Yang, Yayu, 2023. "Technological search strategy and breakthrough innovation: An integrated approach based on main-path analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    14. Geels, Frank W., 2010. "Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 495-510, May.
    15. Zhao, Zhen-Yu & Chang, Rui-Dong & Chen, Yu-Long, 2016. "What hinder the further development of wind power in China?—A socio-technical barrier study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 465-476.
    16. Walrave, Bob & Gilsing, Victor A., 2023. "Game of skill or game of luck? Distant search in response to performance feedback," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    17. Genus, Audley & Coles, Anne-Marie, 2008. "Rethinking the multi-level perspective of technological transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1436-1445, October.
    18. Lundvall, Bengt-Åke, 2022. "Transformative policies for sustainable innovation systems," Lund Papers in Economic History 239, Lund University, Department of Economic History.
    19. Suleiman, Lina, 2021. "Blue green infrastructure, from niche to mainstream: Challenges and opportunities for planning in Stockholm," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    20. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," KRTK-KTI WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional 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:46:y:2015:i:5:p:489-511. 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.