Anthro-simulation environments
This method was originally developed for use in sense-making experiments, but can also be applied to training environments. It is designed to create an environment in which tolerated failure is used to imbed learning via a social environment through human controlled simulation. It is not as elaborate (or as costly) as a full computer based simulation. The latter is more appropriate for complicated tasks and approaches such as flying an aircraft. This approach is more designed around human sense-making and pattern matching. The method involves bringing together human experts in a field to both create a meaningful situation into which the trainees or experimental subjects are placed. Subsequent evolution of the situation is controlled by those experts to maximize surprise and create a safe-fail environment for learning and discovery. The title of anthro-simulation emphasizes the human as opposed to the machine/agent environment of other types of simulation. The method incorporates aspects of war gaming. The method builds on the fact that people learn faster through partial tolerated failure and under conditions of uncertainty.
Context: experiment or learning?
The method can be used in either case and the process is similar. When used for experiments the methods used are likely to be novel, or the environment in which they are applied will be new. In addition, for experimental use more attention is payed to measuring and recording outcomes and additional staff will be necessary to manage the data capture (video-recording, post processing etc). It was originally developed for a series of experiments carried out in 2006 in Singapore. The first was to test the impact of a blending of established Cognitive Edge methods with those from Klein Associates. The subject area was weak signal detection in battlefield environments and homeland security. The second application was to develop new methods for high abstraction language (ABIDE) in the same context. Previous use of elements of the method have been elsewhere described in the context of metaphor based games and aspects of open-space discovery environments. Relevant material is incorporated into this document. The use of metaphorical environments (alien environments, alternative history, alternative environment) constitute a variation known as the Metaphor Simulations. This section details the additional steps and resources required for this option, along with the reasons for its use.
Resources required
Access is required in the preparation phase to a diverse body of expertise in the domain area which is being studied, or the environment into which trainees will be expected to work. In an ideal world this access should be over two half day workshops with a separating period of several weeks to allow data to be prepared. However this can be shortened to a single workshop and subsequent virtual review if necessary and if the problem area is reasonably well know and bounded. SenseMaker™ can be used as a resource to allow learning to be captured as people go through the exercise, and to create a knowledge repository for the subsequent use. This use would either be as a source of research data or as a learning mechanism for participants in a training course. In effect this uses SenseMaker™ as a narrative database. The stories of the participants are capturing in the immediate context of their experience and are tagged by those participants to allow subsequent analysis and access. If the method is used as a part of a programme of such events for training then a narrative based learning repository can be created over many programmes as a knowledge asset for the organisation and all participants. It can also be used to monitor trends and measure training impact. Ideally all participant output should be captured as forms, preferably self entered to a computer or recorded as sound or visual. This will require appropriate technical resources to be in place. If SenseMaker™ is in use then it can be used to capture such user output as well as narrative (and the output can be treated as a sense-making item). Other resources depend on the type of work environment used for the event itself and these are described in the next section
Work environments
This is by no means an exhaustive list, be describes some of the possible environments that can be used.
- Workshop environment with participants as individuals or teams having access to a computer terming or other display mechanism. The data points relating to the situation are then streamed to the participants.
- A realistic setting, such as a battlefield command post, waiting room in an A&E Unit or like which is a mock up (or a real instantiation) of the environment. In this case data points are fed in whatever form is appropriate or realistic. This may include the use of actors or other such techniques
- A metaphorical environment, used for the displacement option. In this case realism is probably a bad idea as it may distract, and human imagination is better placed to create the context. An open space environment is probably best here. Either of the aforementioned techniques can be used for distributing the data-points.
The table below describes the various stages used in the method together with commentary where appropriate.
| Task | Comments | |
|---|---|---|
| Working with the experts a series of data-points are created which can be presented to the participants. These can include single line feeds, complete situations a video or whatever. As far as possible these should be realistic and as close as possible to real world data. The data needs to be suitable for multiple options spread over extended periods of time. During live running it may be necessary to cycle forwards over varying periods of time. | The data needs to contain the possibility of multiple possible branches in future history. Do not go overboard on making it obscure however, in general people miss the most obvious of weak signals. It is worth warning people who assist in preparing data that a lot of the material may not be used - its just that you do not know what in advance! This prevents potentially senior people getting upset that their pet data set was not used. | |
| A decision should then be made on whether the simulations are to be run for individuals for for groups, and if groups with what composition. | Group based sense-making should be considered the norm for this method. | |
| This material is tested and prepared so that it be fed in to the group for each simulation run. | As a rough guide one can handle two to three simulation runs in half a day, or three to five in a full day | |
| The physical space is prepared and any technology tested. All data feeds should have alternative delivery mechanisms in case of failure. | The facilitation team as a whole need to be part of this and it should take place several days before the event to ensure that bugs are ironed out in advance. | |
| At the event itself, the facilitator should start by briefing the participants on their roles. They should be told to expect a degree of uncertainty, and also a degree of ambiguity in the instructions. This will reflect real life. The level of instruction given will vary according to the objectives. | If the Displacement Option taken then the source of the metaphor’s construction should not be disclosed (see later for the reasons behind this instruction)It may not be appropriate to disclose the objectives fully in certain circumstances, for example where it would enable the learning outcomes to be gamed by a savvy participant or where the research results would be compromised. | |
| The first simulation run then starts. The participants are placed in the situation and fed the first set of data-points. | The data should not be dumped on the participants. It should be fed in at a realistic rate which can be accelerated to a degree over real life. | |
| If Sensemaker™ is being used then the participants should be trained to use it for data entry. | It always makes sense to check for the level of participants technological and linguistic capability in advance of a session | |
| The participants are then told to perform a situational assessment based on the data. What is happening, what has happened, what might happen in the future. Strict instructions are given NOT to discuss what interventions if any should take place, or the consequences of any such interventions interventions. Forms should be used for this, or a specific prompting question if Sensemaker™ is being used. All discussions should be recorded for subsequent study if this is a research programme. If it is for learning a video may also be useful for participant self assessment of guided learning. | If Sensemaker™ is being used the material can also be indexed and used as research and learning material. It might also be made available to participants for subsequent runs. | |
| Once this is complete the participants are asked to determine what interventions they would make and their anticipated impact. | These are again recorded on forms or via Sensemaker™ | |
| This cycle in effect forms the control run and new techniques should not be introduced during it if an experiment is being run. In training this rule may be relaxed. | ||
| Once complete the facilitators should agree on the next simulation. This involves deciding how far forward to cycle the situation, what data to provide to the participants and the degree of surprise. As a general rule, unless specific learning objectives require it, the next situation should be one that the participants did not anticipate. | Given that you are going to present a unanticipated situation it is important to make sure that is realistic given the data (ideally with no new data being introduced although this is legitimate: “you discover that you were not told that ….”). However you need to balance surprise with the groups capability - something that cannot not be achieved in computer based simulations. | |
| The cycle then starts again with the participants being presented with the new situation and a new data-stream started. | It is normally advisable to plunge the participants directly into the data stream allowing minimum time for them to discuss what has happened. | |
| From the second cycle on new methods and tools for situational assessment and intervention design can be introduced. It is advisable not to do this on the first run as you will need that as a control. This rule is less important in training but still useful. A tool should be introduced before the assessment or intervention design to which it relates is introduced. | ||
| At the end of each cycle the participants are asked to assess the value of the new method or tool either via a form or using Sensemaker™ or both. | Using more than one assessment tool can be useful here - for example contrasting an analytical tool and a narrative based one such as Sensemaker™ | |
| A third and subsequent cycle is then started. | ||
CITATIONS
If you would like to leave a citation about this method you may do so here.
COMMENTS
If you would like to leave a comment about this method you may do so here.