1. L EARNING S UPPLY C HAIN M ANAGEMENT T HROUGH U SE O F A B USINESS G AME Navonil Mustafee Korina Katsaliaki n.mustafee@swansea.ac.uk | k.katsaliaki@ihu.edu.gr

2. The Blood Supply Game – Mimics supply chain of blood from donors to patients – Models material and information flow – Perishable product – Limited collection/production Sterman, J. (1984), “Instructions for Running the Beer Distribution Game (D-3679), “Sloan School of Management, MIT. Sterman, J. (1989), “Modeling Managerial Behavior: Misperceptions of Feedback in a Dynamic Decision Making Experiment,” Management Science, 35, 3, 321–339. Anderson Jr.E.G. and Morrice D.J. A simulation game for teaching service-oriented supply chain management: Does Information Sharing Help Managers with Service Capacity Decisions? Production and Operations Management, 2000, 9 (1): 40-55. Mustafee, N., Taylor, S.J.E., Katsaliaki, K. and Brailsford, S. (2009). Facilitating the Analysis of a UK NBS Chain Using the HLA. SIMULATION: Transactions of the Society of Modelling and Simulation International. Vol 85(2):113-128. Katsaliaki, K., and S. C. Brailsford. 2007. Using Simulation to Improve the U.K. Blood Supply Chain. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(2):219-227. Facilitating the Analysis of a UK NBS Chain (Mustafee et al. 2009; Katsaliaki and Brailsford 2007) Beer Game (Sterman, 1984; 1989); Mortgage Service Game (Anderson and Morrice, 2000)

3. Katsaliaki, K., and S. C. Brailsford. 2007. Using Simulation to Improve the U.K. Blood Supply Chain. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(2):219- 227. (adapted from) Mustafee, N., Taylor, S.J.E., Katsaliaki, K. and Brailsford, S. (2009). Facilitating the Analysis of a UK NBS Chain Using the HLA. SIMULATION: Transactions of the Society of Modelling and Simulation International. Vol 85(2):113-128. Outdate

4. The Supplier: The donors who provide the raw material (the unprocessed blood); The Manufacturer: The National Blood Service (NBS) centre which tests, processes and transforms blood into blood products ready for use; The Distributor: The NBS also plays the role of the distributor who has the responsibility to store the product and to transport it to the receiver when an order is placed; Wholesalers: The hospital blood banks which place orders with the NBS, receive products from the NBS, and handle the blood stocks issued to them; Retailers: The doctors at each hospital who place orders for blood products to hospital blood banks (wholesalers) to satisfy the needs of the patients. End Users: The patients (end-user) in need for transfusion.

6. The pedagogic purpose of the Blood Supply Game is fourfold: – To improve understanding of certain aspects of supply chains, such as variant supply and demand and distribution options; – To evaluate the overall impact of these principles which is different from the sum of the impact of each one of them; – Place the user in the position of managers who have to make real decisions; – Familiarisation with a graphical, business-oriented model. The aim of the player is to make such decisions that maximise the ‘profit’ of the NBS; this is related with satisfying as many hospital patients and satisfying as many hospital orders as possible and careful control of NBS stock.

7. 7 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4

8. Click to increment days Day Weekdays Time Max game play: 28 days

9. 9 PoliciesGame Version PTI weekly collection Doctors’ weekly orders Allocation of blood (sequence) Assign stock on demand (policy 1) Deterministic (standard play option)580905 H2  H3  H1 Probabilistic (advance play option) STDEV= sqr(580) 3 STDEV= sqr(905) 2 H2  H3  H1 Assign stock on demand with adjusted collection (policy 2) Deterministic (standard play option) Collection (coll) can be changed by the user 905 H2  H3  H1 Probabilistic (advance play option) Collection (coll) can be changed by the user STDEV= sqr(905) 2 H2  H3  H1 STDEV= sqr(coll) 1 Assign stock collectively (policy 3) Deterministic (standard play option) Collection (coll) can be changed by the user 905 Collective allocation Probabilistic (advance play option) Collection (coll) can be changed by the user STDEV= sqr(905) 2 Collective allocation STDEV= sqr(coll) 1 STDEV= sqr(coll) 1 : random number from the Normal distribution which is defined by the mean value of the player’s choice. PTI weekly collections will vary from week to week. STDEV= sqr(905) 2 : random number from the Normal distribution which is defined by the mean value of 905. Doctors’ orders will vary from week to week. STDEV= sqr(508) 3 : random number from the Normal distribution which is defined by the mean value of 508. PTI weekly orders will vary from week to week.

10. NBS stock units (scenario 1)Unsatisfied Orders/Patients per hospital (scenario 1) Scenario 1 – Assign Stock on Demand

11. NBS profit calculation (scenario 1) Scenario 1 – Assign Stock on Demand RevenueUnitsCost NBS Issues2298£321,720 Expenses NBS PTI2327£232,700 Unsatisfied orders245£9,800 Unsatisfied patients25£12,500 Perished units0£0 Transports to hospitals84£2,520 NBS profit for R&D £64,200

12. NBS stock units (scenario 2)Unsatisfied Orders/Patients per hospital (scenario 2) Scenario 2 – Assign Stock on Demand with Adjusted Collections

13. NBS profit calculation (scenario 2) Scenario 2 – Assign Stock on Demand with Adjusted Collections RevenueUnitsCost NBS Issues2231£312,340 Expenses NBS PTI2673£267,300 Unsatisfied orders208£8,320 Unsatisfied patients92£46,000 Perished units578£17,340 Transports to hospitals82£2,460 NBS profit for R&D -£29,720

14. NBS stock units (scenario 3)Unsatisfied Orders/Patients per hospital (scenario 3) Scenario 3 – Assign Stock Collectively with Adjusted Collections

15. NBS profit calculation (scenario 3) Scenario 3 – Assign Stock Collectively with Adjusted Collections RevenueUnitsCost NBS Issues2323£325,220 Expenses NBS PTI2327£232,700 Unsatisfied orders348£13,920 Unsatisfied patients0£0 Perished units0£0 Transports to hospitals28£1,400 NBS profit for R&D £77,200

17. Evaluation levels For each question, please tick one of the following boxes ExcellentGoodFairWeak Not Applicable Real-World Relevance 1.How do you rate the training game in terms of helping participants learn skills and concepts that are applicable to the business environments? 1.Do the roles in the training game (e.g., supplier, distributor and retailer) relate to easily recognisable real-world counterparts? Appropriate Frame - How do you rate the basic structure of the training game in terms of appropriateness for the: 1.Instructional objectives 1.Type of learning – i.e., lab-based seminar 1.Intended use as a teaching medium Flexibility 1.How do you evaluate the training game in terms of permitting easy modifications to suit local resources and constraints? Effective Instructions 1.How do you rate the instructions and the slides provided to help you with the training game? 1.How do you rate the rules in terms of avoiding inclusion of unnecessary and trivial items in the logic of the game?

18. Evaluation levels For each question, please tick one of the following boxes ExcellentGoodFairWeak Not Applicable User Friendliness – User friendliness of the teaching game 1.How do you rate the game in terms of the time a typical user needs to spend preparing the materials or learning the rules in order to play the game? 1.How do you rate the user-interfaces and the graphics of the game? Criterion Reference 1.How do you rate the game in terms of making the participants realise the skills and knowledge being gained as a result of playing this game? 1.How do you evaluate the teaching scenarios (i.e., policies 1, 2, 3 and standard/advance play)? 1.Was the time allotted for the seminar sufficient for effectively engaging in the learning activity? Excess time allotted Sufficient time allotted Had to hurry! Lack of time Not Applicable Intellectual Stimulation ExcellentGoodFairWeak Not Applicable 1.How do you evaluate the participants’ engagement in learning through the teaching game, instead of rote-memory learning activities? 1.Any other comments:

20. Future Work – Multi-player version – More strategies – One day tutorial session

21. Acknowledgements – Mr. Sebastian Kitching – Students of EBRM00 – HEA (Travel Grant)

22. Questions