See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/271199814

Microgames in Practice: A Case Study in Container Terminal Operations

Conference Paper · January 2014

CITATIONS READS

5 641

4 authors:

Shalini Kurapati Daan Groen

Delft University of Technology Delft University of Technology
21 PUBLICATIONS   77 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Heide Lukosch Alexander Verbraeck

Delft University of Technology Delft University of Technology
63 PUBLICATIONS   264 CITATIONS    225 PUBLICATIONS   1,777 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

GreenEfforts View project

ReLoad - Informal Learning in the Do-it-yourself domain View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Heide Lukosch on 22 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Microgames in Practice: A Case Study in
Container Terminal Operations

1 2 1 1
Shalini Kurapati , Daan Groen , Heide Lukosch , Alexander Verbraeck

(1) Delft University of Technology

Jaffalaan 5, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands
{s.kurapati, h.k.lukosch, a.verbraeck}@tudelft.nl

(2) InThere
Saturnusstraat 60, Unit 07, 2516 AH The Hague, The Netherlands
daan@inthere.nl

Abstract

The need for short and flexible approaches in training to manage complex and
dynamic environments in organizations is fast emerging. We introduce a novel
concept in such training called Microgames. They represent a shortened form of
simulation games with a strong focus on a specific problem in the organization
defined by the client. To illustrate the concept, we introduce a Microgame known
as ‘Yard Crane Scheduler’ designed for training students and professionals on
integrated yard planning in container terminal operations. The initial results of
usability studies strongly favor the effectiveness of Microgames for training
students and professionals.

1. Introduction

Simulation Games for Learning within Complex (Transportation) Systems

The need for transportation of goods has been constantly growing during the last
decades due to globalized markets and competition (Mačiulis et al., 2009). This
development has lead to an increased shipping of containers, since containers
made transportation cheap, fast and easy (Levinson, 2006). However, planning
and managing the transportation of containers remains a complex task, as many
stakeholders are involved. In such complex systems, knowledge sharing and
learning have become critical competencies for individuals and organizations,
leading to increased performance (De Vries & Lukosch, 2009). Innovative,

  1  
authentic ways of learning are required to facilitate learning at the workplace.
Research has shown that there is a huge gap between the knowledge that is needed
at the workplace and the knowledge and skills derived from formal learning
activities (Tynjalä, 2008). As an answer to this particular learning need, it is
crucial to develop situated mechanisms that support informal learning closely to
the workplace (De Vries & Lukosch, 2009).

Simulation games are one alternative to traditional, formal learning approaches.

They are broadly defined as ‘a special type of model that uses gaming techniques
to model and simulate a system’ (Duke & Geurts, 2004). Simulation games
combine the representation of a reference system, like an existing container
terminal, with engaging game mechanics and elements like competition, rules,
roles and scoring. This combination makes them powerful tools for simulating
social dynamics (Kriz, 2003). With the provision of a gaming environment where
players can relate their actions within the game to their needs and interests in the
outside world, like their work place, simulation games support situated and
authentic learning (Yussof et al., 2009). Simulation games, by virtue of being
motivating and engaging, can help foster self-regulated, active learning (Lukosch
et al., 2013).

One approach to situated learning: Microtraining

A complex, fast developing working environment like a container terminal in a
large seaport requires the design of flexible learning activities (De Vries &
Lukosch, 2009). During the last decade, the concept of Microtraining has been
developed to address this learning need (De Vries & Brall, 2008; De Vries &
Lukosch, 2009; Overschie, Lukosch, & De Vries, 2010; Overschie, Lukosch,
Mulder, & De Vries, 2013). Microtraining represents an approach of short
learning activities with a time span of 15-20 minutes for each learning occasion.
Microtraining sessions follow a certain structure of an active start, a demo or
exercise phase, followed by a feedback and discussion and closing with a short
reflection phase on what has been learned and what should be done/learned next
(De Vries & Lukosch, 2009). Many learning concepts and approaches have been
considered in developing the Microtraining concept, as social constructivism,
connectivism, and learner typologies (see in more detail De Vries & Lukosch,
2009). In summary, the Microtraining approach is based on the idea that several
short learning occasions, bundled up to one Microtraining arrangement, foster an
active process of learning at the workplace. The Microtraining-concept has been
illustrated within several European-wide case-studies (Overschie et al., 2013).

From Microtraining to Microgaming

The lessons that have been learned from developing and evaluating the
Microtraining-concept have recently lead to the development of one particular
type of simulation games, called Microgames. Comparable to the Microtraining
approach, Microgames support situated learning, as they always start from a well-
defined problem of a client, which is translated into a short simulation game. The
development process begins with a so-called game storm, a brainstorm session
together with the problem owner, and defines the game’s goals, target group, main

  2  
scenarios and mechanisms. The game storm session is based on the Triadic Game
Design (TGD) framework of Harteveld (2013). The TGD philosophy starts from
three equally important game components: Play, Meaning, and Reality. This
includes that simulation games should be entertaining as well as meaningful and
valid. The main goal of the Microgame approach is to transfer the meaning of the
game to the target group within a couple of minutes. Like within the Microtraining
approach, several short Microgames can be bundled up to a learning series to
answer more complex problems. This approach is meant to support an
organization in designing its own learning trajectory based on the Microgames.
Similar to the Microtraining method, a Microgame includes a reflection or de-
briefing phase. A Microgame session is based on a three-phase process of playing
the game, looking back to what has been learned within the game and entering a
dialogue on how the lessons learned could be transferred to real work situations
(de-briefing). An online portal supports the Microgame sessions, and the activities
of the game facilitator, who can set up accounts for users, and use the portal to log
data of the game to monitor the learning process.

In the following, we illustrate how the Microgame approach has been applied to a
complex system, namely container terminal operations in a large seaport. In the
second section, we briefly introduce the complexity of planning operations in
container terminals. In the third section, we illustrate how the Microgame has been
developed and how the game sessions looked like, before we discuss the
evaluation results in section four. Section five provides conclusions on the game,
and a brief overview of future work related to the Microgame approach.

2. Case study: Challenges in integrated planning in

container terminal operations with a focus on yard
management
Container terminals: A brief introduction
Transportation of goods via containers has transformed the face of global trade.
International manufacturing sources have been greatly sought out by firms in
order to reduce costs, increase revenues and improve reliability (Meixell &
Gargeya, 2005). Advantages offered by containers such as safety, unit-load
concept, fewer lost goods, less paperwork etc., have prompted a large wave of
adaptation of containerized transport by many organizations worldwide (Muller,
1999). In accordance to the rise in global trade, the transport of containerized
goods increased from 85million TEU (Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit, a standard
measure for container size) in 1990 to 531.4 million TEU in 2010, with an
increase of 600% over 20 years (UN, 2011). These massive volumes of containers
require dedicated infrastructures known as container terminals for handling them
to ensure their smooth transfers towards their final destinations. Container
terminals can be described as interfaces for container flows. As illustrated in
Figure 1, they connect the containers from the seaside to the landside, with a

  3  
storage area in between.

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of a container terminal

(Voss, Stahlbock, & Steenken, 2004)

Ships arrive on the quayside where containers are loaded and unloaded by the
means of vehicles such as trucks or Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs). These
vehicles carry the containers to or from the yard where the containers are stored.
The containers arrive to or leave from the yard by the means of trucks, trains or
barges on the gate side or hinterland operations side. The other handling
equipment used in the container terminal is known as Quay cranes, which load and
unload the containers onto and off the ships respectively. The yard cranes (a
variation of which are called Rail Mounted Gantry (RMG) cranes shown in figure
1) are used for stacking and lifting the containers in the yard (Voss et al., 2004).

Yard operations in container terminals

Management of the yard of the container terminals is a sophisticated and complex
process. It involves the storage and stacking of incoming and outgoing containers,
which play a crucial role in the overall performance of the container terminal as
yard space is a scare resource with the ever-increasing volumes of container traffic
(Voss et al., 2004).

Figure 2: Overview of container terminal operations (Meisel, 2009)

  4  
Yard management comprises the following tasks:
• Reservation of yard capacity for ships
• Planning of storage locations for individual containers
• Repositioning of containers within the yard if needed (Meisel, 2009)

Although yard management is explained as a set of separate sub-tasks, it is largely

intertwined with various other planning and operational activities as illustrated in
Figure 2. A common approach towards this challenge is to divide the whole
process into sub-planning problems. However due to the interdependencies
between various planning operations, this method can lead to undesirable results
and sub-optimal solutions (Meier & Schumann, 2007). The performance of quay
cranes is much higher than that of the gantry cranes in the yard. Therefore
containers belonging to the same categories should be distributed in the yard
rather than allocating them in the same yard location to avoid over utilization of
some gantry cranes and under utilization of others. If they are not distributed, the
transport vehicles also need to queue to be served by an over utilized gantry crane
(Voss et al., 2004). However in practice the distribution of containers in the yard
to ensure uniform utilization and reduction of waiting times of vehicles is seldom
observed. If the number of gantry cranes is less than the number of blocks in the
yard, which is often the case, they need to be moved around where the stacking
and retrieval operations need to take place. This consumes a lot of time and affects
the utilization capacity of the gantry cranes also leading to more waiting times for
the transport vehicles, thereby potentially delaying the ships or missing a
hinterland connection (Meisel, 2009).

These challenges in yard operations are detrimental to the efficiency of terminal

operations, are not tangible and visible in practice, and therefore are difficult to
demonstrate to employees as well as train them to find solutions. Therefore we
chose a Microgame as a situated learning tool to close this gap. A Microgame
known as Yard Crane Scheduler (YCS) game is explained in detail in the
following section.

3. The YCS game

Design process of the YCS game
For the development of the YCS game, a game development process had been
initiated in order to design a well-balanced Microgame according to the TGD
philosophy (Harteveld, 2013). The development process started with a game storm
session with four experts in terminal operations and two game designers that
included three phases, related to the three components of TGD. The first phase of
the game storm was related to the reality aspect of the game. In this phase, experts
and game developers discussed the leading problem in container terminal planning
and what solutions would be needed. In phase 2, which addressed the aspect of
meaning, the participants agreed on which parts of the problem and problem
solving process should be transferred to the game, what actions and decisions a

  5  
player could take in the game, and how the learning objectives should be defined.
Phase 3 was related to the play aspect of the game. Experts and game designers
developed the core game mechanics, how players could win (or loose) the game,
which kind of right and wrong decisions could be made, and what kind of strategy
would underlie the game.

Game description
The main objective of the YCS game is to manage the yard and align various
planning and resource allocation activities in the container terminal. The game
focuses on the two main challenges discussed in the previous section - dynamic
planning and distribution of containers in the yard, allocation of resources to
ensure maximum utilization. If these two challenges were solved, the time the ship
needs to spend at the terminal will decrease, which is a major key performance
indicator for the terminal as it determines customer satisfaction.

Figure 3: Screen shot of the Yard Crane Scheduler game

The YCS game provides the top view of a container terminal with the quayside,
and the yard storage areas. Though the gate area is unseen, trucks pick up import
containers during the game play and are expected to leave through the gate area
although this is not visible on the screen. The handling equipment such as the
quay cranes and the gantry cranes are also seen on the screen. The arrival and
departure times for ships are also indicated on the screen. The vehicles for
transporting containers between the ships and yard are Automated Guided
Vehicles (AGVs). The main tasks the players are expected to perform are as
follows,

  6  
 1. Making a yard storage plan for import containers

Figure 4: yard storage plan for import containers

As seen in figure 4, the arrival times of various ships is indicated. Arrival and
departure times are clearly indicated. If the rectangle around a ship symbol is red,
the player didn't do the planning yet. The color of the ship matches the color of the
containers. Players need to click on an arriving ship to make an unloading plan for
yard storage of import containers. Each container needs to be dragged to a position
in the yard. The rectangle will be green if all containers are planned. As the focus
of the game lies on the planning of import containers in the yard, the export
containers don’t need any planning and they are automatically allocated slots in
the yard.

2. Resource allocation
The quay cranes have to be assigned to ships for loading and unloading operations
and should be aligned to the rows of the import containers that have a storage
location. The yard gantry cranes also need to be allocated for storage and retrieval
operations in the yard. The export containers are marked with an arrowhead
symbol. They don’t require any yard storage plan, however they require allocation
of yard gantry cranes for them to be transferred to the ship.

3. A bonus activity
As the landside operations are very crucial for maintaining healthy yard capacity,
a bonus activity is available for players to make extra points. Trucks arrive to
collect yellow containers to transport from the gate to hinterland. There is a
limited time available for the truck to make this collection. If the player manages
to load this yellow container on the truck within the time limit he or she will
receive a big boost in score. The various scoring mechanisms are explained in the
following sub-section along with the game play.

Figure 5: Truck collecting yellow container for bonus points

  7  
Game play and Scoring
Players require registration and an account to access the game within a portal.
Once players register successfully, they can start playing the game unlimited
number of times, at their own convenience even outside a moderated game session.
The game contains the introduction to the game, a set of 3 tutorials to familiarize
with the game rules, and then varying difficulty levels known as Missions. Players
need to complete each mission to unlock the subsequent one. Each game play
takes about 8 to 10 minutes to finish A score is displayed after every mission. The
players are awarded points based on their performance on 3 categories

1. Ship/Vessel turn around time- The faster the ship leaves the terminal, the
more points the player receives. This is a key parameter for terminal as
ships are their clients and their satisfaction is very important for good
business. If all the planning processes are well integrated and resource
allocation is done properly, players can ensure quick ship turnaround
time.
2. Number of containers handled- The number of containers handled within
the given time limit is very important for the efficiency and performance
of container terminal operations.
3. Resource utilization- As discussed in the challenges in the previous
section, a major issue in yard operations is either under- or over-
utilization of cranes in the terminal, therefore points are allotted if cranes
are optimally utilized.

The composite score, displayed on the top right corner, is the sum of the above
scores.

4. Evaluation and Test sessions

As shown above, the YCS game was designed and developed based on the
theoretical framework known as the Triadic Game Design philosophy (Harteveld,
2011). The game is also evaluated based on the three elements of the framework -
Reality, Meaning and Play. The evaluation of the game was performed two fold –
first, a face validation by experienced experts in container terminal operations
mainly focused on the reality and meaning aspects of the framework to establish
the vigor of the game and its practical uses in the industry. Secondly, potential
users tested the game on meaning and play to establish the usefulness and learning
effects, and the ‘fun’ element of the game to encourage sustained use. The results
of this expert validation are shown below.

Expert validation of the game

6 experts currently working in a leading container terminal company with
professional work experience of 25, 20, 17, 7, 5 and 3 years respectively were
requested to play the game to test its efficacy and practicality as a training tool for
efficient container terminal operations. The experts played the game multiple
times at their convenience, as it is a web-based game. After several play sessions a

  8  
validation survey was sent to these experts for face validation. Their responses are
briefly summarized in this section in a qualitative way.

Face validation: Reality

Given the time constraints and complexity of operations, 5 out of the 6 experts
agreed or strongly agreed that the level of realism in the game was sufficient. All
the experts however agreed or strongly agreed that the tasks in the game
represented the container terminal operations in an accurate manner. They also
agreed that the various interdependencies among the roles and processes in the
terminal operations have been well incorporated in the game. All the experts
agreed that the challenges posed by the tasks in the game could be very well
related to those in reality. However suggestions were made for future versions of
the game regarding pixel effects, terminal rules, storage locations and protocols
etc.

Face validation: Meaning

All the experts agreed or strongly agreed that the objective and learning purpose
of the YCS game was clear after playing it. All the experts unanimously agreed
strongly that the YCS game could be used as a training instrument for future
employees in integrated planning of container terminal operations. They also
opined that simulation gaming is an excellent tool in doing so.

Face validation: Play

All the experts either agreed or strongly agreed that the tasks in the game have
been very well defined and have been designed in a stimulating fashion for the
players. 4 of the 6 experts agreed with the scoring schema of the game, with
suggestions regarding changes of the scores for equipment utilization.

Test sessions with potential users

Set-up of the test sessions
90 students majoring in supply chain management from the United States and the
Netherlands played the game simultaneously. A game master orchestrated the
game session.

The active game session took about 1 hour and 45 minutes including briefing,
game play and de-briefing. The game master began the session with a briefing
lecture about container terminal operations. Thereafter the introduction to the YCS
game, its learning objective along with the instructions for installing the YCS
game on the web browser was explained. Participants were first asked to fill in a
pre-game survey that required basic information such as age, professions and
familiarity with computer games etc. to study the profile of the participants for
research purposes. Thereafter they were asked to play the tutorial session of the
YCS game to familiarize with the rules of the game. Then, they were asked to play
the varying missions of the game at least for 3 times, so that their scores reached
steady state and were not influenced by the learning effects of previous plays. The
game master had an overview of the scores of the participants and could visualize

  9  
the high and low scorer for each mission. The scores were displayed after every
game play giving a brief summary of an individual’s performance. After the game
plays were completed, the game master opened a discussion about the game, the
various strategies participants followed, challenges faced and issues that were
encountered during the game. After this, the high scorer and low scorer were
identified and rewarded with a small present after asking them to explain their
respective strategies, as both their strategies are valuable to learn about the do’s
and don’ts in container terminal operations. Finally, the game master wrapped up
the session by analyzing and comparing the challenges faced by container terminal
operations in the real world to that in the game. After the de-briefing lecture,
participants were requested to fill in a post-game survey to evaluate the usefulness
of the game for imparting knowledge about the need for integrated planning
operations in container terminals. The results were then analyzed and reported
marking the end of the session.

Survey results from the test sessions

The post game survey focused on the usefulness of the YCS game as a training
instrument as well as the playability for potential users. Therefore the focus of the
survey was on the Meaning and Play aspects of TGD. Although 90 students
participated in the test sessions 83 responses were complete. The main results are
summarized as follows.

YCS game test session: Meaning

1. Interdependencies
On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 meaning that they strongly agree and 1
meaning that they disagree, the majority of the participants opined that
they understood the various complex processes and the interdependencies
between them in container terminal operations after playing the game.
The responses are as follows.

2. Need for coordination and integrated planning operations and

resource allocation
The majority of the participants agreed that they understood the need for
coordinating and aligning planning and resource allocation in container
terminal operations after playing the game. The responses are as follows
 

  10  
 3. YCS game as a training tool

The majority of the participants felt that the YCS game is an excellent
training tool to learn about solving challenges in complex yard planning
operations and would be useful for their professional career in future, as
can be seen below.

YCS game test session: Play

When questioned about the fun element of the game to ensure that participants are
motivated to continue playing the game even after the test session, most of them
felt that it was stimulating and fun to play with as shown below.

  11  
Limitations of the game
Given the time constraints and playability aspects of the YCS game, the following
assumptions have been made in close consultation with professionals in the
container terminal business.

1. Ships are not loaded and unloaded simultaneously, which is normal

in reality.
2. To make the game less complex the stacking has been limited to one
container in the yard whereas in reality it is 4 or 5 tiers.
3. Some parts of the container terminal such as the gate area are not
visible.
4. Some of the terminal rules are not followed.

Issues during game play

Few technical troubles occurred during game play, especially login issues after
creating account. A minority of students found the game a bit complex. Some
score data were lost due to insufficient network connectivity. All issues are
reported and will be fixed in the YCS game.

5. Conclusions and further research

Based on the initial results, the YCS Microgame is valued by both experts and
students within the logistics field as an excellent training instrument to impart
knowledge about complex planning processes in container terminals. The VCS
game has been developed and evaluated according the three dimensions of the
Triadic Game Design philosophy, Reality, Meaning and Play. Regarding the
reality, or fidelity, of the game, some abstractions and simplifications had to be
made to develop a stimulating, short simulation game. Nevertheless, it showed
that the functional and physical realism of the game is sufficient in order to obtain
its goals. The goals, or meaning, of the game, had been set together with experts in
container terminal planning and focus mainly on the awareness of the complexity
of the task. The Microgame is able to illustrate the dynamic and interrelatedness of
planning operations, and still provides a joyful experience, as was stated by the
majority of the test persons. In summary, we can conclude that this Microgame
provides a well-balanced learning experience. Its conceptualization as web-based,
short simulation game answers both the need for a dynamic representation of a
complex problem and for flexible, situated learning approaches in complex
working environments. Future work on the concept of Microgames will include
how to measure their long-term effects, and how realistic they should be designed
to enable well-balanced, situated learning occasions. On the development site,
effort will be put in exploring how user generated input could be included while at
the same time guarantee high quality of the Microgames.

Acknowledgments This work is supported by Dinalog, the Dutch Institute for Advanced Logistics.
We would also like to thank Dr. Stephanie Eckard and Prof. Dr. Thomas Corsi for their support in
organizing the test sessions for the YCS game at the university of Maryland, College Park, MD, United
States, and Dr. Ir. Gwendolyn Kolfschoten for her valuable input on the game design.

  12  
References

De Vries, P. & Brall, S. (2008): Microtraining as a Support Mechanism for

Informal Learning. In: elearning Papers of Elearningeuropa 11, on:
http://www.elearningpapers.eu. 9 pages.

De Vries, P., & Lukosch, H. (2009). Supporting Informal Learning at the

Workplace. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning, 2(3), 39-44.

Duke, R. D. & Geurts, J. (2004). Policy games for strategic management.

Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers.

Harteveld, C. (2011). Triadic Game Design. London: Springer.

Kriz, W. C. (2003). Creating Effective Learning Environments and Learning

Organizations through Gaming Simulation. Simulation & Gaming 34, 495-511.

Levinson, M. (2006). Container shipping and the economy: Stimulating trade and
transformations worldwide. TR NEWS 246, 5-9.

Lukosch, H.K. & de Vries, (2010). Weit weg und doch nah dran: Wie ein
Transport-Unternehmen das lebenslange Lernen fördert. In Proceedings of 8. e-
Learning-Fachtagung Informatik der Gesellschaft für Informatik (DeLFI 2010), 9-
20. Duisburg: Gesellschaft für Informatik.

Lukosch, H.K., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (2013). Simulation Games for
Workplace Learning. In Littlejohn, A. & Margaryan, A. (Eds.) Technology
Enhanced Professional Learning. Processes, Practices and Tools, 158-167. New
York/London: Routledge.

Mačiulis, A., Vasiliauskas, A. V., & Jakubauskas, G. (2009). The impact of

transport on the competitiveness of national economy. Transport, 24(2), 93-99.

Meier, L., & Schumann, R. (2007). Coordination of Interdependent Planning

Systems, a Case Study. In Koschke, R., Herzog, O., Rödiger, K. & Ronthaler, M.
(Eds.), Informatik 2007, volume P-109 of Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI),
389-396. Bremen: Gesellschaft für Informatik.

Meisel, F. (2009). Seaside operations planning in container terminals. Berlin,

Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.

Meixell, M. J., & Gargeya, V. B. (2005). Global Supply Chain Design  : A

Literature Review and Critique. Transportation Research, 41, 531–550.

Muller, G. (1999). Intermodal Freight Transportation. Washington, D.C.: Eno

  13  
 Foundation for Transportation.

UN. (2011). Review of Maritime Transport. New York and Geneva: United
Nations.

Overschie, M., Lukosch, H.K., & de Vries, P. (2010). The evaluation process of
short training sessions in organizations. In Proceedings ERSCP-EMSU conference,
1-18. Delft: Delft University of Technology.

Overschie, M., Lukosch, H.K., Mulder, K. & de Vries, P. (2013). Micro-training

to Support Sustainable Innovations in Organizations. In Appelman, J. H.,
Osseyran, A., & Warnier, M. (Eds.). Green ICT & Energy: From Smart to Wise
Strategies, 97-106. Leiden: CRC Press.

Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational

Research Review 3(2), 30-154

Voss, S., Stahlbock, R., & Steenken, D. (2004). Container terminal operation and
operations research - a classification and literature review. OR Spectrum, 26(1), 3–
49.

Yusoff, A., Crowder, R., Gilbert, L. & Wills, G. (2009). A Conceptual Framework
for Serious Games. In Proceedings of ICALT 2009, 9th IEEE International
conference on Advanced Learning Technologies , 21-23. Southampton: University
of Southampton.

  14  

View publication stats