Simulation
Game for Peach Retail Ordering Systems
Deepak
Aggarwal, University of Georgia
Stanley E. Prussia, University
of Georgia
Wojciech
J. Florkowski, University of Georgia
Don Lynd, AMS, United
States Dept. of Agriculture
Abstract
Despite the progress
in the development of simulation games and models for training in many areas,
the post harvest produce sector seldom has been a subject of instructional
tools. A computer-mediated simulation game for this objective was developed
in the Windows environment. It uses Stella software (www.iseesystems.com) to
model the system and to develop the simulation equations. The game, developed
with the complicated needs of the produce sector in mind, combines systems
dynamics and systems thinking to model and simulate the essential elements
responsible for meeting consumer demand. The player assumes the role of a retailer,
striving to minimize inventory without running out of an item. The player selects
a consumer demand from various deterministic and stochastic consumer demand
options. Players are challenged by delays in produce delivery (two weeks) and
perishability of the produce. Tension is caused by conflicting objectives,
such as running out of produce or avoiding the penalty resulting from excess
inventory. If required, the player can reduce his excess inventory by exercising
his option of putting produce on "sale." The bank balance shows the
impact of the decisions made. Players are surprised by the difficulties encountered
for maintaining low inventories while maintaining an uninterrupted supply,
even at the easiest level. The simulation emphasizes the importance of produce
ordering based upon deterministic and stochastic portrayals of consumer demand,
the delays in produce delivery by the system, perishability, and a measure
of financial assessment of the retailer's performance. The game provides a
participatory, hands-on experience for understanding the concepts and for developing
skills desired in post harvest fresh produce businesses. The game was used
as a tutorial for an undergraduate university course on food science and at
three international symposiums. It was also played by high school students
and by a produce manager at a major grocery. It can be used as a teaching tool
by marketing, postharvest engineering and biology students and as a training
tool by produce department personnel in retail outlets to understand the dynamics
of supply chains in the post harvest marketing system.
1.
Introduction
Decisions by produce managers
determine the quality and availability of fresh produce at retail stores. Fresh
produce enters a supply chain where it is grown and flows through various links
to retailers and on to consumers. Quality is lowered when excess product is
ordered and held at retail for several days before being sold. Equally critical
are empty shelves that result if insufficient quantities are ordered. Produce
managers at retail stores would benefit from continuing education that increases
their understanding of supply-chain system concepts. Likewise, students need
to learn practical aspects of supply chain management. A result of a training
tool would be enhanced understanding of the needed ordering skills for increasing
the probability of uninterrupted supply, minimum losses, and increased profits.
The "teaching by telling" system of training is history. Today's employees,
raised on television, personal computers and instant microwave foods, must be
intrigued and actively motivated with attention-getting "learning-by-doing" training
programs (Schank, 1997). Schank further stated that effective training could
be imparted through the virtual reality of computer simulations and role playing
scenarios. Simulation gaming mimics a real process through a user interactive
game. Players learn and improve their knowledge about the intricacies of a process.
User interactive games create learning playgrounds based on scientific principles.
Games simulate the behavior of a process or a system in a simplified environment.
The simplification of complex problems enables the players to gain insights about
the essential elements of the system or stages of the process. Simulation games
are established methods for improving business management, industrial design,
logistics, and military training. They allow for events that would be too dangerous
and costly to attempt in reality. For similar reasons, pilots use flight simulators
to gain skills that would be needed during extreme flying conditions and situations.
A major agricultural policy report released by USDA (2001) explicitly stated
the need for consumers to drive agricultural systems. Managers of all links in
produce supply chains have not recognized the central role of consumers within
the system. Although, food retailers are aware of consumer buying behavior, more
often than not, they blame consumer buying variations as the major cause of losses
in produce retail. Also because of its perishability, fresh produce is a category
that is difficult to manage. Improved retailing decision-making skills can increase
profit margins in produce marketing. The existing teaching tools in the produce
industry do not include management simulation games similar to those used in
other industries. Retailers list employee-training needs among top priorities.
Similarly, instructors at colleges and universities lack tools that realistically
portray fresh produce retailing that could sensitize students to the subtleties
of managing economic and postharvest engineering aspects of produce handling.
A simulation game will increase the awareness of students, retailers, and others
within agricultural systems about the interdependencies and relationships among
various links. Recently, Prussia (2000) outlined the need and requirements of
a simulation game as a training tool for the retailing link of fresh produce
supply chains.
The objective of the project presented in this paper was to develop a computer
game that simulated the ordering of fresh produce by retailers. Specifically,
the game should simulate some of the critical elements of postharvest supply
chains for fresh produce as faced by managers of produce departments in retail
outlets. The game should meet the objective using uncomplicated rules within
a simple, but realistic situation. The game should be well-paced and interactive
to engage players.
1.1 Review of Literature
Sterman (2000) pioneered the use of games in teaching the complexities of supply
chains. His board management game based on systems dynamics, known as "The
Beer Game," has been in use for about three decades. Many games have
been developed with the advent and increased use of personal computers.
This technological advancement did not change the purpose of games used
as teaching tools, but has allowed for increased flexibility by incorporating
an increasing number of elements from simulated real life systems. Shewfelt
and Prussia (1993) provided the concept of systems approach to post harvest
handling of fresh produce.
Hofstede et al. (2002) developed
a management game where participants establish a simulated international
food industry chain. The game was designed to present a number of chain problems
that occur in an international food supply chain. Participants process various
fruits and the end product of the chain is a fruit pastry sold and consumed
by participants. Schotzko and Hinson (2000) state that it is possible to
remove time and cost from supply chains, improving profitability through
conceptual advances and use of computer hardware and software. Duke and Malcon
(2003) use game theory to develop an economic model of producer and residential-neighbor
behavior for investigating the ways producers balance the choice of management
practices with the risk of agricultural-nuisance lawsuits. Smith (2001) compared
different levels of interaction in a computer game-like situation as a means
of learning efficiency on an internet-based spatial visualization task, involving
polyomino puzzles. He concluded that alternating between interaction and
observation is the best way to learn spatial visualization.
Hwang and Esquembre (2003) developed "easy Java simulations," an
interactive tool for the conceptual learning of science. Jong and Sarti (1994)
discuss the development of new models, methods, and tools to support the design
and production of (computer-based) learning material. They describe a number
of projects that represent the state of the art of European research on courseware
authoring, with a special attention to simulation-based learning material.
Sawhney and Mund (1998) reviewed the role of simulation education in "construction
management" and the need for developing simulations for it. Johns (1999)
demonstrated the use of web based practice environments as a tool to teach
mechanical skills.
However there are no available games in the field of supply chain dynamics
in fresh produce, especially for the retailers.
2. Methodology
The game we developed for
simulating retailing of fresh produce is based on systems thinking. Senege et
al. (1994) state that "at its broadest level, systems thinking encompasses
a large and fairly amorphous body of methods, tools and principles, all oriented
to looking at the inter-relatedness of forces and seeing them as part of a common
process." Systems Dynamics, developed by Forrester (1961), has become particularly
valuable as a language for describing how to achieve a fruitful change; it allows
one to construct a model in which the "state" of the system changes
with the rate of input and output of each variable that can be monitored (Williams et
al. 1995).
The human component is crucial to understanding why a desired outcome may or
may not be achieved; thus, human behavior plays a major role in the business
decision-making process. By combining systems thinking and human behavior, soft
systems methodology (Checkland and Scholes, 1990) can be used to create a simulation
game that requires players to integrate systems thinking and system dynamics
into their decisions.
A visual interactive package, Stella 7. 0, was employed (ISEE Systems, formerly High Performance Systems, Inc., Lebanon, NH, USA, www.iseesystems.com) to develop a simulation game for produce retailing. Stella is an icon-based systems thinking modeling software that enables the overall performance of the system to be visualized and simulated. Stella 7.0 is available for Microsoft Windows operating systems. The basic elements of the Stella language are stocks, flows, converters, and connectors. From an operational point of view "stocks" are the accumulators and indicate the total amount that they are accumulating over time. The "flows" are used to describe activities or changes causing modification in the "stocks." The "converters" modify the activities within the system, but, unlike the stocks, they do not represent an accumulation of anything, nor do they have a memory. The "connectors," as the name suggests, are used to connect the stocks to the converters, the stocks to the flows, flows to each other, converters to flows, and converters to converters. Aggarwal et al. (2003) provides more details on how Stella was used for developing a simulation that functions as a game.
An
external link to Stella Software. http://www.iseesystems.com
3. The Game
The game allows for different
levels of complexity. Starting from the "introductory level," options
can be selected to include additional parameters and relationships. Common
to all selections are four basic underlying sectors: namely peach consumer,
retailer, wholesaler, and farmer. The central role of variable consumer demand
in the peach supply chain dictated the selection of the dynamics of the consumer-retailer
interaction as the beginning stage. The simulation was named "the peach
game" because it uses peaches as the primary product, but the concepts
would work for any fresh fruit or vegetable. Two players can alternatively
play the game, each trying to outwit the other in the same produce market.
The purpose of the "introductory level" is to initiate the player
to the game and the simulated system dynamics. The player assumes the role
of a retailer ordering and selling peaches. The roles of the consumer, wholesaler,
and farmer are assigned to the software program. The player (retailer) strives
to satisfy consumer demand. The player faces the predetermined pattern of quantity
demanded over a period of weeks and is aware of the two-week delay in the arrival
of the ordered quantity of peaches. The mission of the retailer, as presented
to the player, is to make sure peaches are available at all times, yet to minimize
the fruit inventory. The game score is the cumulative excess inventory expressed
in dollar value (bank balance). Because the value of excess inventories represents
a loss to the retailer, the player's aim is to minimize it without running
out of stock.
The "quantity demanded" that the player can expect in the coming
time periods (weeks), represents historical records. Players can view the average
weekly quantity sold for each week in the past. Figure 1 (a) shows the graphic
change in the quantity demanded over time for the introductory level: the quantity,
measured in the number of boxes sold, increases as the harvest progresses,
peaks in the middle of the season, and subsequently declines. Plotted quantities
create a linear pattern with two sub-periods of a steady increase and a steady
decrease in the quantity demanded.
Players can change orders each week. The volume sold last week and the current
inventory is plotted instantly and can be visually assessed. However, the current
inventory reflects past orders. The graph provides relevant information for
ordering additional deliveries subject to the two-week delay. The game ends
if a player is unable to meet the demand in a particular week. The message
posted on the screen informs the player about the end of the game. The simulation
resets itself and a new game can begin. Thus, a tension exists between minimizing
inventory and running out of peaches.
The purpose of the introductory level was to make the game as simple as possible.
A step function was first used for "consumer quantity demanded." However,
tests showed that a ramp function enabled players more time to use feedback
to make corrections. Despite its simplicity and the known quantity demanded
in the introduction level, the two-week delay of deliveries makes it difficult
to keep a balance between maintaining peaches in stock and minimizing inventory.
3.1 Changing Quantity Demanded
After players master the "introductory level" they can move to more
difficult scenarios. In these, the player has a number of different demand
stream options, such as a normal distribution (Figure 1b). Another option is
a stochastic demand having a mean of 10 cases per month with a standard deviation
of 2 (Figure 1c). The fourth option is also a stochastic demand, but it is "randomized
normal distribution" (Figure 1d). The stochastic demands make playing
the game more difficult than the levels having deterministic demands. The player
also has an option to generate any desired consumer demand history and then
to simulate the effect of ordering decisions on the game outcomes. In reality,
consumer demand is unpredictable. In one simulation option, players must plan
orders for an up-coming peach festival only to have a hailstorm hit the peach
orchard, causing reduced supplies.
3.2 Adding financial
elements
The player has a bank account, which can be set to a selected value when the
game is initialized. It decreases when the orders are placed and increases
when the revenues are generated from selling the product. The profit on each
case of the product sold is 50%. There is an option of putting the peaches
on sale. The sale doubles the demand but the profit margins decrease to 20%
from the usual 50% . There is a dollar penalty for excess inventory, which
is 5% of the price of the product each week. The bank balance is plotted as
a bar chart on the play page of the game. The score of the game is the bank
balance that the player strives to maximize.
3.3 Perishability
All the above options apply for retailing any product and not fresh produce
in particular. A major problem faced by the retailers in fresh produce marketing
is quality deterioration, which results from physiological senescence. So an
element of perishability was introduced which can be selected by the player.
If a delivered order cannot be sold within two weeks its quality deteriorates
to the point that it must be discarded.
The critical elements in the game are the quantity demanded distributions,
two-week delay in order arrival, bank balance, ordering, sales, and perishability
of the fresh produce. If the player has ordered in excess of the consumer demand,
then the excess inventory can be managed by putting the fresh produce on "sale" and
preventing the produce from perishing.
Figure 2 is a screen shot showing the options described above. A screen shot
of one of the game outputs is shown in Figure 3. The area below the inventory
curve signifies the cumulative excess inventory, which must be minimized to
obtain the best score (bank balance). However, if the inventory curve goes
below zero, the simulation terminates itself, signifying that the player has
not been able to satisfy consumer demand. If the inventory increases beyond
a set value, the player gets a message with a suggestion to reduce the inventory.
Figure 2.Screen
shot of options page of the game. Full
size image.
Figure 3.Screen
shot of simulation page of the “Peach game." Full
size image.
The model was validated
using a number of scenarios, performing the computations manually and comparing
the results of the manual computations and the model output.
4. Feedback
As the game was being developed,
various players, including selected faculty and staff at the University of Georgia,
the head of the produce department of a retail store (two versions of the game),
and about 100 students provided feedback which resulted in three iterations or
versions of the game. For example, the produce manager of the retail store suggested
the inclusion of dollars as the instrument for measuring players' performance
instead of a score (the measure of performance in an earlier version of the game
was the area under the inventory curve).
The developed game was used as a tutorial for an undergraduate course
in the Department of Food Science at the University of Georgia. The
students downloaded
the game and the required software to play the game from the web on their computers.
After playing the game by themselves, they provided answers to a questionnaire
based upon the game. Not only were they asked about what they learned from the
game, but also they were required to evaluate it. Table 1 gives a few examples
of their responses to some of the questions. Table 2 and Table 3 summarize the
responses of 40 students for the "likeness" and "educational" attributes
respectively. The weighted mean of 4.125 for "likeness" attribute signifies
that the students evaluated the game as being between "liked very much" and "liked
moderately." Similarly the weighted mean of 4.15 for "educational" attribute
signifies the educational value to be between "highly educational" and "moderately
educational." The game was also played by high school students in two consecutive
years. About 80 students were subdivided into four groups. Each group formed
two teams and each team competed to outwit the other. The game was demonstrated
at three international conferences in 2002 and 2003. The conferences were in
the areas of post harvest technology, food distribution, and modeling.
Student No. | Strategy used | Learned what? | Like/ Don't like | Comments |
1 | Fine tuned it in each repetition | Planning for advance situations | Enjoyed | Real Life situations |
2 | Increase inventory right before demand | Even if demand is known coordinating the inventory to match it is very difficult. | Hard to master | Unknown demand creates problems for retailers |
3 | Looked two weeks in advance for consumer demand | Even if demand is predictable, it is easy to lose money if the ordering and shipping process is not efficient. | Enjoyed | It was fun to play the challenging game |
4 | Never run out of stock | Future planning | Enjoyed | Confusing to run |
5 | Changed order as per demand, but two weeks earlier | Two weak delay | Enjoyed | Not entertaining, but taught supply and demand,Downloading problems |
6 | Keep inventory line higher than the consumer demand line | Planning ahead | Downloading problems | |
7 | Not over ordering or overreacting | Great effort to manage major business | Interesting | |
8 | Two week delay made it tough | In retail industry, the importance of supply and demand | Not my type | Not interested in this subject |
9 | No cases until week 11, steadily increase till week 26 and then start decline | Fun game | Thanks for the opportunity | |
10 | As per graph, but then panicked | Much harder to keep up with inventory as weeks go by. | Enjoyed | Challenging |
11 | First half-increased buying Second half-decreased buying | Difficult to determine the inventory level | Make the game more appealing | |
12 | Order a few weeks before demand comes and at the end stop ordering | Market is hard to predict | Did not enjoy | Things like that are not my strong skills |
13 | Keep two week delay in mind | Hard for retailers to plan ahead | Enjoyed | Challenging, best assignment so far, hands on experience, showed consequences of my decisions |
Table 1.Some examples of the feedback of students on "Introductory Level" of Peach Retailing Game.
Attribute-Likeness | Assigned Score | Frequency |
Liked it very much/ enjoyed | 5 | 23 |
Liked moderately | 4 | 6 |
Just OK | 3 | 3 |
Little likeness | 2 | 6 |
Did not like at all | 1 | 2 |
Weighted Mean =
4.125
Table
2. Frequency table for “likeness” attribute as responded by 40 students.
Attribute-Educational | Assigned Score | Frequency |
Highly Educational | 5 | 19 |
Moderately educational | 4 | 12 |
Just OK | 3 | 5 |
Little educational value | 2 | 4 |
Non-educational | 1 | 0 |
Weighted Mean =
4.15
Table 3. Frequency
table for "educational" attribute as responded by 40 students.
5. Debriefing and Discussion
The game can be followed by
a debriefing session to review the complexities of fresh produce retailing. The
lessons taught by the game emphasize several issues in fresh produce supply chains:
1) the stochastic nature of the consumer demand as measured by the quantity consumed
in each time period, 2) the need to minimize current inventories, 3) the effects
of the delays in the delivery inherent in the system, 4) perishability of fresh
produce, and 5) the placement of produce on sale as a tool for managing inventories
and meeting demand. An instructor can place the relative emphasis on all or any
of the specific areas. The selection will determine whether the game will take
one or more continuing education sessions or class periods to complete.
For college instruction the developed produce delivery game emphasizes
the interconnectedness of implications stemming from a single decision,
such as ordering a shipment
of fresh peaches. The systems approach to delivery is illustrated in the multitude
of relationships sensitizing players to the multidisciplinary nature of produce
handling. Initially, the players typically order too much and as they reduce
subsequent volumes ordered they are unable to meet the consumer demand. After
the players become accustomed to the game dynamics, they learn the underlying
concepts. Foremost, game users recognize the uncertainty of the produce delivery
system. The degree of uncertainty affects differently various links in the
system, but it all begins with the discrepancy between the anticipated
and the actual
consumer behavior. This results in a bullwhip effect. The game is consumer-driven,
although the option to declare an item as "on sale" provides some
short-term flexibility to retailers. By assuming the role of a retailer, farmers
could recognize
the difficulties in ordering produce. Intermediate links in the system are
sometimes accused of taking an unfair advantage, but retailers may commit ordering
errors
even when having full access to information about past sales.
6. Conclusion
The highly competitive sector
of produce delivery systems is driven by consumer behavior. Despite the progress
in the development of simulation games and models for training in many areas,
the produce sector seldom has been a subject of instructional tools. The game,
developed with the complicated needs of the produce sector in mind, combines
systems dynamics and systems thinking to model the essential elements responsible
for meeting consumer demand. Specifically, the game requires the input of human
decisions in systems dynamics and thinking during the simulation. It is designed
to help retailers improve fresh produce ordering decisions without risking
the actual consequences of sub-optimal decisions or unpredictable outcomes
in an actual market environment. The game provides a participatory, hands-on
experience that allows players to understand the concepts and develop the skills
desired in the fresh produce industry.
7. Acknowledgement
The funds for the project
were provided by Marketing Services Branch, Agricultural Marketing Service,
United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, USA. The help of Dr. Robert
Shewfelt, Professor at UGA, in letting the Food Science and Technology students
play the game is thankfully acknowledged. The peach game (version 3.1) can
be downloaded from the UGA Biological and Agricultural Engineering website
at www.griffin.uga.edu/ageng/programs/peachgame.exe
The execution of the game also requires a freely downloadable save disabled ‘demo’ version
of ‘Stella’ from www.iseesystems.com.
An
external link to peach game. http://www.griffin.uga.edu/ageng/programs/peachgame.exe
8. References
Aggarwal, D, Prussia, S.E., Florkowski, W.J., and Lynd, Don. (2003). Simulation
model for fresh produce supply chains. ASAE Technical paper number 03-6211,
St. Joseph, MI.: ASAE.
Checkland, P., Scholes, J., (1990). Soft systems sethodology in action. Chichester,
England: John Wiley & Sons.
Duke, J.M., Malcon, S. A., (2003). Legal risk in agriculture: right-to-farm
laws and institutional change. Agric. Syst., 75 (2-3), 295-303.
Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hofstede, G. J., Trienekens
J. H., Ziggers G.W. (2002). The strawberry game. Online. http://www.info.wau.nl/people/gertjan/straw.
html. [Retrieved 25th Feb 2004].
Hwang, F and Esquembre, F. Easy Java simulations: An interactive science learning
tool. IMEJ, 5 (2). http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/2003/2/01/index.asp
Johns, J. F. (1999). Web-based practice environments to teach mechanical skills.
IMEJ, 1 (1). http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/1999/1/01/index.asp
Jong, T.d. and Sarti, L. Editors (1994). Design and production of multimedia
and simulation based learning material. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers
Prussia, S. E. (2000). Soft systems methodologies for modeling postharvest
chains. Acta Hort. 536, 653-660.
Sawhney, A and Mund, A. Simulation based construction management learning system.
In D.J. Medeiros, E.F. Watson, J.S. Carson and M.S. Manivannan, eds. Proceedings
of the 1998 Winter Simulation Conference.
http://www.informs-cs.org/wsc98papers/179.PDF
Senge, P. M., Kleiner A., Charlotte R., Ross R.B., Smith B.J. (1994). The fifth
discipline fieldbook -- Strategies and tools for building a learning organization.
New York: Doubleday.
Schank, Roger. (1997). Virtual learning--A revolutionary approach to building
a highly skilled workforce. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schotzko, R.T., Hinson R.A. (2000). Supply chain management of perishables:
A produce application. J Food Distribution Research, Vol XXX1 (2), 17: 25.
Smith, G.G. (2001). Interaction evokes reflection: Learning efficiency in spatial
visualization. IMEJ, 3 (2). (http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/2001/2/05/index.asp)
Shewfelt, R.L., Prussia S.E. (Editors) (1993). Postharvest handling: A systems
approach. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Sterman, J. (2000) Business dynamics: Systems thinking for a complex world.
New York: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
USDA, (2001). Food and agricultural policy--Taking stock in the new century,
Secretary of Agriculture Report. Online. http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/farmpolicy01/fpindex.htm
[Retrieved 25th Feb 2004]
Williams, T., Eden C., Ackerman F., Tait A. (1995). The effects of design changes
and delays on project costs. J. Oper. Res. Soc., 46(7), 809-818.
********** End of Document **********
© 2004 Wake Forest University (from Volume 6, Number 1, of The Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning).