This document discusses the development of an immersive learning simulation for a large accounting firm. The simulation was created to train new hires and promote internal tools over 5 months. It aimed to improve performance, productivity and quality through a realistic simulation of on-the-job processes. The simulation was designed to be engaging like a game while maintaining the client's security and branding standards. It underwent extensive testing and was found to significantly improve trainee productivity.

1. Company overview Kevin Corti, PIXELearning Apply Group Symposium 31 st January 2008 Demystifying the design, development and deployment of large-scale, internet-based immersive learning simulations.

3. Company overview That word…’game’ Immersive Learning Sim vs Serious Game etc - What does the market think? “ A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet, but would a game by some other name sell to the executive suite?” - Jeff Johannigman

8. Simulate job-specific processes Promote internal tools and sources of support (‘job aids’) Build ‘soft skills’ AND Make the learning experience relevant to the actual job function Reduce ‘time to competency’ Aid recruitment process The challenge

9. 2,000 a year From all over the USA Very diverse (other than age) Motivated Don’t want to be lectured at Very tech savvy The audience

10. Conceive, design, develop, test and implement inside 5 months. A ‘Hard stop’ – classroom session booked – no ‘fudge factor’ Ensure consistent learning experience for all Deliver explicit & measurable performance & quality gains Objectives

11. Standardised global desktop Very high security settings ‘ No connectivity’ policy Delivered in external hotel resort User environment

12. “ XBOX look & feel” Use fictional characters to drive simulation flow with dialogue-based instruction, guidance and directive feedback Embed fictional and instructional info in realistic context (e.g. emails) Mix simulation authenticity with game engagement qualities Design considerations

13. Multiple stakeholders and personalities Client needed heavy guidance – initial vision lacked clarity Design first, develop after (waterfall) – didn’t work! Many concept mock-ups & prototypes needed Iterative releases (weekly reviews) Development approach

14. Compliance – technical content accuracy Branding – look & feel, text Formal alpha – testing by client’s L&D team Formal beta – with detailed testing plan/dedicated testers Final release - intensive testing by client (usability, learning & technical) Observation of actual use for future updates “ Post mortem” Testing

15. Primary goal – enable quality performance improvements Formal learning assessment to L4 Kirkpatrick ROI analysis (Phillips) / organisational impact measurement “ Simulation bridges the gap between classroom training and actual job experience ” Very significant productivity gains Evaluation/assessment

16. Screen examples

19. [1] Fail to recognize that a simulation/serious game is a complex software application. It is NOT ‘content’ strung together to form a linear course. [2] Fail to assess actual (as opposed to perceived) organisational needs at both strategic and operational levels. The ‘what, who, why, when & how’ enquiry process. Getting it wrong

20. [3] Fail to select (and keep to) an appropriate design/development process Classic ‘waterfall’ vs ‘iterative’ - consider how well requirement is pre-defined, time and budget availability. [4] Have too many voices / design by committee The contractor ideally needs a single client contact who has the authority to say yes or no. Implications are: delays, changes, cost and feature creep. Getting it wrong

21. [5] Have inadequate project communication . ‘ Meet’ regularly - make everything available to people who need to see/input/approve. [6] Don’t identify milestones & establish clear ‘sign off’ protocols e.g. Concept layouts - NFM – Alpha – Beta - FCR Getting it wrong

22. [7] Don’t establish change management protocols Variations to initial design (especially if in ‘waterfall’ mode) MAY have $ and time implications and MAY also effect effectiveness of final release. Needs to be approved by client single point of contact Getting it wrong

23. Kevin Corti, CEO, PIXELearning [email_address] Company web: www.pixelearning.com LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/kevincorti Blog: http://theevilnumber27.wordpress.com Richard Naish, MD, Qi Concepts [email_address] Company web: www.qiconcepts.co.uk LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/richardnaish +44 (0) 24 7623 6971