1. TeamUp
© Dr. Igor Mayer i.s.mayer@tudelft.nl
Faculty Technology, Policy and Management (TPM) & Signature Games
Delft University of technology, The Netherlands
Challenge the future
1

2. Challenge the future
2

3. Challenge the future
3

4. Reference
• Mayer, I. S., van Dierendonck, D., van Ruijven, T., &
Wenzler, I. (2013). Stealth Assessment of Teams in a Digital
Game Environment. In GALA 2013 Conference, Paris (pp. 1–
13). Paris, France: Springer.
Challenge the future
4

5. SG Research tool (2012
-)
Servant Leadership
(Rijkswaterstaat, 2012 -)
Patentometer (2012)
Marine Spatial Planning,
(E&I 2011-)
CharliePappa
(BvB 2011 -)
Achmea Nieuw
Zorgbedrijf (2010)
Electricity Market
Simulation Game (TUDelft )
ProRail games (2010 –
14)
National Intelligence –
(Politieac. 2009)
Hugo de Groot (NHM
2008)
Aristoteles, (GHOR,
Berenschot, )
SprintCity (Ver.
Deltametr. 2009 -)
Team-Up (TU-Delft)
Hazard Recognition
(Shell)
Construct.IT (3TU)
Simulatie APM Terminals
CSI the Hague (NFI)
Road Roles (TU-Delft)
Watergame (Tygron)
OM Interfaces (2005)
SimPort-MV2 (2004 –
2010)
Patentopolis (2008)
Levee Patroller (Deltares,
2006 -)
Centrumlijn (Tramtunnel)
Sieberdam: railway area
reconstruction (2006)
Court Management
Game (OM, 2005)
Ventum Online (2004 -)
Global Supply Chain
Game (GSCG, 2002 - )
Urban Network Game
(RPB, 2002)
DUBES
Containers Adrift
Infrastratego
IncoDelta game
Challenge the future
5

6. Research Question
• Why do some teams perform better
than others and how can we know (in
advance)?
Challenge the future
6

7. Team Research
• ‘A collection of individuals who are interdependent in their tasks, who share
responsibility for outcomes, who see themselves and who are seen by others as an
intact social entity embedded in one or more larger social systems […], and who
manage their relationships across organizational boundaries.’
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E.
(1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite.
Journal of management, 23(3), 239–290. doi:10.1016/s0149-2063(97)90034-9 (p. 241).
• Personality traits, team roles or leadership styles;
• Identity, conformity, psychological safety and cohesion;
• Team structure, size and composition, reward structures, and task related technology.
Challenge the future
7

8. Challenge the future
8

9. Challenge the future
9

10. Challenge the future
10

11. Challenge the future
11

12. Study design
Variable
Name
Group A
Experiment 1
Experiment 2
Group B
Experiment 3
Experiment 4
Educational
technologist
demo session
Total in freq. Total in %
Purpose of use
Trial development Trial educational and
sessions
training sessions
Police training
Learning goal
Development and
user testing
Limited training
Team
communication
training and
assessment
Demonstration
Game version
1
1.5
2.0
2.0
Earliest date of play
25-11-2010
1-6-2011
6-11-2012
28-11-2012
Most recent date of play
17-3-2011
19-6-2012
29-11-2012
28-11-2012
N respondents
88
87
152
20
347
100%
N game instances (4 pp)
22
22
38
5
87
100%
Male
Female
Students
Professionals
64
24
-
54
17
61
24
147
3
0
152
14
6
20
279
50
61
196
80,4%
14,4%
17,6%
56,5%
Freq. playing computer
games: Never
13
2
65
2
82
23,6%
Couple of times per year
12
25
41
3
81
23,3%
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
3
2
18
19
7
18
17
9
6
7
2
42
46
20
12,1%
13,3%
5,8%
Challenge the future
13

13. Measuring Personality
TeamUp, TU-Delft, 2012
Challenge the future
14

14. Team Role
TeamUp, TU-Delft 2012
Challenge the future
15

15. Team Constructs
(questionnaire)
No
Name
Constructs (MEAN &
STANDARD
DEVIATION)
Definition
Reference
1
COMPETENCE
Personal competence
The expressed confidence in playing
computer games before TeamUp starts.
(“Competence
example items,” n.d.)
2
JOY
Experienced joy
The expressed joy of the team while playing
TeamUp.
3
PRESSURE
Perceived Pressure
4
ACHIEVEMENT
Achievement
The perceived pressure while playing
TeamUp.
The need to achieve while playing TeamUp.
5
PERCEIVED
COMPETENCE
Perceived
Competence
The perceived competence after having
played TeamUp.
(“Competence
example items,” n.d.)
6
PSYCHOLOGICAL
SAFETY
Psychological safety
Psychological safety experienced in the team
while playing TeamUp.
(Edmondson, 1999)
7
COHENSIVENESS
Team cohesiveness
The experienced cohesiveness in the team
while playing TeamUp.
(Seers, 1989)
8
EXCHANGE
Team exchange
The experienced exchange of information,
tasks etc. in the team while playing TeamUp
(Seers, 1989)
9
COMMUNICATION
Team communication
The communication in the team while playing
TeamUp
Challenge the future
16

16. Speak time
Challenge the future
17

17. Team Performance
(per challenge)
Challenge the future
18

18. Player performance (per team)
Challenge the future
19

19. Team performance
(measured)
No
Var name
Construct
Definition
1
TIME TOTAL
Time Total Game
Time from leaving dock until all buttons pushed at end of game.
2
TIME1
Time Door-Puzzle
Time from leaving dock until 4th player passes through door.
3
TIME2
Time Tiles-Puzzle
Time from checkpoint before door until 4th player crosses maze.
4
TIME3
Time Maze-Puzzle
Time from finishing Tiles-puzzle until all buttons beyond maze pushed.
5
TIME4
Time Bridge-Puzzle
Time from checkpoint before initial button until bridge is lowered.
6
TIME5
Time Pillars-Puzzle
Time from checkpoint until final bridge is lowered.
7
DISTANCE_TOTA
L
Distance total Game
Distance in game meters covered by all team members together.
8
DISTANCE 1
Distance Door puzzle
Distance covered covered by all team members during the door puzzle.
8
DISTANCE 2
Distance Tiles puzzle
Distance covered covered by all team members during the tile puzzle.
9
DISTANCE 3
Distance Maze puzzle
Distance covered covered by all team members during the maze puzzle.
10
DISTANCE 4
Distance Bridge puzzle
Distance covered covered by all team members during the bridge puzzle.
11
DISTANCE 5
Distance Pillars puzzle
Distance covered covered by all team members during the pillar puzzle..
12
ERROR2
Avoidable Mistakes Tiles puzzle
Number of faulty tiles stepped upon after a safe passage through the maze was known.
Challenge the future
20

20. Team Performance
1. Teams with greater
standard deviation on
psychological safety
perform lower.
2. Teams with higher
average psychological
safety, perform better.
3. Teams with higher
cohesiveness, have better
total time and distance
performance.
4. Competence influences
avoidable mistakes.
Challenge the future
21

21. Speak time and performance
• Teams that have higher speak time, take longer and have more errors.
• When team members have greater difference in speak time, the team takes longer and has more
mistakes
• Best and worst performing teams, speak little!
Challenge the future
22