In the realm of business, success extends far beyond mere profit. If monetary gain is the sole motivator, true satisfaction might remain elusive. My passion for business and finance is reflected in my habits: I avidly read industry news and listen to related podcasts because of my genuine interest. Whether I were a medical doctor, electrician, or teacher, my fascination with the strategic and behavioral aspects of business would persist. This curiosity often leads me into the realms of game theory and systems theory.
One particularly engaging approach I’ve encountered in my career is Strategic Gaming. This simulation game replicates real-world business scenarios and environments. Participants experience firsthand how their decisions trigger counter-decisions from competitors. Although it is a game, its realism is striking—it mirrors actual business dynamics, illustrating how actions and reactions affect competing companies.
For a Strategic Game to be successful, it’s crucial to clearly define its scope. The scope should be neither too narrow nor too broad. For example, a simulation could focus on a specific market segment, such as the mobile phone contracts market in Germany.
The game should address issues that are most relevant to the participants, such as pricing and bidding strategies. It can involve options like head-to-head competition with pricing tactics or exploring cooperative strategies. Typically, the game consists of 4-6 teams representing market players who compete virtually. Additionally, there are teams representing market entities like customers, government representatives, and other stakeholders, including shareholders and investment bankers.
Each of the 4-6 competing teams should be organized into distinct roles, such as CEO, head of finance, and head of strategy, depending on the industry. It’s beneficial to have players with diverse backgrounds in terms of education, age, and culture.
On the first day of the game, teams gather to define their pricing strategies. Each team’s moves are made visible simultaneously to the other competitors and to stakeholders such as customers and investors through a virtual connection.
Instead of proceeding immediately to a second round of moves, it’s advantageous to take a break and reconvene after a period, such as a day. This pause allows teams to evaluate their positions, consider their options, and potentially negotiate with other parties, including government representatives for antitrust regulations.
This approach resembles chess, where customer and stakeholder reactions, as well as competitors’ moves, play crucial roles in shaping subsequent strategies. Strategic Gaming helps test hypotheses about market behavior, revealing how different “personalities” in the market might act and predicting potential market developments.
