SSPM final game: evolution in the car industry

In this post, I will try to introduce a game that we can play during the final session. The four pitches during class last week showed that it is harder than we imagined to clearly explain a game.

Learning goal:   this game tries to show evolution in a product: will different firms grow into selling the same sort of cars, or will they occupy different niches

Players:

-          Car firms           5 teams of about 3 people present the car firms

-          Consumers        rest of the group is individual consumer

-          Public opinion   the ‘game masters’ draw cards that influence the public opinion

Starting point:

-          Car firms start with the table below – but one of the categories get an extra point

	Status	Performance	Maintenance	Fuel saving	New technologies
Round 1	3	3	3	3	3
Round 2	...	...	...	...	...
Round 3	...	...	...	...	...
...

-         In each his round, consumers choose a car from the table that is displayed in the classroom:

Round 1	Status	Performance	Maintenance	Fuel saving	New technologies
Firm 1	4	3	3	3	3
Firm 2	3	4	3	3	3
Firm 3	3	3	4	3	3
Firm 4	3	3	3	4	3
Firm 5	3	3	3	3	4

Next round:

-          Car firms get extra points they can invest, following this scheme:

o   +2          Most cars sold

o   +1

o   0

o   -1

o   -2           Least cars sold

-          Consumers are shown the table for round 2 and make another choice.

Public opinion:

Because I fear that most Industrial Ecologists will probably go for the more sustainable, fuel saving cars, I add an extra dimension which I call public opinion. In every second round the ‘game masters’ draw a public opinion car, that slightly changes the game (like in monopoly). Texts on these cards are:

• The leading firm gets a fine for unfair competition and has to hand in 4 point
•  A crisis occurs, so consumers are likely to go for cars that score on maintenance
• There is a technology break-through, the two firms with the most points invested in ‘new technologies’ get 3 extra points to allocate
• Etc.

After x rounds:

The cars either become more similar or more diverse. This will mimic the process of industrial evolution. Or to be more precise, adaptation to the environment, which is the consumer market in this case. In this game, extinction is defined as not selling any cars for two rounds. Thus, the game shows competition as well.

My only fear is that this game might not be too interesting for the consumer. But, in real life you cannot really 'win' in consuming either.

Comment, 30-12-2014
While rereading this post, I want to make two contributions:

- I did not clearly state what I meant by the 'points' that the car firms could collect in each round. I introduced them to create some sort of financial competition between the firms. Of course, these points are only based on popularity of a car. Also, they do not include the fact that normally cars would be priced differently - in this game every consumer can by any car. The points can be used to invest in some 'traits' or categories, so that the  firms are likely to diverge over time.

- After discussing the 'self-organized' session in class, I think that my game falls short on two points. First of all, the game is very abstract. Consumers are expected to make decisions based on a table with points. A nice addition would be to add a picture of a car to each car type, so that consumers might choose less rational. Secondly, the preference of the consumers in the first round is quite determining for the outcome of the game. To overcome this problem, the random punishments and rewards from the 'public opinion cards' could be more severe.