Business Wargaming

This page intentionally left blank

Business Wargaming

Securing Corporate Value

DANIEL F. ORIESEK and

JAN OLIVER SCHWARZ
© Daniel F. Oriesek and Jan Oliver Schwarz 2008

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.

Published by
Gower Publishing Limited
Gower House
Croft Road
Aldershot
Hampshire GU11 3HR
England

Ashgate Publishing Company

Suite 420
101 Cherry Street
Burlington, VT 05401-4405
USA

Daniel F. Oriesek and Jan Oliver Schwarz have asserted their moral right under the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the authors of this work.

www.gowerpublishing.com

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Oriesek, Daniel F.
Business wargaming : securing corporate value
1. Strategic planning 2. Business planning
I. Title II. Schwarz, Jan Oliver
658.4’012

ISBN: 978-0-566-08837-7

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Oriesek, Daniel F.
Business wargaming : securing corporate value / by Daniel Oriesek and Jan Oliver Schwarz.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-566-08837-7
1. Management games. 2. Strategic planning--Simulation games. 3. War games. I. Schwarz,
Jan Oliver. II. Title.

HD30.26.O75 2008
658.4’012--dc22
2008010608
Contents

List of Figures ix
List of Abbreviations xi
Foreword by Paul Bracken xiii

Introduction 1

Part I Background to Business Wargaming 5

Chapter 1 The History of Wargaming 7

Wei-Hai and Go in Ancient China 8
From Chaturanga in India to Chess 8
Chess and Further Developments 8
Games for Military Use 10
Non-military Wargaming and Recent Developments 16
The Evolution of Business Wargaming 18

Chapter 2 Business Wargaming Methodology 21

What is Business Wargaming? 21
How Does Business Wargaming Work?—Teams 23
How does Business Wargaming Work?—Interaction 25
How does Business Wargaming Work?—Moves 26

Chapter 3 The Relevance of Business Wargaming in Strategy 29

Strategy and Tactics: A Military Point of View 29
The Relevance of Strategic Planning and Scenario
Planning 32
The Advantages of Business Wargaming 33

Part II Applications of Business Wargaming 37

Introduction 39
vi B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

Chapter 4 Strategy Testing 41

Why Strategy Testing? 41
Case Study: Alliance Strategy for Airlines 43
Case Study: 3G Mobile Data Market Entry 48
In a Nutshell: Business Wargaming in the Swiss
General Staff College 54

Chapter 5 Crisis Response Preparation 57

Implications of Business Wargames for Crises
Management 57
Case Study: Financial Information Provider 59
Case Study: HIV/AIDS 61
Case Study: Bioterrorism 67

Chapter 6 Developing Foresight 73

Developing Foresight in Business Wargaming 73
The Future of Asset Management Distribution 74
Wargames in the Public Sector 78

Chapter 7 Change Management 81

Change Management and Business Wargaming 81
Case Study: Changing the Game 82

Chapter 8 Education and Recruitment 85

Business Wargaming in Education and Recruiting 85
Practical Applications 86
Applying Business Wargaming in a University Context 88
Case Study: The Booz Allen CEO Challenge 91

Chapter 9 Further Applications of Business Wargaming 99

Strategic Early Warning Systems 99
Corporate Reputation Management: Stakeholder
Wargame 101

Chapter 10 An Alternative Approach to Designing a Business

Wargame: Wargaming in the Automotive Industry 105
The Situation 105
Goals of the Wargame 105
The Wargame 109
Lessons Learned 113
Results 113
CONTENTS vii

Part III Business Wargaming in Practice 115

Chapter 11 Design and Execution 117

Design Phase 118
Preparation 120
Execution 122
Debriefing and Documentation 123
Summary 124

Bibliography 127
Index 131
This page intentionally left blank
List of Figures

2.1 Elements of business wargaming 24

2.2 Example of an actual timeframe simulated over three
game moves 26
2.3 Overview of activities on a typical game day 27
3.1 Strategy as a bridge 30
3.2 A typical strategic planning process 32
4.1 Team structure overview 45
5.1 Team structure overview 64
5.2 Team structure overview 69
8.1 Team structure overview 89
9.1 The process of a strategic early warning system 101
10.1 The process of the wargame 108
10.2 General types of eventual strategies 111
11.1 Process of designing and executing a business wargame 117
This page intentionally left blank
List of Abbreviations

2G second generation

3G third generation

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

AMA American Management Association

BC before Christ

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CII Confederation of Indian Industry

DSL Digital Subscriber Line

e.g. for example

etc. et cetera

GBC Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GSM Global System for Mobile communications

HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus

HMO Health Maintenance Organization

i.e. that is

IFPI International Federation of the Phonographic Industry

xii B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

IT Information’s Technology

KPIs Key Performance Indicators

M&A Mergers and Acquisitions

MBA Master of Business Administration

Mbit/s Megabit per second

MIT Massachuses Institute of Technology

MMS Multimedia Messaging Service

MNOs Mobile Network Operators

NGOs Non-governmental Organizations

PEST Political, Economical, Social, Technological

R&D Research and Development

ret. retired

SDI Strategic Defense Initiative

SIM Subscriber Identity Module Card

SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats

TLS Thought Leadership Summit

UMTS Universal Mobile Telecommunication System

US United States

USP Unique Selling Proposition

USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

vs. versus

WLAN Wireless Local Area Network

Foreword

For a long time wargaming was the province of the military, where it was used
to form and test strategies, shake down new concepts for their feasibility, and
anticipate a rival’s moves. But broadly speaking wargaming was lile used in
business.

That this is rapidly changing has created the need for a book that describes
the nuts and bolts of running a game and the way to design exactly what you
want to see in one. Business Wargaming: Securing Corporate Value thus makes
a timely appearance. More, this book puts wargaming in a larger framework
of issues of the highest concern to today’s firms. Corporate strategy, change
management, and technology integration get an enormous amount of aention.
But they are rarely considered from the perspective of this book: how do you
game them out?

Let’s explore this question a bit more. Behind it lies the fundamental reason
for gaming. Unlike any other approach gaming has a singular advantage. This
advantage is one likely to appeal to the practicing manager because s/he knows
from experience something which is never touched on by other methods.
Business wargaming shows you things you haven’t thought about before. Puing
plans to the test in a game, against smart opponents eager to find holes in it
and searching for counters to it, gets at what usually goes wrong in strategies:
things you haven’t thought of. Short of going live – actually launching the new
plan or venture – wargaming shows in raw form the many things that are not
thought about. It’s far beer to learn about these in a conference room before
the event than it is to learn about them the hard way.

Business wargaming is a form of accelerated learning. In today’s world,

as this book makes clear, it is hard to imagine what could be more valuable.
From a wide range of studies about how people learn we know several
things. Classroom lectures, slide shows, and commiees are not very good
at discovering what we don’t know. Scenarios may help. And as Oriesek and
xiv B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

Schwarz emphasize here, there is a close relationship between scenarios and

wargames. But scenarios used alone suffer from a defect. They are limited by
the imagination and foresight of the individual scenario writer. Wargaming
overcomes this. By bringing intelligent opponents into the mix a much more
realistic dynamic is created.

Ask the following question about your organization: What would be the
value if you could accelerate learning by a factor of two, four, or ten? The
reason for including the military background to wargaming, in Chapter 1, is
because it answers this question. In the minds of the greatest military geniuses,
wargaming was useful not only because it exposed opportunities and weakness,
but because it did so rapidly. It was possible to learn in a game quickly, in a
domain where time was a decisive factor in winning or losing.

Please keep one more consideration in mind as you read this book. Your
organization already plays games. In fact, it plays very important games. These
are the games in people’s heads as they react to competitive pressures and
management changes. In many respects these are the most important games
played of all. The trouble is that these games are decentralized, distributed
throughout the organization. Usually they are only coordinated during coffee
breaks and in brief snippets of conversation as your employees leave the
conference room. Wargaming systematizes this knowledge, it gets it out in the
table for everyone to see and work with.

Pulling all of these issues together, and combining it with a manual for
actually running your own games, is a major achievement. As the business
world becomes ever more turbulent, the timing for Business Wargaming: Securing
Corporate Value couldn’t be beer.

Paul Bracken
Professor, Yale School of Management
Introduction

The only constant is change, continuing change, inevitable change,

that is the dominant factor in society today. No sensible decision can be
made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it
is, but the world as it will be.

This quote by science fiction author Isaac Asimov (Hartung 2004) precisely
captures the challenge decision makers are increasingly facing, namely having
to take decisions in ever more complex and instable environments, while the
magnitude of the consequences triggered by their decisions are, for the most
part, ever increasing. Some of the decisions made today are literally “bet your
company” types of decisions; the decision to opt for a particular technology,
which may generate significant revenue or may be obsolete before you have
even completed its implementation.

We firmly believe that in situations too complex for conventional (i.e. mostly
linear) forms of analysis, business wargaming (a methodology developed
originally in a military context), offers today’s top decision makers a way, if not
to eliminate, at least to reduce the uncertainty they face when making decisions.
A business wargame is a role-playing simulation of a dynamic business situa-
tion (Kurtz 2003). It involves several teams, each assigned to play a different
stakeholder (competitor, customer, governing bodies) in a particular business
situation. Typically a business wargame evolves over several moves. Each move
represents a defined period of time. A business wargame should always be
prefaced by extensive research and include a review of trends and hypotheses’
for the particular industry in which the wargame is taking place.

The term “wargame” is the translation of the German Kriegsspiel. Since many
people in the military feel uncomfortable with using the term game (because
of the gravity of war), wargames have been called many things, including
map maneuvers, field maneuvers, exercises, or increasingly, modeling and
simulations. As in the business environment some discomfort exists with the
2 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

terms “war” and “game” alike, wargames therefore have also been described
as dynamic strategic simulations or simply strategy simulations. For simplicity
and authenticity, we will stick to the term “wargame” in this book.

While seing up and conducting a business wargame does not come

cheap, the cost of a game should ultimately be only a fraction of the cost you
may otherwise incur through poor decision making or the additional revenue
potential of previously unrecognized opportunities. We therefore chose the
subtitle for our book to be “Securing Corporate Value”, because it captures
exactly what business wargaming can do for the company if done right. On
the one hand, you can look at the process opportunistically and say, business
wargaming will confirm or uncover areas for future growth which will allow
you to secure a piece of that opportunity otherwise ignored; or you can look at
it more defensively by viewing business wargaming as a tool to avoid costly
mistakes, such as acquisitions which for whatever reason just won’t work, or
technology expenditures that fail to generate a marketable product or service
in the end.

In this book we have tried to give you a very practical overview of business
wargaming and how it can be applied. Part I opens by summarizing the
history and the background to business wargaming. In Chapter 1, we spend
time discussing the history of military wargaming, starting with the earliest
applications and highlighting the development of military wargaming during
the Prussian era and subsequently, aer World War II, in the United States (US)
military. Since the rise of business wargaming can be also credited to the US
military and US hobby wargaming tradition, the emphasis will be on these
fields. Chapter 2 will explain the mechanics of wargaming, referring here to
the application of business wargaming for strategy testing. In Chapter 3 we
emphasize the role of business wargaming for strategy formulation. The
reason for highlighting the role of business wargaming in strategy at this early
stage is because we believe that including business wargaming in a strategic
planning process represents its most valuable application. We also feel that this
discussion enables us to highlight the development of business wargaming as
a tool for management in a turbulent and uncertain environment.

The aim of Part II is to present a variety of specific applications of

business wargaming. Whilst not seeking to cover the entire field of possible
applications, this overview provides the reader with a good grounding in the
most common applications of the technique. We have added case studies to
each application to help explain in more detail how business wargaming can
be applied in the particular context. The examples represent wargames that
INTRODUCTION 3

have been designed and conducted by the authors themselves or by third party
organizations, primarily consulting firms such as Booz Allen Hamilton, who
have been active in the field of commercial wargaming for over 20 years. The
information provided from such third party games has either been wrien
up and published or communicated during public presentations. Some of the
examples are very detailed, while others remain more general as the specific
findings remain proprietary to the organizations that commissioned the games
and are not for public disclosure.

We open Chapter 4 with the process of testing strategies through business

wargames, including case examples from the private sector as well as a brief note
on an application in the military field. In Chapter 5 we discuss how business
wargaming can be applied for crisis response preparation; highlighting two
very interesting public-sector case studies and one case from the private sector.
In Chapter 6 we turn to an application of business wargaming which addresses
the notion and the need for corporations and organizations in general to
develop foresight in an increasingly dynamic and complex environment. The
case study in this chapter describes how a business wargame was applied to
give representatives of the asset management industry an opportunity to make
sense of the future of their industry. We also briefly outline in this chapter how
business wargaming was used during the Cold War to develop foresight with
respect to shis in global power structures.

Chapter 7 covers the topic of applying business wargaming in the context of

change management. Whilst we are only able to provide a short case study here,
it does underline how business wargames, regardless of the specific application,
can help to understand why change is needed and how an organization can
prepare through simulation for a major change effort.

In Chapter 8 we turn to training and recruitment as an application. In

particular, we will highlight how business wargaming can be used as a
recruiting tool, with reference to the Booz Allen CEO Challenge, and how
business wargaming can be applied in a university context to teach strategic
management to masters-level students.

The two subsequent chapters are aimed at providing further applications

for business wargaming as well as an alternative approach to designing and
executing a business wargame. In Chapter 9 we describe two areas we believe
could be promising for applying business wargaming methodology: strategic
early warning systems and corporate reputation. Finally, in Chapter 10 Pero
Mićić, chairman of the German-based FutureManagementGroup, describes
4 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

an approach to designing and executing a business wargame, which offers a

different perspective on the design and execution from the approach we have
described thus far.

Chapter 11 in Part III discusses a number of issues around the design

and execution of a business wargame, drawing on our experience. This is not
intended to be a “How to” chapter, but should rather provide food for thought,
so that you are in a position to think creatively how business wargaming could
help your organization as a starting point to commissioning an actual game.

Finally, we would like to thank the following people for their contributions,
insights and inspiration: George E. Thibault, Mark Frost and all the other
wargamers at Booz Allen Hamilton; Prof. Paul Bracken from the Yale School of
Management; Pero Mićić from the FutureManagementGroup; Brigadier Marcel
Fantoni and Colonel Christoph Pfister of the Swiss Armed Forces General Staff
School; and Jonathan Norman from Gower Publishing who did a brilliant job
in supporting us on our journey towards writing this book. And we would also
like to thank our significant others, Romana Oriesek and Victoria von Groddeck,
for their support and understanding providing us with the necessary time and
energy to complete this work.

Daniel F. Oriesek and Jan Oliver Schwarz

February 2008
PART I

Background to
Business Wargaming
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER
The History of
Wargaming
1
The development and employment of wargaming reaches far back in time
and is probably as old as war itself (Perla 1990). Wargaming most likely grew
out of a military necessity, namely to beer prepare military leaders and their
officers for unforeseen developments on the balefield. The ability to beer
understand what likely hostile reactions one’s own planned course of action
would evoke and how to best counter these reactions constitutes a source of
competitive advantage, because such knowledge helps the commander to avoid
fatal decisions that would result in unnecessary losses of soldiers, equipment
and territory. This in turn allows for a more “economic” way of warfare,
which would significantly raise the sustainability of any military campaign,
in essence ensuring that an army does not only “win the bale” but ultimately
“wins the war.” Another likely driver for the proliferation of wargaming was
the opportunity to test new doctrines and tactics without actually engaging in
combat. This proved especially valuable in refining the art of warfare during
peacetime and training thousands of new officers in a uniform way of thinking.
Of course there are more advantages to wargaming, but the above are the most
significant ones up to this date.

The existing literature on wargaming (e.g. Brewer and Shubik 1979;

Perla 1990; Treat et al. 1996; Dunnigan 2000; Caffrey Jr 2000; Oriesek and
Friedrich 2003) focuses on three fields: first, the application of wargaming in
the US military, in particular at the Naval War College; second the development
of wargaming in Prussian Germany; and third, the use of wargaming by
civilians as a hobby. The application of wargaming in a business context, also
called business wargaming is, in comparison to the overall evolution of the
methodology, a recent development, which is also reflected in the fact that
currently very lile literature is available on the subject. We will start with the
earliest accounts of wargaming and highlight its development over time up to
the current day.
8 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

Wei-Hai and Go in Ancient China

Perla (1990) credits the Chinese general and military philosopher Sun Tzu for
developing the first wargame about five thousand years ago, called “Wei-Hai”,
meaning “encirclement.” Wei-Hai used an abstract playing surface on which
each of the contestants maneuvered their armies of colored stones. Reflecting
on Sun Tzu’s philosophy of resorting to the chances of bale only as a last
resort, victory went not to the player who could bludgeon his opponent head-
on, but to the first player who could outflank his enemy (Perla 1990). While no
pictures or artifacts are available of this particular game it appears that it was
quite similar to the game of “Go” which we still know today and which was
developed around 2200 . Go is an abstract strategy game which is played on
a wooden board consisting of a 19 × 19 matrix using black and white stones. It
spread throughout the Orient and underwent further extensive developments
in both Japan, where it is known as “I-Go” or simply “Go” (the name now
universally applied), and Korea where it is known as “Baduk.” The objective of
Go is to obtain as much territory as possible on the game board.

From Chaturanga in India to Chess

Around 500 a game by the name of “Chaturanga” appeared in India. Like
Go, the game consisted of a board, on which colored stones had to be moved
around according to specific rules, but the stones were more differentiated
than those used in Go, representing different foot soldiers, chariots, elephants,
and cavalry. Between two and four players moved four peasants, one king,
one elephant, a horse and a chariot over the game board with the objective to
capture the hostile figures, not to gain as much space on the board as possible.
With the help of a dice-like device, the outcome of the moves and encounters of
different figures (e.g. chariot beats foot soldier or vice-versa) were determined.
The interesting aspect of Chaturanga is that now not only stones or figures with
different value were introduced, but that with the use of a dice, an element of
randomness or uncertainty was introduced as well. This game made its way
to Persia and most writers agree that Chaturanga is the forerunner of what we
today know as “chess.”

Chess and Further Developments

The modern game of chess was mentioned for the first time in the thirteenth
century in southern Europe. It is believed that Arabs, known as Moors, learned
chess from the Persians when they invaded Persia in the eighth century and
later brought the game to Europe when they invaded Spain. From Spain chess
T H E H I S TO RY O F WA R G A M I N G 9

quickly spread across Europe. The Europeans gave chess pieces the names we
know today, in part because they had a hard time in pronouncing and spelling
the Persian names, but also to reflect the world and the hierarchy in which they
lived.

The pawns on the chessboard represent serfs, or laborers. There are more
of them than any other piece on the board, and oen they are sacrificed to
save the more valuable pieces. In medieval times, serfs were considered no
more than the property of landowners—chaels. Life was brutally hard for
serfs during this era of history. They worked hard and died young. They were
oen le unprotected while wars raged around them. They could be traded,
used as a diversion, or even sacrificed to allow the landowners to escape harm.
The castle signifies the home, or the refuge, just as it was a home in medieval
times. The knight represents the professional soldier of medieval times whose
job it was to protect persons of rank; knights are more important than pawns,
but less important than bishops, kings, or queens. Their purpose in the game is
to protect the more important pieces, and they can be sacrificed to save those
pieces. There are two bishops in the game, who represent the Church. The
Church was a rich and powerful force in medieval times, and religion played a
large part in every person’s life. The queen is the only piece on the board that
represents a woman, and she is the most powerful piece of the game. There is
only one queen for each side. The king is the most important, but not the most
powerful piece in chess. He is as well defended on the chessboard as in medieval
life. In medieval times, the surrender of the king would mean the loss of the
kingdom to invading armies and that could mean change for the worse. It was
to everyone’s advantage, from the lowest serf to the highest-ranking official,
to keep the king safe from harm. Although chess is characterized by a high
degree of abstraction, it contains the typical elements of contemporary warfare.
However, with the introduction of firearms in the seventeenth century, chess
lost its value for military simulations, as was quickly recognized by the leading
military strategists, and so new forms of wargaming had to be developed.

In 1664 Christopher Weikhmann developed an advanced chess game,

which reflected more military details in Ulm, Germany. His game was called
“Königsspiel” or “King’s Game” and, compared with ordinary chess, this game
was played on a larger board and comprised more figures. The King’s Game, as
well as other more military-oriented versions of chess, also known as “Military
Chess” or “War Chess”, represented more complex versions of the traditional
chess game. Weikhmann intended his game not only for entertainment
purposes, but foremost as a tool for those who were interested and wanted to
study military as well as political structures and workings.
10 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

However, it remains doubtful that the complex and abstract King’s Game
was ever employed by the military for training purposes. Although the King’s
Game and other games belonging to the group of war chess were of lile
practical use to the military and constituted rudimentary simulations at best,
the elements used to play them led to the introduction of three principles which
up to this day are considered of vital importance to any wargaming simulation.
Although it is not possible to trace back when the different elements were
exactly introduced for the first time, all three of them could be found in a new
game, developed by the German Dr. C.L. Helwig, intended to introduce more
realism into the game.

These three principles were: first, the change that now a game figure
represented a larger contingent of soldiers and no longer individuals; second,
replacing the two-colored game board with a multicolored game board, repre-
senting different terrains; and third, a referee was installed to run the game
and watch over its proper execution. As a teacher and educator at the court of
the Count of Braunschweig, Helwig used his game to educate his students in
military thinking and decision making. Although his game represented a major
innovation, it was still strongly influenced by chess, but was successful in as far
as it was copied beyond the borders of Germany and played by noblemen in
France, Italy and Austria alike.

Games for Military Use

Around approximately the same time as Dr. C.L. Helwig developed his game,
the Scotsman John Clerk invented a method to simulate ship bales, which
was effectively the first naval wargame. Clerk’s aim was to analyze the moves
and tactics of bale ships in more detail and thus he not only studied their
tactics, but also performed mathematical calculations in order to determine the
firepower of the ship guns and the possible damage they could cause. John
Clerk’s conclusions were published in 1790, under the title: An Essay on Naval
Tactics, Systematic and Historic. One simple advantage of his game setup was
that no model of the terrain was needed. In fact a simple table would suffice to
simulate the surface of the ocean. Copies of Clerk’s work were distributed to
influential naval decision makers, including Admiral Sir George Rodney. Later
Rodney credited Clerk’s tactics as one of the causes for British success against
the French fleet in the West Indies. It is reported that Lord Nelson employed
variations of Clerk’s tactics in 1797 off Cape St. Vincent and also in his victory
at Trafalgar in 1805.
T H E H I S TO RY O F WA R G A M I N G 11

At the end of the eighteenth century, the Schleswig-born scholar and military
author Georg Venturini set out to develop a new wargame. In 1796 he published
the book Regeln für ein Neues Kriegsspiel für den Gebrauch an Militärlehranstalten or
Rules for a new Wargame for Use at Military Educational Institutions. Venturini, like
Helwig, also used a game board, consisting of quadrants, but in comparison to
Helwig and others his game board was significantly larger, consisting of 3600
fields, each representing one square mile and in total representing a chosen ter-
rain, namely the border between Belgium and France.

In his game the players could not only simulate various troops, but also the
use of equipment, strongholds, bridges and depots. Unlike in a chess game,
where figures could easily move from one field to another, Venturini’s game
applied a high degree of realism with respect to how fast and easy elements
could be moved from one field to another contingent on the underlying territory.
The game was used in particular for military education at various military
academies. Due to its size and complexity, it could not be played outside of
military seings.

The nineteenth century was characterized by a growth in troop sizes, which

made real-life exercises and relocations more difficult as well as by a number of
industrial developments, which made fighting more complex. On the one hand,
the weapons of the infantry and the guns of the artillery had ever longer firing
ranges, precision and firing cadences and, on the other hand, the introduction
of the machine gun in the late nineteenth century offered a totally new form of
fire power, which significantly changed the game for aackers and defenders
alike. Furthermore, the construction of a dense railway infrastructure now
offered ways to more quickly move and concentrate entire armies.

At the same time contemporary societies, first and foremost in Prussian

Germany, became increasingly “militarized” and the study of military affairs
was perceived to be “chic” especially among the commoners of the time. The
rise in popularity of wargaming in the nineteenth century can be credited
especially to the Baron von Reisswitz, not a soldier but a civilian war counselor.
He replaced the centrepiece of many games thus far, the two-dimensional game
board, with a sandbox, in which three-dimensional models of the terrain could
be replicated. Von Reisswitz further introduced wooden game pieces, which
represented the actual size of military formations to scale.

In doing so, the simulations gained additional realism. Furthermore, von

Reisswitz introduced the use of scenarios, placing the players in a particular
situation at the outset of the game. Through a lucky coincidence, von Reisswitz
12 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

introduced the two sons of the Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm II, Friedrich
and Wilhelm (who later became Kaiser Wilhelm I), to his wargame and in 1811
and 1812 respectively von Reisswitz even had the opportunity to demonstrate
his wargame to King Friedrich Wilhelm II personally, who was impressed.
However, von Reisswitz’s game never became widely popular because it was
simply too bulky and difficult to move to different locations.

The original “von Reisswitz” wargame was significantly enhanced when his
son, Georg Heinrich Rudolf Johann von Reisswitz, replaced the bulky sandbox
with a topographical map modelled to a 1:1800 scale. Georg, who had served
as a first lieutenant in the Prussian artillery, aempted to codify actual military
experience and introduced the details of real-life military operations into the
game, a factor missing in his father’s version. The rulebook for the game now
included all imaginable military operations, starting at the company level all
the way up to the division and corps level. This rulebook was published in 1824
under the title Anleitung zur Darstellung militärischer Manöver mit dem Apparat
des Kriegsspiels, or Instructions for the Representation of Military Maneuvers by Use
of Wargaming. It is at this point that the term wargaming came into existence
and there was a decisive breakthrough in its application when von Reisswitz
was given the opportunity to present his game to the Chief of the General Staff
of the Prussian Army, von Müffling. Historians record that on observing the
demonstration von Müffling shouted: “This is not a game! This is a preparation
for war! I need to recommend this to be rolled out to the whole army” (Perla
1990, 26). He then published a very favorable article in the Berlin Military Week,
a highly regarded publication.

The “Kriegsspiel” or wargame was played on a topographical map with

lile metal figures that could be moved, representing military formations. The
rules of the game included details on exactly how these figures could be moved,
details on how bales would be carried out and in addition a referee was
appointed to watch over these rules and resolve any issues. Over the course of
the following years the “Kriegsspiel” gained popularity, yet it was criticized for
allowing junior officers a simulated taste of commanding forces well beyond
their rank, which, in turn would cause them to lose a sense of reality and be less
ambitious in performing their assigned tasks. Over time, with the introduction
of new and more complex weapon systems, the rules for the game grew so
complex that it could only be executed with the help of wargaming experts.
Although, on the one hand, great progress was made in trying to simulate ever
more details of the actual realities of war, on the other hand the system of in-
creasing detail and pseudo-exactitude detracted from the very realism that the
game had hoped to improve (Perla 1990).
T H E H I S TO RY O F WA R G A M I N G 13

Nevertheless, wargaming became popular beyond Prussia in countries

such as the US, Great Britain, Italy, France, Russia, and Japan. This popularity
was to a large extent driven by the fact that the Chief of the Prussian General
Staff under the high command of General Gebhard Blücher, Gerhard von
Scharnhorst, made extensive use of wargaming to simulate the moves of his
own troops and the likely reactions of Napoleon as a way of preparing his very
modest resources for bale. Ironically von Scharnhorst died before Napoleon
and his troops were finally defeated, but the success of the Prussians is in no
small part aributed to his preparations using wargaming.

However, the complexity in the Prussian “Kriegsspiel” led in 1876 to

Prussian Colonel Jules von Verdy du Vernois pointing out that the reason for
the lack of popularity of wargaming was due to the numerous difficulties that
beginners encountered when handling tables, calculating losses and so forth.
In contrast to von Reisswitz’s “Kriegsspiel” he proposed the “Free Kriegsspiel”,
characterized by replacing many of the rigid rules by a regulator who would
explain his actions and assessments aer the game. Although enthusiastically
accepted and applied by those who found the rigid games too complex and
boring, “Free Kriegsspiel” had its own problems. The connection between the
proponents of rigid and free “Kriegsspiel” brought into sharper focus the tension
between realism and playability. More important, it revealed the fact that the
lack of realism could result in a lack of playability, just as lack of playability
could lead to a shortage of realism. The late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries thus began to see increased efforts to achieve some sort of balance
between the false realism of “Rigid Kriegsspiel” and the false playability of
“Free Kriegsspiel” (Perla 1990).

Up to this point in history, the wargaming used in the military was primarily
focused on training and educating its participants, be it in specific military
tactics, educating them about a doctrine for using new weapon systems or
simply fostering an understanding for military maers. With the ongoing
“industrialization” of warfare came the recognition in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth century that successful warfare no longer was a simple maer
of superior tactics, but increasingly of superior logistics. What really maered
now was who could mobilize and deploy his troops faster than the enemy
and thus have them on time, in the right location with the right equipment.
The emphasis on wargaming to test mobilization scenarios increased, for one
because it was indeed a key success factor to successful engagement of the
enemy, but also because the size of armies was ever growing and thus full-scale
mobilization exercises just weren’t a viable way to practice.
14 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

Mobilization wargaming could be considered the first shi away from pure
training and education games towards games with the purpose of analyzing
and studying specific problems of military operations (Perla 1990). This devel-
opment was mainly driven by the German Army, which recognized early on that
wargaming was in fact far more broadly applicable than just for educating and
training tactics. This recognition also led the Germans to elevate the simulation
approach to the operative, even strategic level by pioneering a new form of
gaming, known as political–military wargames. In those games political factors
were built into the game, which could very well influence the outcome of a
campaign.

In 1879 when Germany was at the height of its application of wargaming,

W.R. Livermore introduced a German-style of wargaming to the United
States with his publication The American Kriegsspiel. Livermore’s system was a
derivative of the “Rigid Kriegsspiel” and was clearly indebted to the German
school. In the opinion of some American soldiers it was not appropriate to
the unique conditions of the United States. One of the most outspoken critics
was Lieutenant Charles A.L. Toen, who in 1880 published his own book on
wargaming techniques, Strategos: A Series of American Games of War Based upon
Military Principles. There is lile evidence that wargaming was used in the US at
the time apart from for training and education purposes. Perla (1990) concludes
that neither the British nor the Americans ever quite accepted the full range of
wargaming potential value prior to the end of World War II. The only notable
exception in the US is the Naval War College in Rhode Island.

Established in 1884 with the aim of transforming the Navy into a true
profession and turning the Navy’s officers into well-educated, well-rounded
masters of the tools and techniques of the unique naval art, the Naval War
College encountered difficulties executing training maneuvers, because of a
lack of funds and therefore had to resort to wargaming in order to train its naval
officers. In 1887 McCarthy Lile, who had been influenced by Livermore’s The
American Kriegsspiel, expanded his single lectures of the previous year into a
series of six presentations and conducted the first actual wargame at the Naval
War College. Wargaming became part of the regular curriculum at the college
and experienced a rise in popularity and prominence, due to wide media
coverage.

Following World War I the wargaming activities at the Naval War College
were faced with the challenge of the increasing complexity of naval warfare
due to the rising prominence of submarines and aircra in bales at sea. Up
to this point in time, naval wargames were based on the assumption that all
T H E H I S TO RY O F WA R G A M I N G 15

ships had similar characteristics for the purpose of damage assessment in the
game. This assumption had to be modified to reflect the recent developments
in naval warfare and the repertoire of resources had to be enriched by adding
submarines and aircra. Yet the main purpose of the wargames which followed
these modifications at the college was still education; providing the players
with decision-making experiences.

Aer World War II, the number of wargames conducted at the Naval War
College was reduced, but wargaming remained an important element of the
curriculum. Over the years, the strict rules of the initial wargames were relaxed
or replaced by less rigid ones. Increasingly, the games became tailored to the
objectives, the level, and the scope of each separate scenario. Emerging com-
puter technology in the 1950s revolutionized wargaming at the college. In 1958
the Navy Electronic Warfare Simulator was introduced, becoming the post-
World War II successor to the game board and chart maneuvers introduced by
McCarty Lile in the 1880s. The system was built around a large-screen display
that dominated the boom floor of the facility and served as the principal tool
by which the control team kept track of the action. The second floor contained
shops and air-conditioned equipment, but also had a balcony overlooking the
“game floor” and a small conference room. The third floor was the player area,
composed of the various command centers.

In the following years interest in the wargaming of the Naval War College
grew consistently, particularly with the introduction of the Navy Electronic
Warfare Simulator, which was further improved by advances in computer
technology. In addition to purely educational purposes, wargaming was now
increasingly used for other reasons too. Wargames were used to familiarize
participating staff members with an operation prior to an at-sea exercise or
deployment on a mission. It was also found most useful as a means by which
to experiment with new tactics, combat formations, testing command-and-
control structures, and exploring possible effects of enemy counteractions
to planned courses of action. Alongside the broadening applications, war-
gaming was increasingly integrated with other forms of research at the Naval
War College. Driven by new technological developments such as increased
processor speed, parallel processing, visual interfaces, and networking
capabilities, the wargames have become ever more refined up to the present
day.
16 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

Non-military Wargaming and Recent Developments

Although most of the history of wargaming is centered on military applications,
it is worthwhile spending a few lines on the history of wargaming outside the
military context. Even in Prussian times, wargames caught the aention of non-
military personnel and elsewhere in Europe interest groups emerged, such as
the first wargaming club in England, founded by Spenser Wilkinson at the end
of the nineteenth century. It is further reported that a member of Parliament
stated “wargaming” as one of his hobbies in 1900 (Caffrey Jr 2000). However,
hobby wargaming did not take off until H.G. Wells published Floor Games in
1912 and soon aer Lile Wars in 1913. The laer, described a system using
toy soldiers made of lead and a spring-loaded cannon that fired a wooden
projectile capable of knocking the men over. The balefield consisted of a model
house, miniature trees, and various other elements. Due to the popularity of his
amateur games, Wells is widely perceived as the father of modern miniature
wargaming.

With the exception of the Naval War College, armed forces around the
world seemed to lose interest in wargaming. In the post-World War II era
military research was dominated by civilians, focusing on operations research
and systems analysis and so with a few exceptions the traditional discipline
of wargaming lost more and more ground and supporters. Wargaming in the
military context experienced yet another decline in interest during the Vietnam
war, largely due to wargames, which were notoriously flawed and misleading,
further shaking the trust in the usefulness of the methodology (Perla 1990).
While military applications of wargaming were on the decline, academic
strategists and political scientists started to apply wargaming to what was more
obviously a less-than-quantifiable subject-political issues and behavior (Perla
1990), leading to the political-military games in the USA, which Germany and
Japan had already pioneered during the 1930s.

In parallel to an increasing shi away from pure military wargaming

towards political-military games, several hobby wargames began to appear in
the US, most prominent of which was “Tactics” developed in 1953 by Charles
S. Roberts from Baltimore. Tactics uses a map, on which two hypothetical
states are baling for supremacy. The troops are represented by printed card
pallets and each troop has a value assigned to it, representing fighting power
and action radius. The results of the individual bales, i.e. when troops of one
state collided with the troops of another state, could be calculated by using the
Combat Result Table and by tossing dice, for random events. Triggered by the
success of Tactics, Roberts founded The Avalon Hill Company and produced
T H E H I S TO RY O F WA R G A M I N G 17

a total of 18 games up until 1963. Six years later, another dominant company
in the gaming space was founded in New York, Simulations Publications Inc.
The company produced a wide array of games and published as many as 30
new games per year. A major contribution by Simulations Publications Inc. to
hobby games was to add more “realism” to the games by considering factors,
such as the firepower of weapons, morale, and military training levels. The
recreational market for simulations grew to over 2.2 million games sold in
1980. Aer its peak in 1980 the number of manual wargames sold consistently
declined. Dunnigan (2000) states that with the proliferation of manual games
in the 1980s, computer wargames began to take over, selling five to ten times
as many copies. Overall, it has become increasingly difficult to differentiate
between simulations, models, and games (Bracken and Shubik 2001), making it
increasingly difficult to assess the number of wargames sold.

The success of these hobby wargames did not go unnoticed by the US

military, which in 1976 contracted Simulations Publication Inc. to produce
a game for the US Army Infantry School in Fort Benning by the name of
“Firefight.” This was later released also to the public. Over the course of the
1990s, hobby wargaming struggled with the declining demand for printed
wargames, recovering by switching to soware based versions, adding high
levels of realism and experience to various forms of simulations from theatre
level campaigns to straight forward infantry tactics simulators.

While recreational wargaming was experiencing a boom, military

wargaming advanced far more slowly in the 1970s. Perla (1990) states that ever
since the introduction in the late nineteenth century the US had become the
leading nation in deploying defence analysis and wargaming. Nevertheless,
several other nations have and still are using wargaming, especially Japan, the
former Soviet Union, and Germany. In particular, the wargaming tradition of
the former Soviet Union has influenced wargames conducted by the communist
north Vietnamese regime during the Vietnam War and by the Iraqis during the
Iraq–Iran war.

Following the example and contributions of the Naval War College, other
military branches in the US began to use wargaming. The US Air Force and
the Army started applying wargaming techniques aer World War II and the
Marine Corps established a series of wargames dealing with landing a force
ashore in 1958. Wargaming aer World War II in the military has been largely
influenced by operations research and systems analysis, neglecting the study
of history, which had formed the basis of earlier wargames. Dunnigan (2000)
points out that the military is now playing wargames, which cater to their
18 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

specific requirements. During the 1980s the Army and the Air Force established
training centers for conducting wargames.

Since the 1960s, the US military has made an increased effort to bring
together the various branches of the Armed Forces in joint wargames. In 1961
a formal wargaming operation was established at the Joint Chiefs of Staff level.
Following the fiasco at the Bay of Pigs, President John F. Kennedy complained
that his military advisers did not understand the political implications of their
recommendations. This encouraged the use of political-military wargames at
the Pentagon and at professional military education schools (Caffrey Jr 2000).
Currently the US military still uses wargaming as a means of validating its
military strategies and force structure in an oen uncertain future (Haffa and
Paon 1999). For example, the National Strategic Gaming Center, located within
the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University
in Washington D.C., designs and conducts wargames for diverse audiences
(McCown 2005). In 1999, NATO held a well-aended conference on modeling,
simulation, and wargaming, demonstrating that wargaming had become truly
international and is used in many joint and even combined seings (Caffrey Jr
2000).

While computer wargames have been growing in popularity, they are not
necessarily suitable for all wargames. Particularly at a more strategic level, the
focus is less on the quantitative accuracy of model-based calculation, but rather
on the larger implication a course of action may have. However, wargaming
practitioners report that the level of acceptance of the results of a computer war-
game is oen higher, in contrast to human adjudicators (McKenna 2003).

The Evolution of Business Wargaming

Following the evolution of wargaming in the military and political context, it
seems obvious that aer a certain period the business world would discover this
tool; particularly as many of the elements of classical military wargames seem
transferable. Instead of enemy armies, a company faces competitors; instead of
territory, companies bale over market share and profits; instead of artillery and
other weapon systems, companies use people, finance, facilities, raw materials,
know-how, marketing tools, production processes, and innovation, just to name
a few of the resources; and in the place of a referee judging individual military
actions, a market component will be the ultimate judge of the success or failure
of the individual offerings.
T H E H I S TO RY O F WA R G A M I N G 19

One of the first mentions of the application of wargaming methodology in

a business context appeared in 1958 in an article in the Harvard Business Review
(Andlinger 1958). The terms used at the time were “business gaming” and
“management simulation” and these tools were primarily used for training
and education purposes, building on the experiences gained from military
in wargaming. Andlinger broadly classifies wargames in two categories:
“general” and “functional” games. General games aim to look at the company
as a whole and focus on top management decisions determining the course
of the enterprise, whilst functional games, as their name suggests, focus on
particular functional areas of a company. Driven by specific questions from an
operations research perspective, functional business wargames explore topics
such as optimizing production, finance, or marketing efforts.

A year prior to the Harvard Business Review article, the American

Management Association (AMA) was credited with the development of the
first widely known business game, called The AMA Top Management Decision
Simulation (Kalman and Rhenman 1975). The AMA game involved teams of
players, representing the officers of different firms, making business decisions
for their respective firm. Typically five teams, composed of three to five players
each, had to decide on the production of a single product, which had to be sold
in a competitive environment against the offerings of the other four teams. The
simulation covered a time span of five to ten years of actual company operation
and in order to make the computational burden for the participants bearable,
the AMA game allowed each company team only a limited number of decision
alternatives. A mathematical model, supported by limited computing power,
was used to evaluate and calculate how the teams performed in relation to
one another and what the likely outcome in the market place would be. Based
on the success of the AMA game, a number of corporations and educational
institutions in the US used the game and several new games were developed.
The main focus of these early business games was on providing a learning
experience, beer preparing existing and potential managers for running a
company.

During the next twenty or so years this focus did not really change until in
the mid-1980s when wargaming was adapted towards business requirements in
a more strategic context (Ginter and Rucks 1984; Treat et al. 1996). Initially used
for education and training, business wargaming now focused on providing
competitive intelligence, an activity primarily concerned with analyzing the
competitors of a company, by beer understanding the competition and their
likely response to certain actions or inactions of a company in the market. More
recently, the application of business wargaming has been expanded and now
20 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

covers such areas as strategy formulation or validation of existing strategies

(Kurtz 2003).

The global strategy and technology-consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton

was the first to establish a full-scale wargaming team, consisting of several
ex-Navy and ex-military experts, who systematically developed the scope of
possible business applications. The firm has conducted hundreds of simulations
both in the US and around the globe, not only for businesses, but also for
numerous governmental and non-profit organizations. The scope of their
applications ranges from strategy formulation and validation to crisis response
and enterprise resilience, visioning, and change management as well as the
traditional education and training. Interestingly, over the course of the last few
years, the firm has developed a scaled-down version of wargaming to be used
in its recruiting efforts at top tier universities and business schools.

In the next chapter, we will take a closer look at the anatomy of a typical
business wargame and highlight some of the key success factors for the
successful setup of games as well as the extraction of the critical lessons learned
to help significantly improve the way companies think about their market, their
competitors and ultimately themselves.
CHAPTER
Business Wargaming
Methodology
2
The beginning is the most important part of the work.

To build upon the above quote from Greek philosopher Plato (The Republic,
Book II, 377B), it is very important to be very clear and focused about what
a wargame is set up for in the first place. The amount of preparatory work
going into the development of a wargame depends on the type of simulation
and the complexity of the questions to be answered. Among other factors, the
amount of research, gamebook preparation, model development, duration of
the simulation and need for professional coaching and moderation ultimately
drive the overall cost of developing and running a wargame. In this chapter
we will look at the mechanics of a typical wargame for strategy validation
purposes. We are referring here to a business wargaming design which appears
to be most commonly applied (e.g. Treat et al. 1996; Kurtz 2002, 2003). Other
types of games, concerning design and purpose, will be explained in parts two
and three, which will give a more complete overview of what it takes to design,
prepare, execute, debrief and document a wargame.

What is Business Wargaming?

Before geing into the inner workings of a business wargame, we should spend
some time to discuss what business wargaming is and what it is not. Many
types of “games” exist and consequently there are a number of misconceptions
about the process.

Let us start with what a business wargame is not. Business wargames are
not your typical business school games. The kind of exercise in which you
are asked to optimize the resources of a company by deciding how much you
want to invest in advertising vs. production capacity or whether you should
produce widgets type A instead of type B and at which price you will sell them.
Such business school games, while admiedly useful in educational seings,
are usually based on computer simulations with a set number of parameters,
22 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

interlinked with pre-set sensitivities. Everyone who has ever participated in

such a game will probably admit that aer playing two or three iterations, they
gathered a good sense for the sensitivities and an understanding on which
parameters to focus on in order to maximize the results. The boom line is that
such games only have a finite number of lessons and, in the case of computer-
based simulations, the answers are oen built into the system. Their value for
a top management team facing a difficult or disruptive situation or wanting to
gain new insights into their business is virtually non-existent.

Rubel (2006) points out that computer simulations per se are not wargames;
wargames require human players, maybe assisted by a computer. It can be
argued that the kind of knowledge produced in computer simulation and
the kind produced by a business wargame are different in nature. While a
computer simulation appears not to produce new knowledge or insight (maybe
the designing phase does), a role-playing simulation, like a business wargame,
generates new knowledge through the social interaction of its participants
(Fuller and Loogma 2007).

When we talk about business wargaming, we refer to a tailor-made

simulation, which always starts with a blank sheet of paper; something that is
entirely specific to a single organization that cannot be taken from firm to firm
or sold over and over again. Each simulation is put together around a specific
set of questions to which the business is seeking answers, such as:

• Our industry is consolidating. Following several moves by competitors,

there seem to be no good partners le. What should we do? Prominent
examples for these types of seings are the airline industry in the
early 1990s, which moved quite suddenly from a competition of
national carriers to a competition of alliances. Other examples
would be the mega-mergers in the automotive, pharmaceutical or
media industries, or the ongoing quest in almost any industry to
find suitable acquisition targets that would ultimately create value
and not add to the long list of failed integrations.
• Is the business model in our industry changing? Does this mean that
we will lose control over our market? Should we embrace new models,
defend the status quo or both? Examples here include the music
industry and the threat from legal and illegal online models; the
pharmaceutical industry and the threat from generic drugs; or
incumbent telecommunications or energy providers in liberalized
markets. Especially the recent discussions about environmental
protection and whether and how sustainability aspects should be
B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G M E T H O D O LO G Y 23

built into the way of doing business are other fields of application,
e.g. when looking at the future of power trains in motor vehicles.
• Is our industry/product becoming increasingly commoditized? If and how
can we still make money? Should we close down and focus on alternative
business opportunities? Prominent examples here are the market for
personal computers, mobile phone services, energy, or chemicals.
• How resilient is our business? What happens if? Where is the next
threat coming from? How much should we invest in countermeasures?
Questions like these have their roots in military scenarios, and
yet they are increasingly important for businesses, industries and
entire economies. Examples include more politically flavored
simulations, such as how shis in global power will develop, the
impact of terrorist actions on economies, and also companies.

These are some of the main questions that can be addressed with wargaming.
All of these situations are too complex to answer with conventional forms of
analysis. Wargaming is a suitable means to explore them, because it combines
elements of human decision making (and the inherent level of uncertainty) with
a set of quantitative measures that allow you to gauge “what happens if.” The
methodology allows managers to test existing or newly conceived strategies in
a dynamic, yet safe, environment. In doing so, they can save time, money and
grief, gaining confidence in their plans via a relatively inexpensive simulation
when compared to the cost of executing a potentially flawed strategy in the
real world.

How Does Business Wargaming Work?—Teams

Any business wargame contains at least four elements: the company team, the
competitor teams, the market team and the control team (Figure 2.1).

THE COMPANY TEAM

The company team represents the company conducting the wargame and
aiming to answer the key strategic questions. The team is made up of senior
managers from within the company and typically starts the game by executing
its current strategic plan. In some instances, where a company deliberately wants
to test alternative courses of action, the team may execute another hypothetical
strategy or test an alternative business plan. In executing its strategy the team
has all the liberty that it would have in the real world. It can form or dissolve
alliances, conduct mergers and acquisitions or do anything else as long as it is
24 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

within the boundaries of reality and within their resources.

THE COMPETITOR TEAMS

Like the company team, the competitor teams are staffed with senior managers
from within the company. One interesting aspect is that these managers
are forced to adopt the role of their own competitors and view their own
company from this perspective. In order to facilitate the transition into their
new role, they receive a copy of the so-called “gamebook,” which gives them
the most important facts about the company they are required to play as well
as information on any other team. Coupled with the knowledge of their own
company’s weaknesses, they become formidable adversaries to the company
team. Typically only the most significant competitors are represented by
individual competitor teams. Smaller competitors are either consolidated into
a group of competitors or represented by the control team.

THE MARKET TEAM

The market team represents the market participants and assumes the role
of judging the relative aractiveness of all of the companies’ offerings. This
team is typically made up of market experts, who may come from within the
client organization, may be external experts or, as is most oen the case, may
be a combination of the two. The market team forms a focus group that uses

Strategy/Offerings

Company team

Competitor 1 Market Team

Competitor Competitor 2
teams Control Team

Competitor 3

Feedback

Figure 2.1 Elements of business wargaming

Source: Treat et al. 1996, 48
B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G M E T H O D O LO G Y 25

research, experience and intuition ultimately to award market shares. The team
makes its call based on hard data, which is delivered by the competitor teams
at specified times during the simulation, but also on the understanding of how
well the message is communicated—the unique selling proposition (USP) of
the respective teams in relation to one another and the rest of the market.

THE CONTROL TEAM

The control team “runs” the show. It is made up of wargaming experts,

industry experts and typically the chief executive officer (CEO) or other senior
executives from the company. Its first role is to structure and run the simulation,
i.e. make sure that the schedule is adhered to, that the rules are observed and
that presentations and feedback are given in the appropriate fashion and level
of detail/structure. The team also calculates the quantitative variables based on
the feedback from the market team and provides the company and competitor
teams with the outcome, which typically includes the major positions of an
income statement or cash flow. In some instances the control team will also
introduce so-called “shocks,” which are interventions to force the teams to
address certain topics or go down a certain direction. In a product launch
seing this could be the announcement of a product defect calling for a recall,
or concerns that emerge about the safety of a product requiring some special
approach to communication. Another very important function of the control
team is to adopt the role of all other stakeholders not explicitly played in
the simulation. Such stakeholders can be smaller competitors, regulators, or
interest groups. The experts of the control team, faced with a proposed deal for
an acquisition will take the role of the board of directors of the target company
and decide whether they would accept the deal or not.

How does Business Wargaming Work?—Interaction

The above are the basic elements of a wargame. Now let’s take a closer look at
how these teams interact and how the simulation is actually played out.

A business wargame typically evolves over three moves, simulating a certain

timeframe in real life (Figure 2.2). This timeframe can vary from a few months
to several decades. The first move usually starts in the present and is based
on all the available data at that time (i.e. now or any other determined point
in time). A move is a decision cycle, which begins with the competing teams
reviewing their strategy and taking their first actions towards an outcome.
Such actions can be anything from launching new products or services out
into the market, to forging alliances, investing in capacity or new markets, or
26 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

2008 2010 2012 2016

Move 1 Move 2 Move 3

Foresight

Figure 2.2 Example of an actual timeframe simulated over three game

moves

running communication campaigns, such as communicating with the customer

or lobbying other stakeholder groups. The decisions taken are documented
in templates and provided to the market and control teams as hard data on
which to base their decisions. In addition to this “input,” the teams have the
opportunity to present their offering in front of the market team (and everyone
else in the market, e.g. competitor teams and the control team representing all
other market participants as well). In this way—as in the real world—at certain
points of the simulation, all parties involved have the same level of information
on which they base their next steps.

The customers, played by the market team, will provide feedback and gauge
the relative aractiveness of the various offerings by the company and competitor
teams and award market shares. The control team then consolidates the hard data
(such as price points, investments) and the so data, in essence the perception of
the market team/customers, in terms of what this would mean in numbers. The
team calculates the overall size of the market, segment sizes, segment shares,
profit margins etc. Due to the limited time and resources to run all the details,
quantitative feedback will only include some key figures, e.g. of profit and loss
statements, capital expense calculations or other key performance indicators
(KPIs). The feedback from the control team represents the starting point for each
team in the subsequent move. If, for example, one team “buys” market shares by
dumping its products on the market for free, they most likely will make a major
share gain in terms of new customers, but completely lose out on profitability. In
this example, the team may find their choice of actions curtailed at the beginning
of the second move as a result of lacking funds.

How does Business Wargaming Work?—Moves

A single move may take as long as a whole day. Figure 2.3 shows an overview
of activity over the course of a simulation day.
B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G M E T H O D O LO G Y 27

Morning Afternoon Evening

Client teams and

competitor teams Market team reacts to Control team calculates
formulate a strategy and strategy and offerings impact of decisions
create market offerings

Move

Figure 2.3 Overview of activities on a typical game day

Source: Oriesek and Friedrich 2003, 69

Typically in the morning the company and competitor teams will be

analyzing the data and additional information available, prepare their
offerings, strike deals, fill out templates and prepare their presentations for the
plenary session around lunchtime. In the aernoon and evening the market
and control teams get to work and calculate the market shares and quantitative
impact, while the company and competitor teams are already working on
their preparation for the next move. They continue to do so aer they get the
results from the market and control teams, and will adjust their preparation if
necessary. Overnight, detailed results in the form of profit and loss statements
and key data are calculated and reports are prepared as a starting point for the
next move in the morning of the following day.

It is important that the teams, with exception of the plenary sessions, are
separated and do not have any direct exchange with each other, e.g. by walking
the hallways or visiting each other in their breakout rooms. All communication
with competitors, alliance partners, acquisition targets etc. during the
preparation phases must be channeled via email and by default always gets
copied to the control team. The laer, as in the real world, will disseminate
certain information, such as an agreed alliance between two competitors, to the
other participants in order to make sure information equality is maintained.
Aer all, such information will be disseminated via the media once a deal has
been agreed upon. What may happen, however, is that the control team choose
to pose some restrictions on a deal, for example, when anti-trust regulations
would be violated or regulators would limit acquisitions to only parts of the
business or impose the obligation to sell off other parts.

Aer all moves have been played out, a first assessment is made of what the
lessons learned have been. The input is typically gathered in a plenary session
28 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

during which participants reflect on what worked well in their strategies and
what did not. The key insights from the game are gained from the mutual
assessment of individual experiences focusing on the initial questions. In any
case, aer this initial assessment, a team of wargaming experts will dive deeper
into the data gathered through the simulation and evaluates other sources such
as the email traffic. The advantage of using email communication is that every
message is logged and can be retrieved in the order in which it was sent out.
Who was talking to whom about what can be traced. With this type of analysis
trends or paerns can be identified, such as, for instance, when all players
in the business wargame during a certain move aim to close similar types of
acquisition or alliances. The detailed insights are usually consolidated in a
report and presented about a week later to the sponsor of the game including
recommendations for adjustments of the initial strategy.
CHAPTER
The Relevance of
Business Wargaming
in Strategy 3
There is a slightly odd notion in business today that things are moving
so fast that strategy has become an obsolete idea … that all you need is
to be flexible or adaptable … but if you do not develop a strategy of your
own you become part of someone else’s!

The above quotation from famous futurist and trend researcher Alvin Toffler
(2000) captures some interesting aspects about strategy in today’s context.
The first half of the quotation reflects the general assumption that strategic
planning is a long and inflexible process unable to cope with fast-changing
environments. In the second part Toffler points to the fact that your ability to
control your own future is entirely depending on the quality of your strategy.
So, on the one hand, the world has become so complex that we are tempted to
shi into a reactive mode, yet there is a desire for “hard data” and clear direction
and therefore a multitude of management tools for dealing with complex and
dynamic environments have been developed.

Bain & Company’s annual survey of management tools (Rigby 2005)

identifies strategic planning as the most popular and widely used tool in
management. Grant (2003) concludes, drawing on his own study and on other
recent evidence, that strategic planning continues to play a central role in the
management systems of large companies, which of course has implications for
strategic management.

Strategy and Tactics: A Military Point of View

Before we take a closer look at some tools for strategic planning, we should
investigate in more detail what we mean when we talk about strategy. There is
no commonly accepted definition for the terms “strategy,” “strategic leadership”
or “strategic planning.” Of course there are many views and numerous books
have been wrien about the topic, but whenever we have conducted wargaming
workshops with business school students, or with experienced business people,
30 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

we start the briefing session with the question: “What is strategy?” Usually aer
a few seconds of irritation and looks around the room, one participant raises
his or her hand and says something like: “Strategy is necessary to reach the
company’s objectives.” Other statements revolve around “Strategy is a game
plan,” “Strategy is the basis for sustained success” or “Strategy is obtaining and
maintaining competitive advantage.”

Strategy has served as a means to regulate the behaviour of groups,

organizations and states in pursuing their vital interests, especially in the case
of armed conflict. An interesting view on strategy, formulated by two retired
military leaders, Lieutenant General (ret.) Josef Feldmann and Colonel (ret.)
Paul Krüger (2007) of the Swiss Army, describes strategy as a bridge between
where an organization stands today and where it wants to be tomorrow. In
their view the pillars of the bridge are the values of the organization, which
provide guidance for how this bridge is built between the now and the future.
In this sense strategy (or the bridge) provides the directions for how to reach a
certain vision or objective (see Figure 3.1).

If we simply look up “strategy” in the dictionary, we are likely to find a

definition (Merriam-Webster’s 1994, 1162) such as:

Strategy (Greek „strategia“), the science and art of military command

exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions.

In this sense, strategy refers to the deployment of troops. Based on

information about the environment, e.g. in terms of terrain, light, weather,
axes, selements, waterways, as well as information about the enemy, e.g. in
terms of size, strength, means at his disposal, location, timing, command and
Strategy

Today Tomorrow
Vision

Values

Figure 3.1 Strategy as a bridge

T H E R E L E VA N C E O F B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G I N S T R AT E G Y 31

control structures, the military leader makes certain assumptions of where his
adversary is most likely to strike, where he is most vulnerable and what is likely
to happen next. Based on all this “hard” information and “so” assumptions,
as well as the knowledge about his own strengths and weaknesses, he will
decide exactly how he wants to confront his adversary and where he wants his
troops to be at the outset and during bale. In any case he will seek the most
advantageous position in terms of his ability to develop impact on target. He
will consider the factors of force, location, time and information to obtain an
advantage over his enemy before actual contact.

Once the enemy has been engaged, aention shis from strategy to
tactics. Now, the deployment of troops is central. The strategic plan foresees a
specific course of action, but its execution may be jeopardized by the enemy’s
response in terms of unexpected heavy resistance or unforeseen action. In such
situations, the leader needs quickly to grasp the problem at hand and decide on
an alternative course of action. If the leader is well prepared, he may be able to
resort to prepared contingency plans, if not or in the case of complete surprise,
he needs to improvise.

Although these explanations are military in nature, we believe that they

are true in the business world as well. The means may not be as deadly, but the
basics are the same. Through strategy we develop a game plan, watch over its
execution and lead the actions of our organization and, yes, there are clearly
situations where we need to improvise. Perhaps the simplest way to put it is
when we say that strategy deals with three main questions:

1. What is the objective or vision you want to achieve with your

business or organization?

2. What needs to be done to reach this objective? (game plan for

execution/bridge)

3. What are the obstacles that may get in the way and what can you
do about them?

The answer to question 3 should identify obstacles from within the

company, from competitors, but also the larger environment such as legislation,
stakeholder groups, technology and so on.
32 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

The Relevance of Strategic Planning and Scenario

Planning
Figure 3.2 displays a typical strategic planning process, basically (1) seing
objectives, (2) analyzing the environment and the company, possibly including
scenarios and then (3) developing a set of strategic options, which if pursued,
are refined to a level of detail which will allow for proper execution. Aside
from finding answers to the three main questions, the important thing is that
at the end of the process a strategic plan will always be chosen, which then
is executed. But this is exactly where the greatest weakness of such a linear
approach lies. By choosing a plan, the assumption is that aer grinding all the
data and collecting all available information, the plan is the single best answer
and thus course of action to obtain the company objective. Strategic planning
processes are a good way to understand past trends and allow extrapolation
of these trends into likely future developments, but they are certainly not
foolproof.

In a more sophisticated planning process the selection of the final plan may
come aer more or less elaborate scenario planning. The development of the
scenario technique dates back to the 1950s when Herman Kahn of the RAND
Corporation developed the first scenarios. In the 1970s Royal Dutch/Shell
developed the scenario technique further into what is nowadays known as
scenario planning, connecting the scenario technique with strategic planning.
The main aim of scenarios is to identify existing trends and key uncertainties
and combine them in pictures of the future, not as a means of covering all
eventualities but in order to discover the boundaries of potential outcomes
(Schoemaker 1992), cover generically different futures, and think about the
unthinkable.

Objectives? Obstacles? Game Plan?

Formulate Analysis / Develop Develop

strategic Scenario strategic strategic
objectives development options plans

Strategy selection

Figure 3.2 A typical strategic planning process

T H E R E L E VA N C E O F B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G I N S T R AT E G Y 33

However, the former head of the scenario planning unit at Royal Dutch/Shell,
Kees van der Heijden, points out that scenario planning actually developed out
of military wargaming:

As a strategic planning tool, scenario techniques are rooted in the

military, where strategists have employed scenarios throughout history.
Military organizations face considerable uncertainty in areas where
decisions have to be taken fast and where the consequences are critical.
They have used scenario planning, in an organizational context, in the
form of what are known as ‘war game’ simulations. History has taught
war leaders that preparation is crucial for success; war games improve
the level of preparedness. (van der Heijden et al. 2002, 121)

Undoubtedly, scenario planning can help improve decision making, because

it helps to think in alternatives; to assign probabilities to expected future
outcomes and to formulate a comprehensive and cohesive strategy and even,
ideally, contingency plans. Even with all these advantages scenario planning is
still limited. This is because any scenario is fundamentally biased by the views
of the person or people, who have developed the scenario in the first place and
therefore is limited to the extent of their imagination. Furthermore, depending
on the approach taken, scenarios can be nothing more than rational and safe
extensions of the past and oen classify likely outcomes along simple linear
views of reality, whereas the real world involves complexity and multiple
dimensions. While scenario planning is already a solid improvement of linear
strategy development processes, nobel laureate Thomas Schelling hit the nail
on the head when he supposedly said: “There is nothing harder to do than to
come up with a list of all the things you have not thought about.”

The Advantages of Business Wargaming

We are not saying that strategic planning processes or scenario planning are
totally inadequate, but we know that by applying wargaming in the strategy
definition process, we can test the strategic plan, whichever way it was originally
put together, for its robustness under close to real-life conditions and thus
significantly improve the outcome and reliability of the final strategic plan. We
may also involve the participants, foster organizational learning (Senge 1990),
and with luck challenge the mental models of those involved.

One of many advantages of business wargaming is the active involvement of

participants. We in particular like the following quote from Paul Bracken (2001,
34 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

18), professor at the Yale School of Management, concerning the application of

business wargaming in strategy formulation:

The problem with many strategy techniques is that they are too cold
and bloodless. They fail to capture human emotions, and because of
their icy rational character, people don’t really pay aention to them.
They are soon forgoen, and they make no lasting impact on the
organization. Gaming is a profound learning experience, one that is not
soon forgoen.

During the course of a wargame the dynamics of a market and of the

competitors will be analyzed, anticipated and experienced, by simulating a
likely future over the course of several days. As a wargaming exercise evolves,
the participants are exposed to creatively thinking about the future, which
essentially will also expose them to some of the early signals of imminent
change, which then may be relevant for the particular organization or the
industry as a whole.

For business, as customary in the military, we are proposing that whenever

time and resources permit, wargaming should be used to test a strategic plan
before puing it into action and making significant investments. Van der
Heijden (1998, 351) summarizes the relevance of testing a strategy in scenarios,
which is also applicable for testing strategies by use of wargaming:

Strategy is the art of making choices—investing both for current and

future success. To understand these choices clearly, organizations
should identify a business idea and test it in substantially different sce-
narios. This process can help an organization to develop a business idea
that will serve it well as the future evolves.

The cost of a wargame, although not trivial, is far outweighed by the

potential cost of a (wrong) decision made too quickly (and once made hard, to
stop or reverse) and without exploring the full impact of a strategic plan. For
example, if a company uses a wargame to test whether an intended acquisition
will really lead to the expected synergies and advantages in the market that
are assumed in the business plan, it may find out that it simply won’t work
and scraps the idea all together. In the case of a mobile network operator in
Germany, who wanted to test its third generation mobile launch based on the
then new UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunication System), in essence
enabling mobile data, it helped them to pinpoint weaknesses in their original
T H E R E L E VA N C E O F B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G I N S T R AT E G Y 35

plan and beer address otherwise underserved customer segments (the

example is described in more detail in Chapter 4).

The history of military wargaming illustrates how wargaming was used by

military planners throughout the centuries as a tool to cope with increasingly
complex and dangerous environments and how the tool can be effectively
applied in order to reduce the risks associated with strategic miscalculations
(Ginter and Rucks 1984). Although business is not in all aspects equal to war,
many of the same problems prevail and thus the application of wargaming and
its potential benefits are significant.

Overall, the benefits of applying business wargaming can be summarized

as follows:

• actively involves the participants;

• anticipates future developments in the simulation;
• multiple perspectives are included;
• multiple ways of learning;
• has team-building effects;
• provides a dynamic simulation.
This page intentionally left blank
PART II

Applications of
Business Wargaming
This page intentionally left blank
Introduction

Part II is designed to provide you with an overview of the many applications

of the business wargaming methodology. Bracken (2001) highlights, for
instance , three types of wargames: technology integration games, path games,
and shadow games. The purpose of the technology integration game is to
find out in advance which obstacles may hinder the deployment of new IT
systems, while the path game simulates a long period of time. The involved
teams assess the moves of other teams and play restarts for another period.
The objective is that the teams cannot start with a clean slate; rather they are
exposed to their earlier decisions. Shadow games allow a senior executive to
play out highly sensitive strategies without being involved, participating in
the wargame indirectly, through an agent. Besides Bracken’s view there are
other categorizations (e.g. Bell 2003; Watman 2003). These mainly emphasize
the relevance of wargaming for training and education and for the practise of
all sorts of decision-making tasks. In addition, for instance, Vanderveer and
Heasley (2005) emphasize the value of applying business wargames in the
context of marketing.

Since this book is intended to provide a pragmatic introduction to business

wargaming for practicing managers (and other interested parties), we have
broadly categorized business wargames by fields of application. While this list
may not be exhaustive, we believe the most important applications are:

• strategy testing
• crisis response preparation
• developing foresight
• change management
• training and recruiting
• some, as yet, undeveloped applications, such as reputation manage-
ment and strategic early warning systems.
40 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

We have enclosed a good selection of real-life case studies; some of them

well published others in part still confidential, to provide more insight into
what business wargames can and cannot do. In order to honor confidentiality,
not all the case studies can be discussed in the same level of detail. For the
areas of reputation management and strategic early warning, we offer our view
about how these applications might look like. In Chapter 10 a different view on
designing a business wargame is offered.

We have structured each of the cases on the following basis:

• point of departure
• objectives and key questions
• game setup
• lessons learned.
CHAPTER
Strategy Testing
4
The most prominent application of business wargaming to date, clearly rooted
in its primary military application, has been in the field of strategy testing. The
idea is to take an existing strategic plan—which, as we have seen in Chapter 3,
could have been developed in a simple or more elaborate form—and test it in a
competitive environment in order to discover weaknesses, explore assumptions
or simply find out whether it works or not. This may be projected into the
future by simulating two to three strategic moves. Depending on the industry
this may represent only a few months (technology-driven companies) or up to
several years (more traditional process industries).

Why Strategy Testing?

One of the key challenges for today’s managers is the formulation and execution
of a strategy capable of adapting to the many complexities of a competitive
environment and still generates value. Eden and Ackermann (1998) established
that in most organizations the success of a strategy depends partly on its
planning context. To ensure that a strategy is indeed robust, it should best be
tested against a number of possible futures and include a number of options,
which should mirror the context in which the organization is currently and will
likely be operating going forward.

In the past scenarios have been perceived as being the preferred tool for
strategy testing. Van der Heijden (1998) argues that the benefit of testing
a strategy is to discover problems and difficulties well in advance of their
becoming painfully evident. While we agree with this statement, we believe
that wargaming has clear advantages over scenarios. Scenarios are limited
by the imagination of their developers, who try to capture every aspect, yet
are limited by what they know and what they can imagine as individuals.
Whilst wargaming typically includes some likely scenarios, as hypotheses to
be tested, they go one important step beyond the scenario in that they create
an environment in which real people can explore all possibilities within the
42 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

boundaries of reality and their imagination in order to reach their objectives.

In this way, the scenario is no longer constrained by the brains of only the
developers, but will develop iteratively, drawing on the actions and reactions
of all participants and thus mirroring more closely what would happen in the
real world where more than just the people in the strategy department are
driving decisions.

Gilad (2004) states that business wargaming is the most effective managerial
tool for assessing competitors’ response to a changing industry. In his view, a
wargame can help managers to predict their competitors’ most likely moves.
In this sense business wargames allow experimentation and learning with
different strategies, without the risks of the significant cost of failure of the
real world. By framing the scope and focus of the wargame early in the design
phase, more or less emphasis can be placed on specific competitors, customers
or other stakeholders. The trick is to narrow the focus down to a manageable
set of constituents, which are then examined in detail rather than trying to
simulate everything. Done well, a wargame can offer invaluable insights into
customer and competitor behaviors and other relevant developments which
would otherwise go unnoticed. The inclusive experience, which offers a CEO
or a company the opportunity for many top managers to learn the lessons
for themselves, is of significant benefit. Aer all, insight gained via personal
experience far outweighs pre-packaged conventional wisdom whether
presented in a business book, a course or by a consultant.

These are the benefits of a dynamic team approach:

• uncovers weaknesses in the original strategic plan;

• provides beer understanding of competitors and their possible
actions;

• encourages participants to think creatively about the future and

thus overcome organizational blindness and revitalize the thinking
about their own business;

• teaches participants to learn to trust their own strategy, because

they have seen what works and what doesn’t;

• sharpens awareness amongst participants of the wider environment,

team dynamics and the issues critical to the success of their own
business.
S T R AT E G Y T E S T I N G 43

These aspects which make the case for business wargaming are reflected
in the following three case studies. The first case example describes an airline
company in the late 1990s struggling, in common with many of its competitors,
to find answers as to how to best deal with the dramatic developments in its
industry.

The second case study explores the experience of a European mobile

operator, faced with the dilemma of introducing new service offerings following
the decision to invest heavily in a new technology. How might they enter the
market to recoup their investment and what were competitors likely to do?

The third case study illustrates briefly how the General Staff College in
Switzerland uses wargaming to test the robustness of concepts of operations.

Case Study: Alliance Strategy for Airlines1

This wargame was run with a leading European airline, desperately looking for
answers to complexity in its environment and seeking reassurance that it was
doing the right thing. The aim was to test the viability of the current strategy,
in particular in the light of how to position itself within the context of global
alliances.

POINT OF DEPARTURE

During the 1970s Open Skies legislation was introduced in the US, which led
to deregulation and greater competition not only in the US, but also in Europe
and much of the rest of the world. The European Economic Area and later the
European Union adopted a system of free connectivity between destinations in
its territory which meant the competition on many routes grew significantly,
dropping prices and squeezing profits. With lower prices airfares had become
affordable to a wider group of customers who increasingly viewed air travel
as a commodity to buy on the basis of lowest price. In this environment, the
common strategy for airlines was to forge alliances, such as Star Alliance or
One World, in order (a) to lock customers in by providing them with a wider
network through which they might reach more destinations without having to
go outside of the alliance and (b) because it allowed them to realize economies
of scale, including co-sharing flights, thus increasing seat load factors; as well
as realizing benefits in other areas such as maintenance, purchasing, training
and so on. During this period competition gradually shied from the level of

1 Information taken from a public speech by George E. Thibault, then Principal with Booz Allen
Hamilton, at the Swiss General Staff College, 2001, and Lüchinger (2001).
44 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

national airlines to that of alliances as airline mega-merges were prohibited by

regulators.

The central strategic question for many airlines, including the one that
commissioned the game of this case study was: should they join one of the
existing alliances, stay independent or even be so bold as to lead the formation
of a new alliance? Further questions explored whether the airline would be
strong enough to survive outside the existing alliances; what would happen to
its negotiating influence with any alliance the longer it postponed the decision;
and how might the business model and the economics within the airline
industry be likely to change in the future?

Conventional methods, such as market analysis and scenario planning tools,

were perceived as inadequate for fully exploring the forces in the market and
no united view existed within the firm as to how best handle the challenges. As
a result the airline decided to commission consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton
to run a wargame with them and find the answers to its many questions.

OBJECTIVES AND KEY QUESTIONS

Aer a series of in-depth interviews with top client representatives, the

following objective and key questions were identified: provide and train the
top management team with insights on how to think about the future of the
airline business and how best to position the company in order to compete
successfully in the changing environment. More specifically:

• Can the airline succeed with its current strategy in Europe and the
rest of the world?

• To what extent might the airline realistically operate outside any

major alliance? Failing that, whom should it ideally link up with
and what was its bargaining position?

• Which are the most important markets and client segments?

• How should a national airline position itself versus regional and

global competitors?

• How should the network, fleet and capacity be organized?

• Is the current distribution model still sufficiently robust to succeed

in this environment?
S T R AT E G Y T E S T I N G 45

GAME SETUP
The overall preparation for the game took about three months, in order to
assemble the necessary information, decide on the setup and structure and the
game process. The final setup comprised six teams (see Figure 4.1), including
the client airline, five competitor teams, three of which focused on existing
alliances with the respective lead airline and two which represented airlines in
a similar situation as the client. The setup also included a market and a control
team. The market team represented various customer segments whilst the
control team, besides structuring the simulation, also assumed the role of the
regulators and all other players, which were not explicitly played as part of the
competitor teams. The wargame was played out in three moves, each covering
a three-year period, from 1999 to 2008.

The game opened with the situation as it presented itself in 1999. This was
characterized by talks between airlines about alliances, US and Asian airlines
in particular, as well as an exploration of anti-trust issues between American
and European partners, which would allow for alliances, but would not allow
mergers and takeovers. The regulatory environment remained stable for moves

Strategy / Offerings

Client/Alliance 4

Airline 1/Alliance 1
Market/Customer

Airline 2/Alliance 2

Competitor
teams Airline 3/Alliance 3 Control

Airline 4

Airline 5

Feedback

3 Moves played

1999 2001 2004 2008

Figure 4.1 Team structure overview

46 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

one and two and was then significantly relaxed for move three to reflect the
paern of other industries. Now mergers, including transcontinental ones,
would be allowed and anti-trust immunity was no longer granted.

And so on one fine morning in March of 1999, the CEO and approximately
50 of his top managers, as well as a group of airline and wargaming experts,
and support staff, gathered at the airline’s headquarters. The managers had
previously received reading briefings to familiarize themselves with the roles
they were to play over the course of the next three days. The day opened with
a briefing session:

• providing an overview of the situation at the start of move one;

• seing the objectives for the simulation; and
• dividing the teams up.

The plenary session was then adjourned and the teams retreated into
their syndicate rooms, each accompanied by an experienced partner from the
consulting firm in the role of coach.

Within the team rooms, materials were studied, conclusions were drawn,
strategies formulated and, inquiries for alliances or other forms of partnerships
were exchanged using an email set up between the teams, and questions were
directed to the control team. Using email as the only means of communication
enabled negotiations to be kept secret until they were revealed to the public,
which either happened in the subsequent plenary session, where every team
had to lay open their plan for the next move or for dissemination through the
control team.

The teams faced clear set schedules and deadlines within which to complete
their strategies, which had to be formulated in a set of templates to ensure
consistency and comparable information between the strategies compiled by
the different teams. Throughout the simulation one major hurdle remained.
Participants were required to challenge and overcome their current mental
models about their company and the industry. This was not particularly easy as
their own CEO had already fixed in his own mind the strategic option he wanted
to pursue. The uncertainty of outcome created throughout the simulation was
one aspect of the process that he and the management teams found particularly
hard to accommodate.
S T R AT E G Y T E S T I N G 47

LESSONS LEARNED
There were plenty of lessons from this wargame. To summarize the most
important:

1. The realization that any existence outside of a major alliance would be

increasingly difficult. As suspected, the network effects, operational
efficiencies and potential cost savings from the economies of scale
put tremendous pressure on national airlines who were too lile to
be global players and too big to be niche players.

2. The bargaining power of any airline wanting to join a major alliance

would decrease the longer it hesitated. The network of the alliances
was becoming more and more dense over time which meant the
value added by any new member would tend to decrease and that
alliances would become more powerful as they aracted more
candidates with the ability to pick and choose their partners. With a
good network coverage, alliances would now shi from increasing
the network by adding new partners to deepening the integration
of the existing partners.

3. The understanding that customers would continue to demand

cheaper fares, beer coverage and become increasingly more
powerful. With so many players out there trying to fill their seats
and competing on price (with the exclusion of select niche players)
the market had fundamentally shied from a cost plus model, in
which airlines had basically dictated prices for tickets, to a model
where customers would indicate what they were willing to pay and
airlines would try to offer the flight while still making a profit.

4. The transatlantic routes had most passengers and were the fastest-
growing and most profitable routes in the world. To do business
on these routes required the ability to feed passengers onto the
transatlantic flights, which was also a driver for controlling the
home market. For this particular client, at the time, Asia did not
have the strategic importance that was generally assumed.

5. Global alliances had already been more or less established and

would not change dramatically going forward. These alliances
would increasingly move to a mode of co-existence rather than
fierce competition, which would help stop the price erosion.

6. With the loosening of regulatory restrictions would come a new

compulsion to adopt a model of even deeper integration by means
48 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

of mergers and acquisitions across borders All the players needed

to be prepared, should regulation change.

As mentioned earlier the CEO was sold on a particular course of action,

which revolved around the formation of a fourth alliance. While basically a
valid option, the question remained whether this would really make sense—
given the remaining candidates for this alliance were in the main oen poorly
operated and weakly positioned—or whether it would be smarter to just join
an existing alliance. The CEO chose to stick with his conviction that the former
was the beer option and aer thanking the consultants decided to do just that
and aer thanking the consultants decided to do just that (Lüchinger 2001).

He continued to establish a new alliance with participation of several

partners of questionable value which substantially eroded the cash base of the
client over the years without ever reaping the benefits from a successful network
of companies. Over time the company became so cash constrained that it went
bankrupt, the alliance was dissolved and parts of the assets were carried over
into a new company, which finally joined one of the formerly existing alliances
relatively recently.

There is no suggestion that wargaming in its own right would have

prevented this outcome, but at least at the time it provided solid indications that
developing their own alliance with the partners still available would prove to
be extremely difficult and should at least have been re-examined thoroughly.

Case Study: 3G Mobile Data Market Entry2

Having paid an enormous amount in the auction for one of the third generation
(3G) mobile telephony licenses in Europe and agreeing to invest a similar
amount into building up the respective infrastructure as a condition to obtain
the license in the first place, a large European mobile operator wanted to
examine whether its current market entry strategy was the right one or if it
needed to be adjusted.

POINT OF DEPARTURE
In 2000 a number of European countries were auctioning off the third generation
(3G/UMTS) mobile licenses to interested mobile network operators (MNOs).
The so called “3G standard,” also known as UMTS, has the advantage over the
second generation (2G) mobile technology that it provides a higher speed for

2 Information taken from Oriesek and Friedrich (2003) and from participant interviews.
S T R AT E G Y T E S T I N G 49

data transmission thus enabling the use of complex multimedia applications.

Depending on whether you are stationary or on the move, the transmission rate
for data can reach as high as 2 Mbit/s and thus basically provides broadband
access on the go, which in turn enhances the potential uses of cell phones or
similar mobile devices to include surfing the web at reasonable speeds, e-
commerce, multimedia applications, video broadcastings, video conferencing
and so on.

Based primarily on the decision by MNOs to secure access to this promising

new technology, in Germany at total of six UMTS licenses were auctioned off
in a fierce bidding war and ultimately representing a tax revenue of about $45
billion to the government. This auction forced the MNOs to assume tremendous
levels of debt, leading experts and financial analysts to express doubts about
the probable success of 3G and whether it would ever recover the sunk cost.
Whilst there was no shortage of ideas for potential applications at the time, no
one knew what the killer applications of the future could or would be.

The wargame was facilitated for a large mobile network operator and the
client company had already developed a market entry strategy for mobile data,
enabled by UMTS. However, a far-sighted executive realized that conducting
a wargame, especially in light of the substantial additional investments in
marketing, product development and other related costs, would probably
make sense to focus the strategy more effectively or at least gain the confidence
that this was indeed the right way to go.

OBJECTIVES AND QUESTIONS

The objective of the wargame was to stress test the existing market entry strategy
especially with respect to potential market developments and competitor
actions, and to uncover any issues or opportunities previously not reflected in
the strategic plan. More specifically:

• Was the company focusing on the right customer segments?

• Were the assumptions relating to the aractiveness of specific
mobile data offerings for specific customer segments correct? If not
– why and could anything be done to change them?
• Would the market accept the proposed pricing models as planned
by the company?
• Were the chosen distribution channels suitable for the rollout and
did the market value the planned customer service offerings?
50 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

• Would it make sense to acquire a second license?

• Would the planned content strategy involving selected partners be
sufficient to differentiate the operator in the market?
• Were the measures to overcome technical hurdles (availability of
handsets, network coverage, handover and so on) sufficient and
how vulnerable would the offering be to substitution (WLAN,
value-added GSM offerings)?
• Was the envisioned schedule appropriate?

GAME SETUP

A total of six competitor teams were planned at the outset of the game, but
this was consequently reduced to four main competitors as some of the initial
competitors either went out of business or decided not to roll out the UMTS
technology. A market and a control team were used to structure and control the
game and represent all other constituents in the market. The competitor teams,
including the client team, consisted of a team leader, a team briefer, a team
communicator, and a business wargaming expert in the role of coach.

The main task of the team leader was to lead the discussion and make sure
that the essential issues were covered. The team briefer was responsible for
creating the slides for the plenary sessions. The team communicator operated
the email communication between the teams and the control team. The expert
coach supported the team leader, making sure the timelines and templates
were followed and that the teams stayed on track and ensuring a more or less
consistent level of quality for the plenary sessions. If necessary the coach would
also act as devil’s advocate and pose open questions to steer the teams back on
track if they diverted onto tangents.

As in the airline example, prior to the wargame, each participant received

a copy of the gamebook consisting of information such as profiles for each
company played, market trends, financials, market research and so on. The
gamebook comprised the basic set of background information that would be the
same for all participants at the outset of the game. Its contents were compiled
using public information from annual reports, news clippings, analyst reports
and other sources. Broadly the gamebook would cover market information
and provide a structured profile for each competitor team including broad
and more specific mobile strategy, financial and market performance, business
activities, service offerings, distribution channels and competitive strengths
and weaknesses.
S T R AT E G Y T E S T I N G 51

The wargame was played out over three moves, played on three days. The
moves were structured along a strategic decision cycle, so move one simulated
the first year or the “market entry,” move two simulated the second year and
how the company positioned its offering versus the competitors in its effort
to solidify its position and market share, and the third move looked further
forward, simulating two to three years in the future, in order to explore how
things would play out following move two and how positions would solidify
in the long run.

The objective for the four competitor teams was to develop and implement
a strategy for launching mobile data services that leveraged 3G technologies.
The strategy comprised detailed action plans with clear decisions about pricing,
product or service design, marketing and promotion as well as distribution. On
top of these basic decisions, the teams also had to quantify their courses of
actions in terms of detailed quantitative statements covering operating costs
and capital expenditures. They did so using templates provided by the control
team.

The teams were allowed to communicate with each other and the broader
market, but again only via email and by simultaneously informing the control
team. The members of the market team started by refining a clear set of customer
preferences, weighted by customer segment. This would serve them as a basis
for evaluating the competitor teams’ offerings in the plenary sessions and rank
their appeal in order to determine the likely changes in market share.

They would do so by using scoring sheets, which could then be input into the
market model run by the control team. Besides running the model, the control
team’s responsibilities also included keeping all teams equally informed about
external events and major developments resulting from competitor actions.
This team also represented the government regulators, board of directors and
any other entities, whose roles could not be played explicitly during the game,
but were needed to give approval of actions, make board decisions etc.

In terms of the market model and financial impact, the simulation started
with the financials, subscriber numbers, churn rates, margins, products, and
distribution networks as they existed in real life for each of the competitor teams.
The first move was dominated by partnerships to set up fixed-mobile bundles
and a strong focus on acquiring content that could be offered on new mobile
platforms. In this situation the large players, who in some instances were part
of a larger telecoms group, which already offered online services through their
internet platforms, were at an advantage, but took some time to establish the
52 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

influence such a leveraging of in-house capabilities would carry. The smaller

players tried hard to strike aractive content deals, but found themselves
oen constrained by the financial resources they were able to commit to such
strategies. In any case, gaining exclusivity on content deals proved to be very
expensive and thus differentiation had to be driven by other levers as well.

During move two, the large players continued to leverage their inhouse
capabilities whilst customers appeared to adapt to the new offerings less quickly
than hoped for. This was in part because, aside from the early adopters, the
general public needed more time and most importantly education on the new
services, headsets and what the value added would be for them. This triggered
a number of creative approaches to the distribution channels, i.e. assistance
educating customers in switching from 2G to 3G offerings.

During the final move, the teams prey much continued their approach
and tried to optimize their position on the basis of what they perceived to be
working or not in the market. Consequently, the teams were largely concerned
with focusing on DSL/UMTS bundles, further marketing UMTS and engaging
in strong partnerships which focused on the corporate market, which seemed
to be less price sensitive and more receptive for the new services. One thing
was striking and remained unchanged each time the simulation was played:
no clear killer application emerged that would significantly drive the adoption
of mobile data services and that would allow the players to generate the huge
cash flow needed to quickly recoup the investments made.

LESSONS LEARNED
The lessons learned from this business wargame can be broken down in three
areas:

• strategy
• sales and marketing and
• communication.

Strategy The wargame revealed that the large-scale players able to use
group synergies between their fixed line and online business could leverage
assets onto mobile platforms. The two large-scale players in particular started
out very cautiously, focusing on defending market shares at the expense of
innovation. Consequently, they lacked a clearly differentiated position and ,
although they enjoyed a cost and synergy advantage, their offerings did not
really shape the market nor drive the future of mobile data.
S T R AT E G Y T E S T I N G 53

The two smaller players, on the other hand, well aware that they had to be
innovative, had considerably more risk appetite and would try out some wacky
scenarios even if the outcomes were not always sure. In some instances these
did not work and in other instances they worked extremely well. Aer some
delay, the large-scale players tried to copy some of the good ideas developed
by the smaller players and aimed at doing so with greater efficiency. This had
the effect of forcing the smaller players to reinvent themselves constantly in
order to stay ahead of the curve and in an effort to develop a loyal (for example,
community-based) customer base.

Another strategic theme that emerged was the significance of being able
to provide an international footprint. The corporate sector, in particular,
appreciated the availability of services wherever their travel would take them.
Good content, driven by handsets that could display it in a user-friendly
fashion and powered by a reliable high-speed network could also drive
customer usage, especially in the case of high-data volume applications, such
as streaming audio and video. For some of the smaller players, a plain vanilla
low-cost strategy seemed to work out equally well. The team developed this as
far as limiting their offering only to selling SIM cards and pre-paid cards via
distribution partnerships.

Sales and Marketing With regards to sales and marketing, the following
themes emerged: for one the quality (highly trained sales reps, prime locations,
availability etc.) of sales channels would be key in bringing complex data
products to the subscriber as such offerings would involve an element of
educating the customer in how to effectively use the service. Derived from this
the proliferation of “low care,” almost self-service sales channels seemed very
unlikely and not worth pursuing. It also turned out that exclusivity of sales
channels (e.g. company-owned stores vs. shelf space with distributors) would
further determine how much control and thus success the company would
have in bringing its products to the end user. Last but not least, it became clear
that the new offerings would need a significant “marketing push” in close
coordination with a powerful sales organization because of the aforementioned
specificities of successfully selling the product/service, but also because it was
not exactly a situation where the market had just been waiting to absorb the
product.

Communication It became obvious that companies would be beer

off concentrating their efforts on marketing one or two select mobile data
applications (i.e. MMS, mobile portals) rather than trying to market everything
at once with the same intensity. The game also revealed that a constant effort
54 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

must be undertaken in order to communicate the “value” of mobile data

offerings to the end user if demand was not to remain low.

Further Lessons Learned In terms of customer segments, the corporate

market proved to be most receptive to value-added services. Further lessons
learned involved pricing, where flat fee structures and simplicity of plans
seemed to trump complex per unit models. Handset design and functionality
also emerged as a key success factor in driving the adoption of the new
technology.

At a macro level, the fit of the new service offerings in the overall product/
service portfolio of the company proved to be important as well. For example,
the launch of single creative products/services was perceived as essential, but
this would be difficult to sell to the youth segment if the overall company were
more associated with business customers or older consumers.

These are some of the general lessons that could be learned from the game.
The specific lessons for the client remain confidential and therefore cannot be
elaborated in detail. However, the insights from this game allowed the client to
refine its initial strategic plan and make valuable adjustments, e.g. by refocusing
on the appropriate market segments with a targeted offering that would help
reduce overall cost and lead to higher adoption rates.

In a Nutshell: Business Wargaming in the Swiss

General Staff College
As in many other nations, the Swiss General Staff College teaches an introduction
to wargaming as part of their curriculum. The aim is that students learn how
to validate the concepts, which they developed during practicing the action
planning process, via means of wargaming.

Under the leadership of the chief of staff the officers are divided up into
different teams. One team plays the enemy (red) and the other team plays
friendly troops (blue). Allowing time for action and reaction, the participants
move tank baalions, infantry units, heavy artillery and other units step-by-
step across the balefield, which is represented by a giant map. Done correctly
the game provides valuable insights about the validity of the assumptions
behind each of the movement decisions. Will the enemy use the routes that we
anticipated? Will logistics work, once our forward elements are so far ahead?
Can air defense elements keep up and ensure freedom of movement? What
happens if we lose all or part of our artillery in a counter-baery shoot out?
S T R AT E G Y T E S T I N G 55

What are the critical elements that need to be synchronized during an aack or
defensive action?

The wargaming can take anywhere from a few hours up to a few days.
Depending on the depth and complexity of the debriefing, the insights can lead
to major changes that will eventually find their way back into the action plans.
While the methodology will basically work at any level of unit from baalion
up, because of the intensive preparation, manpower needed and effort needed
to run it, it is more appropriate for larger units of brigade size and above.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER
Crisis Response
Preparation
5
A second common application of wargaming is crisis response preparation.
In this chapter we will look at three case studies. The first case deals with a
provider of financial information services that wanted to test out what would
happen in the case of a terrorist aack. The findings are for the largest part
confidential, nevertheless we would like to highlight some of the general
conclusions relevant to the topic of crisis response.

This is followed by a well-publicized wargame, conducted at the national

level, in India and several other countries, with the objective of exploring
scenarios around the proliferation of HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus)/
AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) and the likely impact of
countermeasures designed to contain the problem before it became a major
national crisis; with all the associated impact on the population, the economy,
national health systems and so on.

The third case study, which was also well publicized and conducted at a
national level, focuses on the wargame that was run for the US government
shortly aer 9/11. The game examined a likely scenario for a bioterrorism aack
and explored how well prepared the country was, and what further action was
needed to respond more effectively going forward. Before diving into the case
studies, we will briefly cover the implications business wargames can have for
crisis management.

Implications of Business Wargames for Crises

Management
The value of wargaming has been recognized in particular for crisis preparation
(McCown 2005). Crises have become an inevitable, natural feature of our daily
lives. They are no longer an aberrant, rare, random, or peripheral feature of
business. Crises do not happen because a single part of a complex system fails,
they occur because a significant amount of the overall systems fails (Mitroff
58 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

2000). The paradox associated with crisis management is described by Mitroff,

Pearson and Harrington (1996, 59):

We cannot understand fully what we need to do during crises unless

we first understand what we need to do and have in place before a crisis;
at the same time, we can not understand fully what we need to do
beforehand unless we understand what we will be required to do during
a crisis.

Business wargames can help resolve the paradox. As the cases studies will
illustrate, a wargame allows the participants to actually experience how they
themselves or their organization are prepared to deal with crises. Mitroff et al.
(1996) further point out that an important part of effective crisis management
involves training exercises and simulations, which can also be achieved through
a business wargame as a strategic simulation.

A wargame can also be helpful in identifying the strengths and weaknesses

of organizations in dealing with crises; analyzing the crisis response capabilities
of an organization by conducting a crises management audit (Mitroff et al.
1996), in contrast to the participative wargame.

A wide range of studies on crises suggest that they occur because of a

breakdown in the links between organizations, people, and technologies. The
number of organizations and people caught up in a crisis can be significant
which means that it is important to expand the number of relevant stakeholders,
beyond the most immediate group of employees, managers, and unions
(Mitroff et al. 1996). As mentioned before, any crisis results from one or more
critical points in any system either failing or operating at reduced capacity.
While crises themselves can never be fully prevented, several levers exist to
minimize the risk or impact by reducing the likelihood that events occur in the
first place or that one or more events will cause a crisis and by improving the
reaction in case your organization faces a state of pre-crisis or full crisis.

Good preparation is the key to both and can be achieved on the one hand
by improving the system itself; building in redundancies or taking measures
to improve the critical points within the system, and on the other hand by
establishing and embedding procedures that will help reduce reaction time
and deliver results quickly.

The value of applying wargames in preparation for managing in a crisis

lies primarily in the opportunity to understand complex systems beer in
C R I S I S R E S P O N S E P R E PA R AT I O N 59

order to see where the critical points lie and what other problems may cause or
exacerbate a potential crisis, such as blockades in the exchange of information
between key constituents. Wargaming will also allow you to test for scenarios
that are likely and yet include events that you might not have thought of or
that were not recognized for the potentially fatal impact they could have on the
system. Preparing for the expected, but more importantly for the unexpected,
is the key objective to keep in mind when wargaming for crisis response
preparation.

The following case studies show the value of wargames in helping the
participants to understand the importance of working together with multiple
stakeholders to resolve crises and establish partnerships between several
different sectors.

Case Study: Financial Information Provider

POINT OF DEPARTURE

Aer 9/11 many businesses were worried and asked themselves how
vulnerable their operations were to terrorist aacks. One such business was
a large provider of financial information and transaction-related data for the
exchanges between central banks, high street banks and clearing institutions.
The CEO wisely decided to run a series of wargames to understand beer the
vulnerabilities of his business and to enable his top management to understand
these vulnerabilities and train its crisis response organization in dealing with
the problem.

OBJECTIVES AND QUESTIONS

• What would happen to the infrastructure and ability to provide
services in case of terrorist aacks?

• How effective would the crisis response team be in dealing with

the situation?

• How could the company best manage the effects such aacks have
on their customers?

• What were the technical consequences in case of multiple event

scenarios?
60 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

GAME SETUP
While the details remain confidential, the setup consisted of a number of
customer teams (central and high street banks) in different locations all
dependent on the services of the client, plus a client team and the control
team running the simulation. A number of technical experts were involved to
examine the exact implications various incidents would have on the technical
infrastructure and what this would mean in terms of maintaining services for
the clients, likely down times and so on.

The initial scenario involved a terrorist aack on one of the company’s

global data centers. The common belief at the time was that while an aack of
this kind might cause some delays in service delivery, the effect could quickly
be mitigated by switching capacity to a redundant “hot site,” where servers
would be up and running and could take over the load from the affected data
center almost instantaneously.

During the simulation, however, the control team expanded the scenario
to include a second and further aacks on other data centers, which would
seriously reduce the capacity of the system to deliver service up to the point
where the company had to fire up an additional “cold site” in which servers
were in place, but where applications and data needed to be brought up to
speed. The consequences would be serious delays in services and significant
non-availability of systems.

The way the game was played out, the aacks occurred locally and the
company was unaware of them until reports from the media or phone calls
from local clients enquiring why services were not available started coming in.
This posed the first challenge to the client: how to find out what had happened
and get a complete view of the situation and when and how to trigger the crisis
response team.

In the subsequent steps the teams were required to execute emergency

plans, in close cooperation with the technical experts and the management of
the company. As more and more aacks were reported, a strategy was needed
to communicate with customers, employees, the media and to prioritize data
traffic, focusing on the high priority items only while backlogging everything
else for execution once the system capacity would allow to do so.
C R I S I S R E S P O N S E P R E PA R AT I O N 61

LESSONS LEARNED
The first lesson was that no maer how well prepared you think you are, you
can always be beer prepared!

While the client had a designated crisis response team and had also taken
certain technical precautions to prevent serious problems with its service
delivery, the main area for improvement lay in the execution of the process.
This included, firstly, how to find out that there is a problem fast; secondly, how
to gain a speedy picture of the full extent of the problem; thirdly, how to put
into gear the necessary contingency plans; and, finally and most importantly
of all, how to communicate openly and clearly with customers and other
constituents. This communication would need to contain detailed instructions
on how to prioritize data traffic according to importance as well as the ability
to make fairly accurate predictions as to when the backlog would be worked off
and the infrastructure would be running at full capacity again.

While many of these steps may appear commonsensical, the company

found significant room for improvement in execution. And since there is
no opportunity to test systems with a real crisis, wargaming offered a very
effective means of practicing procedures in as close a manner to the real thing as
possible. In the case of this particular client, the wargame helped them become
faster, beer coordinated and technically beer prepared for the possibility of
multiple events; something inconceivable before 9/11, because previous plans
assumed only single incidents. As recent history has shown, terrorist aacks
that have consisted of concerted multiple site events that in their combination
trigger a far greater crisis are more common then previously suspected.

Case Study: HIV/AIDS1

In October of 2003, a collaborative team consisting of consulting firm Booz
Allen Hamilton, the Global Business Coalition under Richard Holbrook, and
the Confederation of Indian Industry conducted a business wargame in New
Delhi. The game, which looked at the HIV/AIDS epidemic in India, explored
what would happen if nothing were done to mitigate the epidemic and sought
to stimulate creative thinking across stakeholders on how the problem could be
solved or at least contained.

1 Information taken from Booz Allen Hamilton (2004).

62 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

POINT OF DEPARTURE
According to India’s National AIDS Control Organization, in 2002 there were
between 3.82 and 4.52 million HIV/AIDS cases in the country. At that time
the primary route of infection (approximately 85 percent) was heterosexual
exposure. The prevalence of HIV/AIDS was high and rising with certain groups,
such as intravenous drug users and homosexuals, at particularly high risk.
Mobile workers, meaning workers traveling through the country from job to job,
effectively constituted the bridge between the high-risk groups and the general
population, fuelling the rapid spread of the disease. During this process the
disease increasingly moved out of the urban centers into the rural communities,
millions of people would have contracted the disease and the expected GDP
loss for the Indian economy would be enormous. Based on this scenario, all
participating constituents realized that something needed to be done.

OBJECTIVES AND QUESTIONS

Using this grim scenario, the goal of the wargame was to stimulate a creative
collaboration between multiple constituents and show how their actions would
potentially alter the scenario—what might prove to be effective (or not). Based
on these insights, specific recommendations and action plans could be put to
work to prevent the uncontrolled spread of the disease that threatened to cost
many lives and seriously damage India’s economy. The participants focused on
five key objectives (Booz Allen Hamilton 2004: 2):

1. “Develop a beer understanding of the long-term economic,

political, and social impacts of HIV/AIDS.

2. Understand the impact of potential interventions.

3. Identify areas for collaboration between the public and private

sectors.

4. Determine how best to mobilize both business and public sector

resources.

5. Identify strategies for all sectors in developing a national HIV/AIDS

response.”

GAME SETUP

The two-day event was jointly developed and hosted by Booz Allen Hamilton,
the Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS (GBC), and the Confederation of
Indian Industry (CII).
C R I S I S R E S P O N S E P R E PA R AT I O N 63

GBC includes over 200 companies worldwide, aiming at meeting the

challenges of the HIV/AIDS pandemic through access to the skills and expertise
of the business sectors. The GBC helps each individual member company to
develop a business plan or strategy for their HIV/AIDS response. In addition,
through its partnerships with non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
governments and civil society, the GBC encourages member companies to
apply their core competencies and products to the response to HIV/AIDS.

The CII is a non-government, not-for-profit industry-led and -managed

organization. It is India’s premier business association, with a direct membership
of over 6,000 organizations from the private as well as public sectors, with an
indirect membership of over 98,000 companies from around 342 national and
regional sectoral associations. The aim of the CII is to create and sustain an envi-
ronment conducive to the growth of industry in India, partnering industry and
government alike through advisory and consultative processes.

Overall more than 200 leaders from industry, government, healthcare

and community organizations and NGOs participated. Business participants
included senior executives from industries including consumer products,
financial services, heavy manufacturing, information technology,
pharmaceuticals, automotive, and energy. Representing the government were
national and state officials from India, as well as officials from the US, the United
Kingdom, Germany, and Australia. Civil society leaders from international
organizations including UNAIDS, Global Fund, Oxfam, Gates Foundation,
Gere Foundation, World Bank, and the World Economic Forum were also in
aendance. Participants also included leaders from domestic NGOs such as
Action India AIDS Project, Family Planning Association of India, India HIV/
AIDS Alliance, and Sahara.

Booz Allen Hamilton developed an approach to the wargame which

included an analytical framework at its core and which leveraged epidemiological
and economic modeling and partnerships with leading academic centers. The
completed model, which incorporated as many as 1,000 variables, offered a new
means of quantifying the proliferation of the disease and more importantly also
the impact actions taken by the public and private stakeholders would have on
this proliferation by altering one or a series of these variables. The wargame
was played over three moves, simulating 10 years into the future.

As depicted in Figure 5.1 a multitude of stakeholders were involved in the

wargame. The participants were divided into nine teams representing industry,
government, and civil society, with a mix of sector representatives assigned to
64 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

each team. This allowed individuals to share their insights and knowledge,
providing all participants with a broader perspective of the impact of the disease
and the consequences of HIV/AIDS interventions and policies. In addition, a
facilitation team from Booz Allen Hamilton oversaw the wargame.

The highly interactive exercise allowed the teams to communicate with each
other via email, in order to seek information, assistance, and funding, and to
form partnerships. The epidemic evolved according to the actions taken by the
teams. Over a series of three moves a span of ten years was simulated, forcing
the participants to address real-world dilemmas, and manage the short- and
long-term consequences of their action.

Over the course of the wargame the teams experienced the consequences
of relying on broad prevention and the education programs as the disease
spread rapidly to the middle class. They dealt with the challenges of funding
constraints as they developed programs that ended up not being implemented
due to lack of resources. During the wargame the participants were faced with
pressure and constraints similar to those in the real world. Not only were they
required to propose effective interventions but also to develop strategies that
could actually be implemented. They quickly discovered that no single sector
would be able to tackle HIV/AIDS without leveraging the knowledge, talents,

Response

Service sector

Manufacturing

Indian national government

Indian state governments

Stakeholder
Donor organizations and governments Control
teams
Field community organizations

Healthcare providers

Consumer product service

Pharmaceutical sector

Feedback

Figure 5.1 Team structure overview

C R I S I S R E S P O N S E P R E PA R AT I O N 65

and resources of others. Developing effective partnerships among diverse

groups of stakeholders presented several challenges (Booz Allen Hamilton
2004):

• Firstly, an initial lack of trust and understanding among the sectors

proved to be a major barrier to successful partnerships. During the
wargame the teams realized that they did not address the broader
group of stakeholders but focused instead on their own employees
and customers. All participants realized that the failure to address
the needs of high-risk and marginalized communities, such as
commercial sex workers, intravenous drug users, and the mobile
population, reduced the effectiveness of their response.
• Secondly, the social and cultural stigma associated with HIV/AIDS
proved detrimental to prevention, testing, and treatment. The social
and cultural mores of India prevented the open discussion of many
high-risk behaviors, making it difficult to educate the population
about even the most basic methods of prevention.
• Thirdly, voluntary counseling and testing services were
underutilized because of a lack of available care and treatment.
People were reluctant to undergo testing not only because of the
stigma but because testing was not supported by adequate care and
support services for those found to be HIV positive.
• Fourthly, the healthcare infrastructure, both in terms of facilities
and human resources, was not sufficiently large to deal with the
potential size of the epidemic. During the wargame the teams
discovered that the existing infrastructure and HIV/AIDS education
and training were inadequate to support interventions.
• Fihly, long-term provision of treatment transforms HIV from
a fatal disease to a chronic illness with increasing demands on
healthcare infrastructure and available resources.

During the wargame the success of the teams in developing effective

interventions led to a new set of issues and challenges itself. AIDS-related
prejudice was reduced, but overall prevalence and healthcare cost were
predicted to increase, because of the longer life expectancies of those infected
with HIV/AIDS. Others feared that an increase in antiretroviral therapy could
lead to complacency towards prevention, increasing the number of individuals
in need for treatment over time.
66 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

LESSONS LEARNED
As the teams responded to the variety of challenges during the wargame, four
critical success factors became evident (Booz Allen Hamilton 2004):

• Leadership from the top is vital, whether it be from government

officials, CEOs, or community leaders. This should emphasize that
a strong public stance on HIV/AIDS lays the groundwork for broad
participation across all sectors, addressing key barriers such as
stigma and discrimination.
• Non-discrimination, awareness and prevention, voluntary
counseling and testing, care, support, and treatment all rely on each
other. The wargame also illustrated that targeted early actions are
oen the least expensive interventions, and that they can prevent
the longer-term cost of delivering treatment. In addition, proactive
action targeting high-risk groups can prevent the disease from
spreading to the general population.
• Collaborative partnerships, for example, between the business
sector and NGOs, are essential in order to maximize impact.
• Clear prioritization of programs and innovative funding approaches
are critical given resource and infrastructure constraints. The teams
noted the need for a coordinated approach to funding at a national
level, making sure that the program supports the national strategy
and objectives, but also emphasized the need for decentralized
funding to deliver funds as quickly as possible to those who are in
need. During the wargame itself a number of innovative approaches
to funding were articulated.

Having simulated ten years over the course of two days, the participants
needed to come up with team actions to help mitigate the future growth of
the epidemic and its impact on the nation’s health and economy. HIV/AIDS
prevalence, incidence, and mortality compared to the base scenario (doing
nothing) might be reduced by more than 50 percent. Additionally, the impact
of HIV/AIDS on the economy was minimized and GDP loss was reduced by an
astonishing $31.5 billion, and the loss in discretionary spending was reduced
by $9.2 billion.

The teams initiated and explored a total of 53 partnerships, proposed 100

new initiatives ranging from business initiatives to raise awareness and increase
access to testing and treatment, to government prevention efforts at a national
C R I S I S R E S P O N S E P R E PA R AT I O N 67

level. The wargame clearly underlined the need for moving forward in greater
collaboration between the public and private sector. Nations needed to evaluate
the risks accurately and set funding priorities. Overall government funding and
resource mobilization to fight HIV/AIDS needed to be dramatically increased.
Donor countries should be encouraged to contribute more through bilateral
and international initiatives.

In addition, developing countries should be pushed to prioritize health

issues on the national agenda. National governments needed to maximize
platforms for business sector involvement in response to the epidemic, and
ensure direct and sustained participation by business leaders on National HIV/
AIDS Commiees and the Global Fund Coordinating Mechanisms.

Business sector skills could be applied to government strategies to im-

prove the reach and effectiveness of HIV/AIDS programs. Investment
partnerships between the public and private sectors would also help to scale
up existing initiatives. For example, existing corporate infrastructure and skills
can be used in the broader community and in order to seek support from
international donors for community programs. Finally, business, government,
and community executives needed to ensure strong leadership and advocacy.
Public acknowledgement of the epidemic, and the need for urgent action to
address the stigma and discrimination that had allowed the epidemic to spread
unchecked for the past 20 years, would inspire others to take action.

Case Study: Bioterrorism2

POINT OF DEPARTURE

Aer the 9/11 terrorist aacks, the US quickly realized that terrorism was no
longer a problem primarily surfacing outside of the country, but that it could
strike deep within its own borders and with an order of magnitude that was
previously unthinkable. All of a sudden planners at the Pentagon and in
Langley were no longer restricted in their thinking, and scenarios, previously
considered too far-fetched, were afforded great scrutiny.

In the weeks that followed 9/11 a second threat filled the news: anthrax.
Leers with suspicious white powder surfaced in multiple locations and
the threat of a bioterrorism aack within the US became suddenly very real.
Partly as a result of these developments, the US government decided to run a

2 Information taken from Ahlquist and Burns (2002).

68 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

simulation to anticipate the full effect a bioterrorism aack could have on the
country. They sought to see how well America was prepared in response to
such a scenario.

OBJECTIVE AND QUESTIONS

One objective of this wargame was to involve top leaders from medical prod-
ucts companies, healthcare providers, insurers and government agencies and
have them jointly deal with a hypothetical, but absolutely realistic, bioterrorism
aack on the US. The aim was to confront the participants with the realities,
dilemmas and consequences of alternative actions and to test how well the
cooperation between the constituents would work.

What would be discovered during the wargame should help lay the
foundation for improvements to structures, processes, and general preparation
should a similar event ever take place. The purpose of the wargame was not
to predict the future, but rather to raise the level of awareness amongst all the
participants of what could happen, what would work and what would not
work, so that all could beer prepare for the future.

GAME SETUP

The wargame was sponsored, structured and prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton
and The Council for Excellence in Government. The laer organization was
founded in 1983 by a small group of business leaders who had served in
government and wished to create a strong independent voice for excellence
in government. The aim of the council is to improve the performance of
government and the connections between government and citizens.

In total 75 government and healthcare professionals participated in

the wargame, bringing together senior policy makers in the Department of
Health and Human Services, the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
the Department of Defense, the Department of Veteran Affairs, state and
local government, business participants—including CEOs and other senior
executives from medical products companies, including pharma and biotech—
and healthcare providers, such as hospitals, health maintenance organization s
(HMOs), physicians, insurers, and health industry associations.

To enable participants to cope with the multiple stakeholders, they were

organized into three business stakeholder teams, three government stakeholder
teams and a control team (see Figure 5.2).
C R I S I S R E S P O N S E P R E PA R AT I O N 69

Response

Health insurers
Business
stakeholder Medical providers
teams
Medical products

Control

Department of Health and Human Services /

Federal Emergency Management Agency
Government
stakeholder Department of Defense /
teams Department of Veteran Affairs

State / Local

Feedback

Figure 5.2 Team structure overview

The wargame opened with the following scenario: pneumonic plague

bacteria in aerosol form were released simultaneously in two major cities in a
coordinated terrorist aack. Although initial symptoms resemble the common
flu, the pneumonic plague is nearly 100 percent fatal if not treated early with
powerful antibiotics, and, unlike anthrax or West Nile Disease, it is highly
contagious. The simulated epidemic was unleashed in Detroit (Michigan), and
Norfolk (Virginia).

Simulated on the basis of real-world epidemiological models, the spread of

the disease from its points of origination could be modeled quite accurately. As
in the HIV/AIDS simulation the spread could be affected by a variety of factors,
such as vaccination programs, quarantine measures, restriction of travel and
so on.

Over the course of the game the participants identified a number of

challenges, which would make it difficult to respond effectively to a bioter-
rorism aack:

• In the first place, biological warfare agents, unlike natural disasters

or peacetime epidemics, spread rapidly; this is further accelerated
by releasing the agent simultaneously in multiple locations.
70 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

• Secondly, the rapid overload of the local healthcare system and

widespread panic stresses law enforcement and other social services
to the breaking point.

• Thirdly, whilst the immediate responders are all local, decision

making on issues such as where and how to allocate available
antibiotics; how to inform and educate the public; and when and
where to close borders and restrict traffic, must move quickly to
the national level once the magnitude of the problem becomes
evident.

Traditionally, neither private industry nor many government agencies have

played active roles in homeland security, which has been almost exclusively
the domain of the Department of Defense. The result was that the interaction
between these players oen proved difficult due to the unclear distribution of
competencies and ambiguous chains of command.

The extreme contagiousness of the pneumonic plague, and the lack of a

vaccine, called for both quarantine and the rapid and extensive prophylactic
treatment of uninfected individuals with antibiotics: this proved a significant
challenge to the teams during the wargame—especially since the quarantining
of large parts of the population raised civil liberties and law enforcement
issues and offered no easy answers. The need for widespread prophylaxis
would strain drug supplies and leave the country vulnerable to new aacks or
naturally occurring epidemics. Logistic issues, such as how to deliver vaccines
and drugs to millions of people, raised insurmountable obstacles. In sum the
following key challenges were raised (Ahlquist and Burns 2002):

1. To react quickly, industry needed a single point of contact with the

government, but at the time, multiple contact points existed.
2. Aggressive containment and prophylaxis can limit the spread of
the disease, but moving too quickly may consume reserve capacity
needed for future threats elsewhere.
3. Response plans normally focus efforts at the local level, but
bioterrorism quickly becomes a national problem.
4. Suspending legal, regulatory, and procedural constraints may
be necessary to meet immediate needs, but such steps can create
serious downstream consequences for public health and business
viability.
C R I S I S R E S P O N S E P R E PA R AT I O N 71

Subsequently the teams discovered that the difference between a controlled

outbreak and a massive epidemic ultimately hinged on a few critical success
factors (Ahlquist and Burns 2002, 3):

• “Leadership: confusion about ‘who’s in charge’ in just the first

days of the aack had major consequences during the weeks that
followed.

• Knowledge: participants agreed that thousands of lives depended

on ready information about pharmaceutical and medical equipment
stockpiles throughout the nation.

• Coordination: individual companies and local governments

responded well, but what maered most was immediate and quick
coordination between companies, across agencies and among
states.”

LESSONS LEARNED

A major lesson was that at the time the levels of preparation and response in
place in the US were not adequate, but that the existing levels of preparation
could be improved. The US might cope with a bioterrorism aack, but only if
the response were rapid, coordinated across business and government, well
prepared, and thought out ahead of time.

The teams further discovered that massive, immediate action was required,
but they also found that the lack of a common language between government
and industry, and then a lack of a single point of contact between these groups
stymied the rapid movement needed. No mechanisms were in place to enable
quick coordination across agencies and businesses to mobilize the resources
available. The teams concluded that the government alone couldn’t protect
the American people from bioterrorism, hence the need to mobilize business
resources.

Prior planning and practice proved the key to enable rapid response, which
would be critical in limiting the damage. Mechanisms were needed to collect
and share information on pharmaceutical and equipment stockpiles before
and during crises. Preparedness would require new levels of communication
and cooperation across public/private, local/national, and military/civilian
boundaries. Further, building and sharing knowledge would mean assessing
potential actions and their impact. Epidemiological models needed to be
developed for the most common hazardous bioagents, exploring the impact of
actions such as quarantine and prophylaxis. Above all, the information needed
72 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

to be shared across government and industry. This sharing required new

policies, protocols, and mechanisms to coordinate government and business
response. Response policies needed to be integrated across federal, state, and
local government, and among healthcare businesses in order to clarify roles
and responsibilities, and to identify the key point of contact and authority.

The wargame enabled the teams to conclude, that private/public partner-

ships can improve bioterrorism preparation and response by identifying and
involving relevant participants; establishing agreed roles and responsibilities;
sharing information on stockpiles and surge capacity; pre-defining economic,
legal, and liability parameters and limits; and coordinating public awareness
and education. In addition, the wargame was able to give the mixed groups of
participants a rapid education in how other organizations think and act, as well
as providing a first check on ideas and suggestions, highlighting the need for a
new kind of public/private partnership in homeland security in the US.
CHAPTER
Developing Foresight
6
While developing foresight is widely perceived as a crucial activity for any
organization, in particular in an increasingly dynamic and complex business
environment, the question of how to develop foresight remains difficult to
answer. This chapter offers a contribution to answering that question.

Having emphasized the importance of developing foresight, the case studies

in the chapter underline how business wargames can help corporations in the
process. The first case study will demonstrate how wargaming has been used in an
aempt to develop foresight for an entire industry, in this case asset management,
and then we will discuss briefly the application of business wargaming to assess
future power shis in the public sector during the cold war.

Developing Foresight in Business Wargaming

Alfred North Whitehead identified “foresight” in a celebrated lecture at the
Harvard Business School in 1931, as the crucial feature of the competent business
mind (Tsoukas 2004). In the recent past others have encouraged corporations
with increasing urgency to develop foresight (e.g. Hamel and Prahalad 1994;
Courtney 2001).

Makridakis (2004, XIII) defines foresight as follows: “The role of foresight

is to provide business executives and government policy makers with ways
of seeing the future with different eyes and fully understanding the possible
implications of alternative technological/societal paths.” Foresight is more
about spoing developments before they become trends, seeing paerns before
they fully emerge, and grasping the relevant features of social currents that are
likely to have an impact (Tsoukas 2004), than it is about making predictions.
In short, developing foresight is about recognizing weak signals of change
in the corporate business environment and it is about imagining alternative
scenarios and how one’s own organization is likely to evolve within them. Day
and Schoemaker (2006, 1–2) articulate the relevance of spoing weak signals
74 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

as follows: “The key is to quickly spot those signals that are relevant and
explore them further, filter out the noise, and pursue opportunities ahead of
the competition or recognize the early signs of trouble before they escalate into
major problems.”

Hamel and Prahalad (1995) are convinced that an organization which does
not develop a picture of the future, which does not develop foresight, is most
likely not involved in the future. They emphasize that the success of a company
depends on its ability to reach the future before its competitors. Courtney
(2001) emphasizes the importance of dealing differently with uncertainties, by
improving the foresight capabilities of organizations, especially in planning
processes. Bazerman and Watkins (2004) argue that organizations are facing
two groups of surprises: predictable surprises and unpredictable surprises.
Predictable surprises can be recognized on the horizon, but arise when
managers fail to spot them or fail to respond to them. However, it is essential
to develop foresight in the first place in order even to recognize predictable
surprises, or weak signals of change.

Business wargaming can be perceived as a tool to develop foresight,

recognize predictable surprises, and spot weak signals of change, especially
when a business wargame is designed to project several years into the future,
so that the participants are forced to think ahead, to review their assumptions
about tomorrow critically, and to question their mental models. We believe that
the great advantage of business wargaming is, that it is not only analytical but
also most importantly participative. Bazerman and Watkins (2004), for instance,
argue that cognitive flaws have been identified as the key reasons why change
or strategic surprises have not been identified in time by organizations. These
cognitive flaws or defense mechanisms are more likely to be recognized by
applying a tool, which is participative, allowing managers to actually experience
future events, making the case for business wargaming.

The Future of Asset Management Distribution1

POINT OF DEPARTURE

The second Thought Leadership Summit (TLS) held in 2006 in Monaco was
devoted to applying business wargaming as a means to explore the future
distribution of asset management. The game was designed and executed by
Yale Professor Paul Bracken.

1 Information taken from The Thought Leadership Summit (2006).

D E V E LO P I N G F O R E S I G H T 75

The asset management industry is characterized by enormous complexity;

there are thousands of suppliers managing 46,000 funds, and as many as 4,000
distributors, which are oen complex organizations with very complex needs.
In addition, organizations operating in this industry are confronted with an
ever-changing environment, including, for example, changes in stock markets,
customer needs, and regulations.

In the context of this wargame the term “distribution” refers to the

distribution of funds:

So depending on what perspective you choose, a fund can be distributed

twice, first from the “manufacturers” (i.e. asset managers) to the
distributor, and then from the distributor to its end client. Distribution
here means the process by which “manufacturers” form and maintain
relationships with their intermediates …” (Thought Leadership Summit
2006, 41)

OBJECTIVES AND QUESTIONS

A study by PricewaterhouseCoopers conducted in 2006 revealed that

distribution was the most vital area of strategic focus for asset management
firms. The main objective of the wargame was to focus on this issue; to develop
alternative views of the future of asset management distribution in Europe and
what implications these views might have for strategic decision making in the
present. The following are the goals as stated (Thought Leadership Summit
2006, 18) for the business wargame:

• “To exercise and simulate the future of distribution under the

conditions of the given e-Volution scenario

• To learn about different strategies and market behaviours of

different players

• To develop and test a distribution navigator for the industry ...”

GAME SETUP
Prior to the execution of the actual game in Monaco, 40 industry strategists from
30 firms were interviewed and asked to share the key European distribution
challenges for the asset management industry, as they saw them; in total, 21 key
issues were defined. These served as a “discussion starter” at the beginning of
the preparation phase for the business wargame.
76 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

A scenario was formulated to establish the conditions of the business

wargame. The scenario, called “e-Volution”, described a world in which the
promises of technology were met in the context of the next generation of the
internet and convergence in technologies and media. In this context the industry
evolves to support two groups; large players dominating global distribution
and very small ones, which are highly specialized. The clients have greater
access to information and to effective analytical tools. They demand value,
clarity in pricing, reporting and performance. In addition, progress has been
made in harmonizing and standardizing the industry regulations across the
region.

In contrast to some of the other cases we have described in this book, this
particular business wargame was built around two moves; the first simulated
a time period from 2006 to 2009 and the second move a period up to 2013.
The teams presented their strategies at the end of each round, which were
than evaluated aer each move. The participants were asked to structure their
work, according to a strategy worksheet, around the following topics: client–
value proposition, product strategy, distribution revenue model, and possible
mergers, acquisitions and divestitures. They were also supplied with player
profiles, giving them detailed information on the stakeholders they were
representing for the purpose of the game.

During the moves the teams were allowed to communicate with each other
about acquisitions, alliances, and oversight via email. Interestingly, however,
participants were shied between the teams, in order to simulate a market
characterized by merger, alliances, spinouts and new ventures.

The previously mentioned distribution navigator was developed prior to the

business wargame with the aim of measuring the way the various stakeholders
in the wargame changed over time. Summarizing the 21 identified core issues
into four axes led to the development of the “distribution navigator.” Each of
these axes described a core industry issue (Thought Leadership Summit 2006,
92):

• “The macro and geographical context: is the industry a single

European market, or is it a collection of country markets?

• What is being sold: are offerings merely products, or are they in fact
solutions to client needs?

• Balance of power between manufacturers and distributors: does

power lie with manufacturers or distributors?
D E V E LO P I N G F O R E S I G H T 77

• How are offerings being sold: are they bought or are they required
to be sold?”

The wargame was concluded with a plenary discussion and an analysis on

the findings from the two moves. Thirty-seven asset managers were invited to
participate in the wargame, as well as eight observers from leading industry
companies. The participants were assigned to one of six teams, each representing
an industry stakeholder. The following stakeholders were represented:

• large universal bank e.g. Deutsche Bank

• asset management firm e.g. Threadneedle Investments

• national regulator e.g. AMF (Autorité des Marchés Financières)

• network of advisers e.g. MLP AG
• insurance e.g. Allianz Global Investors
• e-Platform e.g. Cortal Consors.

LESSONS LEARNED
Following the game, the various lessons learned were summarized as per a mind
map. Concern was raised under the heading “diffusion and confusion” that the
industry faced a dilemma: on the one hand, it was extremely profitable and on
the other hand there was confusion about how the industry would develop in
the future and what the strategies should be to meet the future challenges.

A second lesson that emerged was the need for a discussion on the overall
framework for the industry. It appeared in the business wargame that the asset
management industry is an introverted economy that needs to open itself
towards ideas and strategies from the outside. The wargaming also revealed
the dilemma for the larger players in the industry in positioning themselves
either as manufacturer or as a distributor. By contrast, the smaller players
showed greater flexibility, even though their actions were dependent on the
strategic behavior of the larger players.

The regulator, who plays a very important role in this particular industry,
was seen during the first move as a limiting and purely technical constraint,
likely to hinder innovation. However, this perception changed during the second
move. Not only did participants state that they could now understand why
regulation is so time consuming, but they also increased their communication
with the regulators in the second move. This le some of the participants with
78 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

the distinct lesson that regulators too can contribute to the process of innovation.
These results reinforced the perception that the asset management industry is
very introverted. The business wargame underlined the importance of geing
in touch with the client, and relating more to the end customer. As a whole the
wargame allowed its participants a relatively detailed look at the future of the
distribution of asset management and certainly helped them develop a forward
view of the industry.

THE CASE OF ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS

To be a lile more specific, we will now look in more detail at one of the players
represented in the business wargame: Allianz Global Investors.

The team representing Allianz saw its core value proposition in preparing
Germans for the future. In the simulated period up to 2009, the Allianz team
aimed at building its investment capabilities with an internal asset management
factory and also by complementing it with external products. Concerning its
M&A (mergers and acquisitions) activities, the team tried to buy 50 percent
of Threadneedle and to exchange its Dresdner Bank for DWS, the asset
management company of Deutsche Bank; it also opened negotiations with
Cortal.

While all of these deals were rejected in the end, by 2013 Allianz had
focused more clearly on its role as a packager and distributor, forming links
with companies such as the just mentioned DWS and with the, also explicitly
played, financial service supplier MLP. Overall, the lesson learned for the
Allianz team was that the team believed that it was a mistake to try to build
investment performance in house.

Wargames in the Public Sector

Wargaming in the public sector has a long tradition in the US. During the Cold
War in particular the US government was looking for insight into how various
scenarios and developments would play out and what the consequences for its
foreign policy might be. Between 1987 and 1989 a series of wargames was carried
out, focusing on the change in global power structures over the next 40 years.
The objective of these wargames was to determine how global power would
change, particularly in terms of the future roles of the European Community,
Japan, the US, the USSR, the Middle East, and the People’s Republic of China.
While these games remain poorly publicized and lile is known about the
D E V E LO P I N G F O R E S I G H T 79

specific findings and the consequences for national policy, at a strategic level,
these wargames suggested the following likely developments:

• The USSR would fail economically and fall apart.

• Japan would be unable to become a global superpower.
• Eastern Europe would open to the West without intervention by
the USSR.
• East and West Germany will quickly unite without intervention by
the USSR.

Whilst today these findings may all seem obvious, at the time of the first
of these games, people could not believe what they were experiencing. In fact,
they doubted the predictive power of the simulation and played the game
repeatedly with different participants. Despite this the same basic findings
emerged with each game—the rest is history.

What is interesting is that at the time, the People’s Republic of China was
not playing a major role. India too was never perceived as the economic power
that it has turned out to be over the same period of time. Were the game to be
played again today, the scenario would unfold somewhat differently with these
two countries, Russia and Brazil playing increasingly important roles in the
world’s economy as the source of much of the global manufacturing, services,
fuel and agricultural production.

Another game in the late 1980s, the results of which remain largely classified,
revolved around the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). The initial idea of the
program was to establish a leak-proof missile defense shield over the territory
of the United States in order to prevent any effective nuclear aack. The
question underlying this game was: how much strategic defense is absolutely
required given the deterrence effect, and what would be the resources needed
to achieve it?

The wargame produced some extraordinary insight, because contrary

to conventional wisdom at the time—which suggested that a complete and
leak-proof shield was needed—the wargame actually suggested that a shield,
effectively covering only 10 percent of the territory would have nearly the same
deterrent effect as a complete shield, as long as the 10 percent shield could
be deployed in a mobile form which kept any enemy guessing as to its exact
position.
80 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

This was based on the insight that if the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
(USSR) wanted to ensure a similar first-strike hit rate, it would need to fire as
many rockets to counter the defensive effect of a 10 percent shield as it would
to counter a complete shield, making any aack extremely costly. At the same
time the deterrent effect from the perspective of the US could be achieved with
far fewer resources than initially anticipated. These findings led to a complete
change in US policy with respect to the program under the conditions of the
Cold War.
CHAPTER
Change Management
7
Business wargaming can be considered a very powerful change management
tool as well. As previously explained, every wargame functions as a change
management tool on one level or other, simply because it brings a group of
people together and has them work jointly on a common challenge. The insights
they gain and the increased understanding of the other participants involved
initiate a process of change. However, there are some wargames that turn out
to be catalysts of change that extend far beyond just the top management team.
In our view, wargaming as a tool for the savvy change manager will gain more
recognition in the years to come. If applied in the right context it is an extremely
effective way of driving change.

Change Management and Business Wargaming

Change is the only constant in today’s corporate world. While this aphorism
seems to have a universal application, it appears that the pace of change
nowadays is increasing. The continuous change within business environments
requires organizations to reinvent themselves on a regular basis, in order
to adapt. Any process of change within an organization will face resistance.
The roots of this resistance can be found in fear and a survival instinct which
operate at several levels to protect social systems from painful experiences of
loss, distress, chaos, and the emotions associated with change (Jarre 2003).
However, Duck (2001) makes the argument that change unfolds in a reasonably
predictable and manageable series of phases.

Introducing a business wargame prior to a change program has the great

benefit of enabling you to test how the change process may evolve and, in
particular, which obstacles to change may emerge. Forewarning of this kind
enables you to anticipate and counter obstacles before they occur. In the context
of change management within the military, wargames have been applied in the
transformation of the armed forces (Starr 2001).
82 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

By allowing the participants of a business wargame to view a situation with

the benefit of a different perspective, it is possible to highlight the requirement
(case for change) to change a strategy or an organization and to enable the
participants to experience the likely effect of that change, before it happens.

Case Study: Changing the Game1

In the early 1990s, a large plastics company was confronted by new and
aggressive competitors entering the market, which it previously owned. Not
only did these new competitors enter the market, but they also pursued
the company’s top customers very single-mindedly and managed to take a
significant chunk of the business away from the company. Slightly bemused
at what was going on, the CEO took the decision to commission a business
wargame to explore what was happening and what the company might do to
stop this loss of market share.

During the simulation it became clear that they were losing business largely
due to their entrenched way of thinking about the business and a cultural inertia
that prevented them from doing something about it. What the game revealed
was that the way the products in the business were sold had fundamentally
changed. The company had learned to use price as the main driver to close the
sale but competitors were pushing other buons with customers, selling them
added-value features such as consistency, quality and so on.

Think of it this way: global corporations, such as McDonald’s, do value

the fact that the yellow of their arches remains the same on all their premises,
be it in the US, Paris, London, Budapest, Bangkok, Shanghai, or Singapore.
If they get this kind of consistency from a supplier, who has to buy the raw
materials in order to provide that consistency, they are willing to pay for it as
it constitutes an important element of their global brand and price is far less
important than consistency of quality.

In the face of this unwelcome new situation, the company realized that their
corporate culture was not in tune with the changes occurring in their market.
Sales and marketing departments, in particular, were forced to respond to
this new situation and adapt to the new rules, which were changing business
the way they knew it. On the back of the insights gleaned from the original
game, the company commissioned consultants to train a team of their own

1 Information taken from a public speech by George E. Thibault, then Principal with Booz Allen
Hamilton, at the Swiss General Staff College, 2001.
CHANGE MANAGEMENT 83

people to be able to run the game repeatedly with the sales forces in their own
organization.

Following the training the group of internal coaches embarked on a trip

to enable all the largest sales and marketing departments to experience the
game and find out for themselves what they needed to do. By looking through
the eyes of their competitors and customers, the sales teams quickly realized
what needed to be done and went about implementing the necessary changes.
The first-hand lessons learned from the wargame significantly accelerated
the change process in the sales and marketing departments and allowed the
organization to defend market share effectively and regain customers who had
been lost to the competition. Having seen the effects of the game on his sales
numbers, the CEO correctly summarized: “One sale—previously lost—actually
paid for the entire simulation!”
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER
Education and
Recruitment
8
Yet another effective application of business wargaming is in the area of
education and recruitment. This chapter explores the application of the
wargaming methodology for management education in a business context.
In addition, we will show how wargaming has been successfully applied in
a recruiting context for consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton in its successful
“CEO Challenge” program.

Business Wargaming in Education and Recruiting

As outlined in Chapter One, business education was the first application of
wargaming methodology in a corporate context in business games or manage-
ment games. Faria and Dickinson (1994) point out several benefits of applying
a business wargame in management education:

• Orient and train new employees: a wargame can give a newly hired
employee the opportunity to gain decision-making experience in
the new company.

• Screen current managers or would-be managers: during the course of

a business wargame, for instance, analytical or decision-making
skills can be assessed.

• Ongoing management training: applying business wargaming in

management development has several advantages. They allow
executives to work on their decision skills, experiment with
strategies, learn new analytical tools, identify areas of further
training, and gain various insights in, for instance, their own
organizations, competitors, and in general other stakeholders.
86 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

Practical Applications
We now offer two examples of the application of business wargaming for
training and development in an organizational context and for educational
purposes in business schools.

TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT

One potential application for business wargaming in an organizational context

is to familiarize newly hired employees with the organization, in particular
with its capabilities. This is especially powerful in organizations involved in
project work and similar situations where people with different skill sets need
to work together successfully. Such seings may include consulting firms,
investment banks, private equity boutiques, executive search firms, IT service
companies and the like.

At the start of this form of business wargame, for instance, capability cards
are handed out to the participants, representing the knowledge, skills and
background of individuals throughout the firm. Based on this information, the
participants are required to make sense of all this know-how in order to pitch
to a market team for the right to manage a series of projects. The objectives of
the game are the following:

• Leverage the full capabilities of an organization by learning about

capabilities within other teams.

• Increase collaboration by learning about the capabilities of others

in the organization.

• Gain new insights into building a business (i.e. synthesize existing

knowledge and package it for new pitches).

• Emphasize competitive bidding strategies.

• Most important of all, meet and learn about other employees in the
same organization.

Such a business wargame has the benefit of allowing newly hired employees
as well as existing members of the organization to think more strategically
about their business and not just focus on short-term revenue generation. It also
allows employees to experience and think at different levels of the organization,
thus again fostering a shared level of knowledge and capability throughout the
organization.
E D U C AT I O N A N D R E C R U I T M E N T 87

“THE BATTLE FOR THE CLICKS”1

Business wargames have also been applied in education contexts, for instance,
by the consultancy Fuld & Company. In April 2005 they organized a business
wargame between MBA students from the Harvard Business School and MIT’s
Sloan School of Management (Fuld 2006).

This business wargame, called The Bale for Clicks, evolved around internet
advertising, with Harvard students representing Microso and Time Warner,
and the MIT students playing the roles of Yahoo! and Google. The wargame
was conducted over a single day and evolved over eight hours. The teams faced
the following issues (Fuld 2006, 80–1):

• “Can Google (whose stock price has soared to $300 a share) continue
to defy the laws of competitive gravity?

• Google depends currently on its search engine advertising model.

It’s a one-note company with 95 percent of the company’s sales
coming from this one revenue source. How can it diversify or build
on this base before its market share erodes from new entrants in the
internet search business?

• How can AOL, Time Warner’s division, slow down the rapid loss of
subscribers? Can it find a way to leverage Time Warner’s valuable
content, in the form of its rich family of magazines, broadcast group,
and cable network?

• What can Microso do to prevent or at least slow down Google’s

hijacking of the desktop through such ingenious tools as Google
Desktop? Will Microso’s MNM search engine be powerful enough
to grab share of the click for advertising away from Google?

• How can Yahoo! break out of the pack? Despite its expanded search
capabilities and revenue that equal that of Google, it can very easily
lose its focus as it moves in many directions at once.”

Alongside a lead facilitator to overlook this business wargame, four judges

were appointed each with a relevant background to this game, with the goal
of adding expertise and insight to the wargame. However, the task of the
judges was also to review and evaluate each of the teams, based on criteria
such as “insight into their strategic positioning, accuracy in presenting the

1 Information taken from Fuld (2006).

88 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

facts, creativity in proposing a new strategy, and foresight into the near future”
(Fuld, 2006: 99).

According to Fuld (2006), the most difficult task for the students at the
beginning of the simulation was to make the transition from being a student to
acting as a manager for the company they were assigned to. In order to add to the
dynamic nature of the business wargame, a surprise external economic event was
introduced: a rise in communication taxes, along with the suggestion that state
taxation of the internet, could possibly hinder growth in internet advertising.

The benefit for the students, besides being introduced to the business
wargaming methodology, was that they had the opportunity to apply their
knowledge of their business environment, in a dynamic strategic simulation.
This involved them in a level of discussion that in real life would have taken
place at a very much more senior level in the organization. and it enabled them
to experience how their strategic decision making would perform in a dynamic
environment.

Applying Business Wargaming in a University

Context2
We have already briefly touched on the potential applications of business
wargaming in universities. In this case study we will describe in more detail
how business wargaming can be applied to the education of students at a
masters level in strategy.

POINT OF DEPARTURE

This particular business wargame was carried out at a German university. It was
intended to give masters-level students in management and cultural studies an
opportunity to add to their knowledge on strategy and strategic management
gained during previous semesters.

OBJECTIVES AND QUESTIONS

Clearly, the main objectives for the students were to apply their theoretical
knowledge on strategy and strategy formulation in a simulation. In addition,
because of the particular setup of this wargame, another objective was
introduced: to enable the students to experience the relevance of competitive
intelligence (in particular competitive analysis) in strategy. One last objective
2 Jan Oliver Schwarz applies business wargaming on a regular basis for teaching management
students.
E D U C AT I O N A N D R E C R U I T M E N T 89

was to introduce students to tools for developing competitive intelligence such

as business wargaming and strategic early warning systems.

GAME SETUP

In this wargame the German music industry was simulated over three moves
covering a period from 2007 till 2015. Around 25 students took part in the
wargame, organized into five teams (see Figure 8.1).

The facilitators of the seminar and of the business wargame took on the role
of the control team. Several weeks prior to the business wargame the students
were assigned to their stakeholders. Once the students had been assigned to
their group, they were asked to prepare the player profile for the stakeholder
they were representing in the simulation. All the students received a template
in which they were asked to prepare ten slides for their player, containing
general information on their player, the industry, their relevant market, also
including a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) and PEST
(political, economical, social, technological) analysis. The market and customer
group, for instance, was asked to come up with an idea how the market was
segmented and what the needs of these segments were. Unlike the other
business wargames we have described so far, in this instance the participants
of the wargame were actually responsible for assembling the gamebook.

Strategy / Offerings

Apple iTunes
(New competitor)

EMI
Customer/Market group Students
(Major music label)

Students Sony/BMG
(Major music label)

Control Facilitators

IFPI
(International Federation of
the Phonographic Industry)

Feedback

Figure 8.1 Team structure overview

90 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

The game was carried out over two and half days, and opened with an
introduction to business wargaming by the facilitators. Following this the
students presented the information they had gathered on their particular
player to one another. The wargame actually started on the morning of the next
day and ended around early aernoon of the third day. All the pre-prepared
information was distributed to each team.

While the stakeholder teams were preparing their presentation, the market
and customer team were asked to come up with ideas on how to evaluate the
moves and how to give feedback. In particular, using a quantitative model would
not be satisfying, since the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic
Industry) was involved in the wargame as a player and is not a competitor in
the music industry. So the students developed criteria from the perspective of
the market and customers for the basis on which to evaluate the strategies of
each team and on which to provide feedback to them.

During the simulation, time slots were issued by the control team, which
allowed the students to communicate amongst one another via email in
order to strike deals or form alliances. The control team assumed the role of
stakeholders not represented in the business wargame. They also introduced
a number of external stimuli during the moves, such as a press release, which
added to the complexity and the dynamics of the simulation. The wargame
ended with a lengthy discussion reflecting not only on the weekend, but in
particular on what the students had learned during the simulation and how
this related to their knowledge from their previous lectures on strategy and
strategic management.

LESSONS LEARNED
At this point rather than analyzing the single moves in this wargame or the
strategies formulated in the context of the German music industry, we will
focus on the overall lessons from the perspective of business strategy.

The first important lesson for the students was the particular relevance of
good and solid competitive intelligence. Of course, the information gathered
and then presented by the students on their assigned stakeholder, varied in
quality, in some cases, significantly. Indeed, those teams with only mediocre
competitive intelligence struggled during the first move to come up with a
convincing strategy.

During the preparation phases those teams with the least convincing
stakeholder profiles were mainly concerned with figuring out who the
E D U C AT I O N A N D R E C R U I T M E N T 91

competitors and customers were and what differentiated their own player from
the others. It appeared that some teams were never able to overcome this early
disadvantage during the entire business wargame. This le those students
with an insight how important rigorous and solid competitive analysis and
intelligence are for formulating a strategy and competing in a market.

Overall, the students experienced that formulating a strategy is a highly

complex and difficult task, particularly when juggling the different variables
that are of relevance. Therefore it was not too surprising, that in the first move
the students focused well on the customers in their strategies but neglected the
fact that they had competitors. On the other hand, some teams had difficulty in
anticipating changes in customer behavior over the time, while others focused
too heavily on technological developments. The students also experienced
difficulty in coming up with a strategy in a given time, especially when
presented with information overload and an overabundance of choice, with
inadequate time to discuss their decisions.

This business wargame provided the students with very valuable insights
on formulating strategy and what it takes for a good competitive analysis.
In addition, the simulation highlighted not only the relevance of business
wargaming as a means of testing strategy, but also the relevance of competitive
intelligence in general and of tools such as strategic early warning systems to
help organization, to detect early signals of the need for change.

“This was the best seminar I went to during my time at university,” one
student stated when asked to give feedback on this form of seminar. Overall,
the feedback from the students was overwhelmingly positive, emphasizing how
much they enjoyed this form of “action learning.” Considering this feedback
and the dynamics during the simulation, the value of business wargaming as a
means for teaching strategy even outside of university campuses is convincing
and, as we see in the next case study, some companies have even made it a case
in point to provide this learning experience to students

Case Study: The Booz Allen CEO Challenge3

The Booz Allen CEO Challenge in its current form was launched by one of
the authors and his team in 2005 at Harvard Business School and the Kellogg
School of Management. It has since been played at many top business schools
in the US and in Europe and already has been recognized as a tool for creating

3 Public information, www.ceo-challenge.com, and personal insights of the authors.

92 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

an employer brand (Rodriguez 2006). The current case study used for the CEO
challenge simulates the development of the portable audio device industry in
the US.

POINT OF DEPARTURE

Although Booz Allen Hamilton is one of the top players in the strategy
consulting field, it has never been recognized for it and has thus never been a
household name like some of its main competitors, like, for example, McKinsey
& Company, The Boston Consulting Group or Bain & Company. There are
multiple reasons for this. For one, the company has never pursued a strategy
that would give it that household name status and remains rather conservative
in its communication with the greater public. The company is also actually
still comprised of two businesses: the strategy consulting division and a
division which is more government/technology oriented. This can oen lead
to a misconception about what the company is really all about and how it is
positioned on campus.

Following the downturn aer the dot-com bust, the company lost some
of its standing at top business schools because it simply stopped recruiting
from them and consequently did not sustain a high enough presence. As the
economy recovered and business picked up again, the firm found itself at a
disadvantage when competing for top talents from the best business schools in
the world because not enough people knew the company and even fewer knew
that it was involved in actual strategy work. When looking for an effective way
to change this perception, a group of people involved in the recruiting activities
of the company decided to leverage the firm’s wargaming expertise and devise a
scaled-down game that could be played with business students without lengthy
preparation or the need for particular industry expertise. Therefore cases were
chosen, which had a clear consumer orientation and involved products/services
with which the students could familiarize themselves quickly.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to create a high-intensity event that would be aended by

some of the brightest minds to be found at the top MBA programs and show
them first hand what it feels like to sit on the executive board of a large company
or act as a consultant to such a company. The students needed to work hard,
think in a structured and strategic way and come up with specific action
plans to establish how they wanted to win! Aside from the actual simulation
they should be given ample opportunity to mix with Booz Allen Hamilton
representatives and learn about consulting and the company. The event also
E D U C AT I O N A N D R E C R U I T M E N T 93

provided a great opportunity for the Booz Allen people to observe the students
in a high-pressure, high-performance environment and assess their behavior
in a team seing.

Besides promoting the firm, its people and the high-level work it does, the
CEO Challenge serves as an important relationship management tool from
which 30 students graduate at each event. Moreover, those students who do
not make it through the rigorous selection process act as valuable ambassadors
for the firm when they return to their schools and help raise awareness about
the quality of work and the people at Booz Allen. In promoting the event to
prospective participants, the firm used tag lines such as:

Do you have what it takes to excel in the top job?

You’re the head of a major electronics company playing in the portable

music device market. One of your biggest competitors is poised to roll
out an incredible new device, implementing the latest technology and
the coolest design features—six months ahead of schedule.

What do you do?

Test your corner-office savvy in a fast-paced, high-stakes strategy

simulation that puts you head-to-head with your peers. The CEO
Challenge is a chance to demonstrate strategic thinking and teamwork
and to prove your worth – with the pros watching your every move!

The event puts students in the shoes of a CEO and clearly challenges them,
hence the name “CEO Challenge.”

GAME SETUP
The CEO Challenge is a two and a half day event, typically played over
a weekend. It includes 30 hand-selected students from top MBA schools
and approximately five to eight consultants, who moderate and coach the
students as well as take care of logistics and IT. The event starts with a detailed
introduction to strategy and strategic planning and what role wargaming plays,
followed by a basic anatomy of wargaming and a presentation of relevant case
studies, some of which are outlined in this book. The presentations then get
more specific, involving a crash course in the audio device market (the industry
seing of the CEO Challenge), with information on the most important trends
94 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

and players, followed by detailed instructions on how the game will be played
and how the teams will be divided up.

Students are not given any materials ahead of the event and are only vaguely
aware of the details as to which industry the simulation will play in. The intention
is to throw a considerable amount of information at the students, send them off
to their breakout groups, ask them for ambitious deliverables, mix them up with
people they have just met for the first time, and give them a very tight deadline.
With some help from their coaches to keep them on schedule and making sure
the minimum standards for the deliverables are met, the teams need to figure
out quickly how they want to organize themselves, plan the available time,
scan through the information, synthesize their findings and come up with an
action plan to cover how they want to position themselves in the competitive
context: not an easy task, but very typical for any type of consulting project.
The coaches, all of whom have solid background knowledge of the industry
and are experienced project managers, were available for individual questions,
but were not allowed to contribute in the strategy formulation process.

Basically all the information the students may use is provided in the
gamebooks and the use of PowerPoint presentations or internet research is not
allowed (nor do they have the time for these). Past experience suggests that if
PowerPoint were permied the teams would focus too much on the look of
their presentations at the expense of the quality of the content.

While the competitor teams are given the task of analyzing the information
and coming up with a strategy for their respective moves, the market and
control team, (which, for the sake of simplicity, are combined in this simulation)
has the task of developing a market view. This view is based on customer
segmentation and involves brainstorming and structuring a list of customer
preferences in priority order per segment. This list will provide the basis for the
subsequent evaluation of the competitive offerings for each move by the market
on the basis of a system of scores. In order for these scores to work correctly
and consequently generate gains or losses in market share, the control team
also needs to set up a market model. This involves them adjusting the model to
reflect the correct weights for each of the parameters, labeling them correctly
and doing a few dry runs to ascertain that the computations are working. The
model has been designed by wargaming experts and is based on the growth
projections for the industry, which depending on the decisions of all teams can
accelerate, decelerate or remain as projected. Based on the aractiveness of the
individual offerings of each team, their relative share in this development can
grow or shrink.
E D U C AT I O N A N D R E C R U I T M E N T 95

At the end of each move the competitor teams received qualitative and
quantitative feedback from the market and control team. Using computations
within the model, they receive detailed market share numbers, approximate
margins and relative change information. The qualitative feedback consists of
statements from the various customer segments; what they like or don’t like
about specific offerings. Sometimes, just to spice things up, the control team
will introduce certain “shocks” or events designed to force the teams to address
a specific issue. For example, unforeseen problems with hardware components
which affect cost structures or require product recalls or breakthrough
technological developments, if feasible.

Alternatively, shocks may be in the form of public concern over issues such
as piracy, traffic accidents caused while listening to music on the go, and so
on. Whatever the problem the teams need to address it in their subsequent
presentation or risk the market not rewarding them as hoped. These
interventions thus enable the control team to encourage the competing teams
to focus on particular issues they may wish them to explore.

At the end of the CEO Challenge and once the quantitative results are in,
the market and control team issue several awards to reflect the bale as fought
with sticks of different length. If, for example, you are on the dominant Apple
Team, losing only a lile market share is quite an accomplishment, because you
have successfully defended your position despite increased competition and
may still make considerable profits. On the other hand, if you are a new entrant
or a small player the question is much more one of survival and growing the
business from nothing into something.

The basis for the awards may vary from highest market share, best
profitability, best marketing campaign, most innovative product and so on. At
the end of the event, students are asked to reflect once more on what they have
recognized and what they have learned about the industry and about their
teams.

This synthesis of views yields very interesting insights and in the past
teams have actually predicted a number of the real developments to follow. For
example, one team predicted the introduction of the iPhone, more than one year
before this happened; another predicted the high-end top-quality positioning
of Sony Ericsson leveraging their “Walkman” brand. They also predicted the
move towards hybrid devices, i.e. the combination of phone, mp3 player and
PDA, therefore concluding that the biggest threat for Apple and the iPod will
96 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

come from the mobile phone manufacturers if they can get their act and their
products together.

The CEO Challenge has turned into an amazing success story for Booz
Allen Hamilton. Applications are skyrocketing: fewer than one in every
ten students can be sloed in for one of the events. As predicted, almost all
graduates have become valuable ambassadors communicating news about the
event and the Booz Allen Hamilton name on campus. While participating in
the event is still no guarantee that a student will make it into the firm, many
of the participants are genuinely interested and if they do make it through the
process and ultimately receive an offer, they typically take it.

So, in sum, the value of the event lies in the marketing promotion of the
Booz Allen Hamilton brand and its people, but also in spoing top talent and
being able to see how they work. A very valuable process when the alternative
involves simply paper screens and a number of behavioral and case interviews.
The costs for such an event are not trivial, but considering the quality of
people a company can aract and the high likelihood of converting them into
employees, the results repay the cost. The “halo” effect it has on the company’s
reputation at the top campuses is a free value add.

LESSONS LEARNED

It appeared that for the students, the major lesson learned is to focus on the
customer and to formulate a consistent strategy which will stay valid over three
moves and which would eventually generate market growth or contribute in
general to the value of the played corporation. The following are quotes from
students who participated in the CEO Challenge:

• “Spend lots of time on strategy and brainstorming. The more

precisely you analyze and get your plan right upfront, the more
efficient and hopefully successful you will be in the end.”

• “Be efficient and collaborative and accept feedback given. The

questions at hand are just too complex to try and tackle them as a
one-man show.”

• “Focus on customers, be aware that customers differ over time and

that they need time to digest technological changes.”

• “Understand position relative to competition. You can have a great

value proposition to the customer. If your competitor has a beer
one, it is only worth half as much.”
E D U C AT I O N A N D R E C R U I T M E N T 97

• “Understand how the market evolves, concerning technology,

lifestyle, novelty, and commodity.”

Testimonials of participating students illustrate how the business wargaming

methodology represents a unique event, which is highly appreciated. One
participant (Krasavin 2006, 2) summarized his experiences with the CEO
Challenge in a report for his school and concluded:

The paragraph above illustrates what I love best about consulting—

challenging problems that are solved by the team in an environment of
high creativity and fun. As such and going back to the original purpose,
the event was a tremendous success—we saw how Booz Allen Hamilton
consultants work.

What started within Booz Allen as a small initiative has established itself as
a global top event on campuses.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER
Further Applications
of Business
Wargaming 9
Thus far we have discussed a number of the current applications of business
wargames and demonstrated how organizations can benefit from the
methodology. In this chapter we explore two other fields where business
wargaming can potentially make significant contributions—strategic early
warning systems and corporate reputation management.

Strategic Early Warning Systems

There is evidence that most organizations lack the ability to spot relevant
signals of change fast enough—in other words, to identify signals that announce
opportunities or portend threats before the competition does so (Day and
Schoemaker 2006). Fuld (2003) points out, based on a survey of 140 corporate
strategists, that two thirds of those surveyed admied that their organization
had been surprised by as many as three high-impact competitive events in the
past five years. Further, 97 percent of the surveyed stated that their organizations
lacked the kind of early warning systems to avoid such surprises in the future.
In a study done by Roland Berger Strategy Consultants (2003), the lack of a
strategic early warning system was identified as one of the key causes of failure
in strategic planning.

The concept of strategic early warning system (Schwarz 2005, 2006) can
be seen as rooted in Ansoff’s (1980) concept of strategic issue management.
A strategic early warning system is a systematic procedure for early identification
and fast response to important signals in the environment of an organization.
The goal of a strategic early warning system is to detect early signals of change
before they develop to a full crisis, or rather detect opportunities ahead of time
compared to the competitors (Fuld 2003).

Two concepts are of particular importance for a strategic early warning

system: the concept of weak signals (Ansoff 1975) and environmental scanning
(Aguilar 1967). The underlying assumption of a strategic early warning system
100 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

is that discontinuity does not emerge without warning. These warning signs
can be described as weak signals. Weak signals, if undetected, may lead to
strategic surprises, leading to an event, which has the potential to threaten an
organization’s strategy.

The objective of a strategic early warning system is to detect weak signals.

Detecting these signals in an organization’s environment is achieved by scanning
its environment. Environmental scanning describes a process in which the envi-
ronment of an organization is systematically scanned for relevant information.
The purpose is to identify early signals of possible environmental change and
to detect environmental change already underway (Lester and Waters 1989).

In the figure below the “ideal” process of a strategic early warning is taken
from Liebl (2000), who describes a process of three phases. The first phase is
characterized by the information gathering of weak signals, or rather trends
and issues, which can be perceived as the relevant weak signals in a business en-
vironment. The scanning relies primarily on looking at various media sources,
referring to the technique of content analysis (Nasbi 1982). Monitoring trends
and issues that have already drawn aention complements the scanning
activity.

The second phase is the one of diagnosis, which is characterized, in turn,

by three steps. The first step contains an in-depth analysis of the trend or issue,
examining the core and the involved contexts of this phenomenon. The aim
is to gain an idea of the possible potential of an issue or trend. The second
step has several goals. Firstly, an aempt should be made to think creatively
about how the particular trend or issue could evolve. Secondly, the character of
the contexts needs to be examined in order to cluster several trends or issues,
enabling you to understand the mutual influences trends and issues may have.
Because of an organization’s limited resources it is important during the final
step of the diagnostic phase to identify and select those trends and issues that
are particularly relevant. Finally, the third phase describes the formulation of
appropriate strategies to react to the identified and as appropriately labeled
trends and issues.

When executing a strategic early warning system the constant question is

where to scan, or what focus to give the scanning activity. Typically, if a business
wargame has been used, several fields of interest will have been identified
which may either threaten the organization’s strategy or offer a variety of
opportunities now or in the future. These points of interest are an excellent
input for a strategic early warning system. Using these points of interest,
F U RT H E R A P P L I C AT I O N S O F B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G 101

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Information gathering Diagnosis Strategy

• Enviornmental scanning • In-depth analysis • Formulate reaction

– “weak signals” • Think creatively and strategies
– trends and key issues examine the contexts of
trends and issues
• Identify and select
relevant trends and issues

Figure 9.1 The process of a strategic early warning system

derived from a business wargame, would not only allow such a system to gain
a valuable input, it would also enable an organization to leverage the lessons
learned and the experiences gained from a business wargame.

A business wargame can therefore be an excellent starting point for

implementing a strategic early warning system, as it offers new insight and
foresight to any system. Of course, in return the information gathered by a
strategic early warning system may provide a wonderful source for designing
a business wargame, leading in turn to greater foresight and hindsight,
particularly if the aim of a business wargame is not simply to encounter and
anticipate the competitor’s behaviors, but, as Dunnigan (2000, 1) puts it, to “get
a jump on the future.”

Corporate Reputation Management: Stakeholder

Wargame
Over the past decade managers, particularly in the US, came to realize that
intangible assets could generate far more value for a corporation than the
immediate benefits generated through patent protection or, for example,
the acquisition of proprietary know-how about manufacturing processes, or
special technologies.

Managers have recognized that the intangible asset of corporate reputation

offers their companies a sustainable competitive advantage over their
competitors as it generates greater sympathy with their current and future
customers, employees, investors, and suppliers as well as the regulatory
authorities, unions, public interest groups and so on.
102 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

Positive reputation may have several beneficial effects for the company, for
example: an increased willingness amongst customers to buy the company’s
products, a desire amongst job seekers to work for the company, increased
share values in the stock markets, and favorable relationships with public
interest groups. These four benefits can be measured on the basis of repeat
sales per customer, employee turnover, recruitment costs per candidate or
price/earnings ratios in the stock markets. Corporate reputations are fragile
and take a long time to build, but a few incidents of irresponsible behavior may
destroy them.

By way of example, on March 24, 1989, the tanker Exxon Valdez was
grounded on Bligh Reef in the upper part of the Prince William Sound. The
tanker was carrying approximately 53 million gallons of crude oil, 11 million
of which spilled into the Prince William Sound. Apart from the environmental
catastrophe, the incident proved to be a huge setback for the Exxon corporation.
Their slow and reactive crisis management lost them considerable goodwill
amongst the general population and with environmental groups. The cost of
the catastrophe was about one billion dollars in market capitalization during
the period two weeks prior to and following the incident (Fombrun 1996).

In the Exxon case, contingency crisis planning both in terms of action and
communication could have prevented at least some of the damage. This type
of planning may have enabled Exxon to reassure the public about its concerns
for the environment, and demonstrate decisiveness on the part of the company
in preventing any further damage. The case illustrates that in order to protect
a corporate reputation, a company needs a well-prepared crisis team and
validated contingency plans. Such a system ensures the smooth running of the
company, consistent behavior of the individuals working for the company, and
consistent behavior of the company as a whole i.e. corporate behavior, whether
or not the company faces a crisis or calm water.

Corporations and organizations are characterized by the fact that they are
made up of people, acting together in order to pursue a common goal (Hodge,
Anthony and Gales 1996). Inherent in this definition is the potential exposure
of individual members of the organization to conflicts of interest between
personal and organizational goals. During working hours, the members of an
organization are expected to subordinate their personal goals to the goals of
the organization.

The existence, or absence, of reputation can constitute a source of competitive

advantage or disadvantage for a corporation in its market environment
F U RT H E R A P P L I C AT I O N S O F B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G 103

(Fombrun 1996). If a corporation has a good reputation, it is likely to sell more

to customers, receive more job applications, get more favorable coverage from
financial analysts and journalists, and get more opportunities to enter business
relationships with new customers, who have heard favorable things about it.
A good corporate reputation, therefore, is one of the most valuable intangible
assets to a company (Hall 1992, 1993). The accumulation of reputation capital
(Fombrun 1996) is highly desirable, and thus a way to maximize firm value.

Both corporate and individual reputations are determined by actual or

perceived actions. While in the case of an individual, these actions are driven by
the individual’s own behavior, in the case of organizations, they are made up of
the collective behavior of the members. This collective behavior can be described
as the sum of all individual behaviors of members of an organization.

Whilst an individual ultimately determines and is responsible for his or

her own behavior, the collective behavior of an organization is at least in part
a function of effective design and the influence of leadership. The bankruptcy
cases of the Swiss national carrier Swissair and the energy giant Enron have
shown more than once how fragile corporations are and the importance of
effective governance systems to ensure smooth operations, as well as to guard
against the fraudulent or negligent behavior of individuals or groups within
the organization.

Wargaming may be used not only to prepare for crisis situations, but also
run a sensitivity analysis around the major constituents of a corporation in
order to beer anticipate reputation risk factors. This could be by seing up the
game revolving around the company and a handful of main competitors, and
instead of just having a market team, actually playing different “response cells”
such as a team representing the market, the workforce and their preference
for each of the competitive teams as well as public interest groups and the
investment community and where they would invest their money. The control
team could probe for specific events that would have a potential impact on the
reputations of the played companies such as product flaws, legal issues in the
workplace, IT problems, boycos etc. The objective would be to find out what
the potential sensitivities are with the different stakeholders as well as training
the participants in coming up with effective countermeasures to mitigate such
reputational risks.

The difficulty may be that unless you understand the reputational risks
for a company and their interdependencies in sufficient detail to quantify
them, justifying the cost of a wargame may be hard work. On the other hand,
104 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

any forward-looking manager should be concerned to take any conceivable

measure to protect the reputation capital of his or her firm. If wargaming can
help do this it will be a valuable tool for protecting corporate value.
CHAPTER
An Alternative
Approach to Designing
a Business Wargame: 10
Wargaming in the
Automotive Industry
Pero Mićić1

This chapter describes a wargame in the automotive industry based around the
concept of future management.

The Situation
One of the world’s largest automotive suppliers wanted to analyze a
number of dynamic competition scenarios for the business units of its most
important division by means of a business wargame. A strategically significant
acquisition made by a competitor had caught the executives by surprise and
made them anxious to know more about potential competitors in the future.
FutureManagementGroup AG was asked to prepare, facilitate and lead the
wargame project.

Goals of the Wargame

The wargaming project was undertaken on the basis of four goals determined
by the client following intensive discussions.

1. To identify possible competitive situations and map competitor

moves in the future.
2. To reduce the number of blind spots in the top managers’ perception.

1 Dr. Pero Mićić is the chairman of the FutureManagementGroup AG, Eltville, Germany.
106 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

3. To strengthen the corporate strategy against the unexpected.

4. To identify, develop and evaluate future opportunities.

IDENTIFY POSSIBLE COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS AND MAP

COMPETITOR ACTIONS IN THE FUTURE

This primary goal was pursued and achieved by elaborating a series of

competitive future scenarios which might evolve as a result of action and
strategic moves by competitors. Since the probable and therefore most likely
moves were already entirely known and had been thoroughly analyzed, the
client was looking for those considerably less probable and more surprising
future moves and situations with the strongest impacts. Despite the need
to identify the unexpected, the moves and situations all needed to have a
reasonable degree of plausibility.

REDUCE THE NUMBER OF BLIND SPOTS IN THE TOP MANAGERS’

PERCEPTION
Blind spots are inevitable. Dangerous developments can evolve unnoticed by
managers and catch the company by surprise. At the same time, blind spots
hinder leaders’ ability to discover new favorable developments and strategic
opportunities in the business environment. It is impossible to get even close to
a complete picture of all factors in the environment.

Blind spots are due to barriers to perception, awareness, imagination, and

action which arise from a manager’s lack of knowledge or intelligence and
their inability to articulate ideas as well as their incorrect assumptions about
reality and personal bias or aversions. All these factors can be situational
and amplified by the individual’s current state of mind. As a consequence,
the consultants deliberately confronted the participants of the wargame with
an unconventional design for their management meeting and with several
challenges to commonly held beliefs.

STRENGTHEN THE CORPORATE STRATEGY AGAINST THE

UNEXPECTED

Identifying blind spots, thereby reducing their number and developing eventual
counter-strategies, implies making the corporate strategy more robust against
the effects of possible surprise. One of the core purposes of future management
is to enable management to be less likely to be surprised, which means looking
for possible surprises and prepare yourself for them, at least mentally.
WA R G A M I N G I N T H E A U TO M OT I V E I N D U S T RY 107

IDENTIFY, DEVELOP AND EVALUATE FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES

We define future opportunities as both the potential and the identified actions
of an individual or an organization which are advantageous. The eventual
plans developed to reinforce the strategy are a form of reactive opportunities.
The alternative kind of future opportunities lies in the more active pursuit
of possible advantageous strategies which are largely independent of the
competitors’ own decisions and actions. Such opportunities may originate as
a result of the weaknesses or vulnerabilities of competitors, unmet customer
demands, new technologies, or untapped markets.

TRIGGER CHANGE OF THE CORPORATE CULTURE

There was an additional goal which was particularly challenging with this
client. The company’s strategic behavior was and still is based on the values of
good ethics and sustainability, as is the case with many traditional companies.
Their behavior is correct, value driven and technology focused.

However, with more aggressive competitors from Western countries,

let alone Asia, this kind of defensive culture was perceived as a dangerous
weakness. Through the wargame managers were supposed to learn to embrace
aggressive strategies without abandoning their values.

PLANNING AND PREPARATION

The wargame was organized as an intensive two-day workshop with 60

participants representing the entire top management of the company. There
were simultaneous wargames involving three business units each with three
competitors. Nine facilitators and nine documentators were needed for this
setup, in addition to an overall facilitator for the entire group. The client chose
to recruit half of the facilitators and recorders from their own staff and the
other half from FutureManagementGroup. Figure 10.1 illustrates the process
of the wargame.

A series of preparatory analyses were required in advance of the game:

1. Internal experts from the client’s corporate intelligence departments

helped identify the main trends in the automotive industry.

2. Another 39 future factors, for example trends, technologies and

change drivers were chosen and prepared in the form of posters for
the walls of the workshop rooms in order to expand the thinking
horizon.
108 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

3. We do not recommend you assume that the workshops will be

spontaneously creative, so we prepared a list of 26 archetypal
aggressive strategy moves, defining particular changes in value
networks, pricing, acquisitions or niche strategies. These moves
were designed to serve as templates for thinking on what the
competitors or the company might possibly do in the future.

4. A comprehensive profile was produced for each of the three

competitors in each of the three business units. These nine profiles
were summarized as nine one-page documents.

5. The nine groups were formed: three market groups, each with three
competitor groups. It was a particular challenge to mix participants
within each group who had prior knowledge about the respective
competitor(s) and market(s) with participants who had fresh minds.

6. Facilitators and recorders were provided with a click-through

presentation to help them structure and lead their workshops along
with an electronic form to document the results. There was also a
workshop booklet with a thorough description of the process and
the rules to support the game and ensure good preparation.

Process Game A Game B Game C

Prepare documents and

working materials Preparation

Present the goals and the

methodology Plenary: All participants

Rehearse own strategy

and identify competitors Market Group A Market Group B Market Group C

Attacks by competitors
(Be the enemy) A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3

Analyze impacts A3 A1 A2 B3 B1 B2 C3 C1 C2

Develop counter-attacks A3 A1 A2 B3 B1 B2 C3 C1 C2

Replies to counter-
attacks (Be the enemy) A2 A3 A1 B2 B3 B1 C2 C3 C1

Summarize learnings and

develop proposals Market Group A Market Group B Market Group C

Summarize learnings and

decide on proposals
Plenary: all participants

Figure 10.1 The process of the wargame

WA R G A M I N G I N T H E A U TO M OT I V E I N D U S T RY 109

The preparatory work ended with a half-day workshop in which the

project leaders, the facilitators and the recorders discussed and rehearsed the
workshop process.

The Wargame

OPENING AND INTRODUCTION

The wargame took place in a secluded hotel which had enough rooms for the
groups and the plenary sessions. The chief executive officer welcomed the
participants, presented the core elements of the company’s current strategy
and provided the rationale for the wargaming project. The consultants set the
scene with stories about wargames through history and in recent times as well
as with a basic introduction to future management.

REHEARSAL OF THE PRESENT STRATEGY AND IDENTIFICATION OF

COMPETITORS

The participants were acquainted with the structure of the groups and they were
first sent as three market groups to their respective rooms. These groups rehearsed
separately the business unit’s current strategies. Questions from the participants,
especially those from outside the unit, were answered in a brief session.

The three market groups were then split into three groups representing
three types of competitors:

1. The company’s main, actual, competitor in the market.

2. A potential new entrant from a related market.

3. A typical (and “virtual”) competitor pursuing an aggressive low-

cost strategy.

ROUND ONE: COMPETITOR ATTACKS (“BE THE ENEMY”)

The group workshops were designed as simulated competitor strategy sessions.

The working groups developed their moves and strategies based on the
prepared material previously described. Each participant was assigned with a
role within his or her group (e.g. operations manager of company A, marketing
director of company B), which was documented with a corresponding name
tag including the competitor’s logo. “Be the enemy” was the guideline.
110 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

In order to increase the aggressiveness of their moves and strategies,

competitors were assumed to have virtually unlimited funding by a notional
investor. The main goal was to drive the (client) company out of the market with
intelligent, effective, plausible and essentially legal moves and strategies. The
moves and strategies were recorded as they were elaborated. The recorders used
an electronic form in order to keep information flowing steadily throughout
the process of interrelated workshops.

At the end of the first workshop (round one), a member of the group was
appointed “ambassador.” The ambassador was required to present the strategy
to one of the other groups and to join this group during the second turn in order
to explain the thinking and intentions of his or her original group through the
presentation and wrien documentation.

ROUND TWO: DEFENSE AND COUNTER-ATTACKS

The goal of the second round was to develop strategies to counter the actions
envisioned in round one. In this round the groups reverted back to their “real-
life company.” The ambassadors played the role of a high-level executive who
had recently changed from working for the competitor to working for the
company and brought inside information on the competitor’s strategy, in order
to present the strategies to the groups. The group then analyzed the impacts
of this strategy.

This point represented the end of day one and the participants were given
the opportunity to think about the impacts and possible elements for counter-
strategies overnight. The following day, the working groups gathered to develop
counter-strategies which might be either defensive or offensive. These elements
were deliberately separated from the current strategy in order to provide more
room for innovative approaches.

We identified seven typical ways to handle a possible surprise, once

identified, as shown in Figure 10.2, and to develop eventual preventive or crisis
strategies.

As before, the results were recorded and passed back to the competing
group for the next turn.

ROUND THREE: RESPONSES TO COUNTER-ATTACKS

In round three the working groups reverted again to their role as the competitor
from round one. The ambassadors returned to their original groups to play out
WA R G A M I N G I N T H E A U TO M OT I V E I N D U S T RY 111

Approach Explanation Type

Neglect Check and classify as not significant. Preventive strategy

Prevent the surprise from happening, by eliminating its

Prevent Preventive strategy
prerequisites.

Develop an effective contingency plan in case the scenario

Provide Preventive strategy
comes true.

Include defensive, securing or offensive elements in the present

Prepare Acute strategy
strategy.

Convert the surprise into an opportunity as a jui-jitsu for your

Convert Acute strategy
own benefit.

Reduce Reduce the potential loss or damage (e.g. by insurance). Preventive strategy

Preventive or acute
Anticipate Take the feared action yourself.
strategy

Figure 10.2 General types of eventual strategies

the following scenario: the results of their strategy session were fortuitously
transferred to the “own company.” By chance the competitors received an
intercepted email describing the company’s counter-strategies. The ambassador
filled the role of the person who received the email and presented the content,
following which the impact was analyzed, the aack strategies adapted and
further elements added.

IMPACT ANALYSIS

The impacts of the new strategies were again analyzed by the competitor
groups. At this point the participants were allowed to abandon their roles and
“become themselves again.” They now agreed and recorded the most important
lessons from their group. Following this the three working groups reformed in
the market groups to present and discuss their lessons for the business unit
and for the company as a whole. Finally, all three market groups rejoined the
plenary session to summarize the findings for their business units and the
whole company as well as the implications for the current strategy.

SUCCESS FACTORS FOR THE WARGAME

What was potentially the first critical success factor—the need to gain the top
executives’ time and aention—was irrelevant in this case since it was the
CEO himself who had triggered the project. Consequently, the real first critical
success factor was to achieve and maintain the kind of open mindset needed
112 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

for a wargame of this kind. Many of the moves and strategies were extremely
challenging since they went beyond the imagination of many of the participants.
One example involved imagining a competitor who had developed an injection
pump with a much lower pressure than is currently regarded as possible. It is
only when participants focus their thinking on “why not” rather than on “that’s
impossible” that they achieve the prerequisite for liing blinkers, opening their
minds and expanding horizons of their thinking. The psychological problems
associated with wargames are as follows:

1. Probability thinking: Participants tend to forget that they are supposed

to look for the unexpected, which means seing aside the probable
and look for improbabilities.

2. Groupthink: In common with many groups, executives suffer from a

degree of groupthink which needs to be handled well by mixing the
participants in the groups and by the facilitators asking awkward
questions.

3. Blind spots: People cannot see what they do not know. Therefore
the client searched to reduce the number and significance of blind
spots as described in the goals above

4. Experience-based thinking: Executives, in particular, tend to rely

heavily on their experience. However, experience can prevent them
from imagining alternatives. This is the purpose behind mixing
inexperienced laymen with the executives in each group.

5. Craving the sensational: People to aach meaning only to what is

spectacular. However, it is oen small, undervalued moves and
developments which make the difference.

6. Product focus: Executives and technical executives tend to love

their product(s). They need to be reminded that customers pay for
functionality and benefits, not for products and not for solutions.

The second critical success factor involved managing the requisite

complexity when 60 top executives were working in unfamiliar setups and in
strange roles. Switching several times between different roles made the process
even more challenging for everybody involved.

We managed to succeed thanks to long and thorough planning, preparation,

and testing with all actors involved—with the exception of the executives
themselves who were unavailable beyond just two interviews with the CEO.
We developed a methodological model with suitable tools and techniques
WA R G A M I N G I N T H E A U TO M OT I V E I N D U S T RY 113

specifically for this project and we made sure that each group workshop was
led by an experienced facilitator.

Lessons Learned
The executives identified several vulnerabilities in their strategy which they
admied had not been on their radar screen before. In addition, they discovered
opportunities for improving their competitive position by anticipating the
possible future actions of their competitors.

Results
The results of the wargame triggered several strategic initiatives to improve the
company’s strategy and to make it more robust against the impact of possible
surprises. Several projects were started or changed to put the lessons learned
and the new decisions into action. On the basis of the substantial results, similar
wargaming projects were planned for other parts of the group.
This page intentionally left blank
PART III

Business Wargaming
in Practice
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER
Design and
Execution
11
We have provided you with an overview of the history and the basic methodology
of business wargaming and have given you insights into a number of past,
present and future applications of it. We will now spend some time on how to
design and execute business wargames. The specifics may vary significantly
depending on the type of game and the underlying questions, which need to
be answered, which means that this chapter can only offer a general guide to
the process.

What follows is a pragmatic view of how to get from an initial idea to an

executable business wargame and how the lessons learned are best captured. It
is this capture of knowledge, which is a prerequisite to unlock the commercial
value of any game and translate the learning into competitive advantage.

Any business wargaming follows a basic four-step process: design,

preparation, execution, and debriefing/documentation. As displayed in Figure
11.1, each of these main work steps includes a variety of subactivities, which we
will explain in more detail. By way of example we will relate the process to the
application of business wargaming for strategy testing.

Design Preperation Execution Debriefing /

Documentation

Interviews with Game books

senior
management Documentation
Market and Business Lessons learned
control models Wargame Implications
Objectives and Next steps
requirements

Pre-test / “mini” game

Figure 11.1 Process of designing and executing a business wargame

Source: Oriesek and Friedrich 2003, 68
118 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

Experience has shown that a typical strategy testing game can be put
together and played over the course of approximately 8–12 weeks. The majority
of the time required is used for preparing the game, collecting information,
structuring the documents and seing up the models, boundaries, logistics and
schedule. The 8–12 weeks’ schedule assumes that a mixed team of consultants
and clients work on seing up the game. Typically this will involve a senior
wargaming expert and a project manager, as well as two or three consultants,
who work together with a handful of client representatives. The overall time
for preparing a game can be significantly reduced depending on how much
competitive information is already available in the organization and how much
work needs to be done to translate this data into game books and models.

During the execution phase of the game it is important that a larger

consultant team, typically consisting of industry experts and at least one
partner/principal per competitor team, be present. This larger team enables
the client participants to focus on the task at hand without having to worry
too much about process, timing, format of deliverables, communication with
the other teams and the control team, and so on. Another benefit of working
with a larger support team is that the partner and principals act as genuine
coaches, who will not solve the problem for the teams, but will challenge their
assumptions, throw in additional pieces of insight, and thus foster a productive
work and team environment. The coaches also act as record keepers and are
instrumental when preparing the debrief and summing up what actually
happened in the various teams.

Design Phase
The most important aspect of the design phase is to determine the objectives
of the game clearly and more specifically distil the key questions, to which the
team will need to have found answers to by the end of the game. Perla (1990:
165), for instance, argues, when describing the objectives of a wargame:

In specifying the objectives, game sponsors, designer, and analysts must

clearly identify how and in what ways the game can provide the type
of experience and information needed to achieve them. The statement of
objectives should be as specific as possible to allow game-design efforts to
focus on those elements critical to the production of that experience and
information, and to the assimilation of training lessons or the collection
of research data. A wargame’s objective should be the principal driver
of its entire structure.
DESIGN AND EXECUTION 119

Usually clients commissioning the design of a wargame have a broad idea

of what they are seeking to discover through the game. As we have seen in
Chapter Four, this may include questions such as: How best can we enter a
market? Should we make use of a given technology (and if so, how)? Does an
alliance or acquisition make sense? What will happen if some of the basis of
current regulation changes? What will be the impact on our current business
models or how might we change them? What should we do if …? How can we
test a certain course of action? And so on.

Since wargames do not come cheap—the average sticker price for a fully
fledged game, which is developed from scratch, is well in the half-a-million to
million dollar range—the client sponsor oen finds themselves in a dilemma.
While they know that conducting a game will provide valuable insights and
help the company avoid costly mistakes or optimize its strategy, conducting
a game is an expensive process. Therefore the sponsor is taking a significant
personal risk in proposing an exercise of this kind.

It is important therefore, as an early step that the consultants, oen together

with the sponsor, conduct a series of interviews with other members of the
senior management team. These interviews will provide a wealth of expert
views around the underlying question the game needs to answer which in turn
generates a long list of detailed questions, all of which need to be answered.
Involving the right internal stakeholders in this way ensures that the client
sponsor and the game itself will have the necessary internal support and
management aention to have a chance of success.

Ideally games should be commissioned by the CEO, a member of the board

of directors, or a division head or business unit manager. However, on some
occasions even functional managers, such as heads of business development,
marketing directors or HR directors may opt to commission a game. The senior
interviews are relatively informal, yet need to spend time on a number of
topics, such as:

• What does the company want to learn from the business

wargame?

• What are the key questions the wargame needs to answer?

• What are some of the most relevant and unaddressed issues in the
organization?
120 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

• Who should participate in the process during the design and play
stages? (From which business units, at what level and what should
be their role in the exercise, i.e. experts vs. participants?)

• What is the focus of the game? Rather than trying to model every
detail of the business, what products, stakeholders, competitors,
customers segments and markets are most relevant in order to
answer the set of questions?

• What should be the time horizon of the business wargame?

Answering these questions thoroughly and gaining a consensus view of

the objectives is particularly critical for the success of any wargame. Unless top
management is in favor of such a game, will dedicate the time and resources to
it and is serious about participating in it even if this involves slipping into the
role of competitors, the investment will be a waste of time from the outset.

Preparation
Once the design parameters have been set, you need to gather together the
requisite information about the main competitors, the market(s), customers,
current and pending regulation, technology trends, possible unexpected
events and so on, which are then distilled into the gamebooks (basically the
screenplays describing how to play the game) and into the market and control
models, which are designed in order to provide some objective measures to key
parameters for the game. The gamebooks contain information about the client
company and the competitors in the game and a market overview, as well as
the most important trends, regulation and technological developments in the
industry.

The market models do not aim to capture everything that is happening in

the real world, but are designed pragmatically around key aspects such as the
main customer groups, essential financial data and so on which will be explored
in the game. While models are important for their use as frameworks for what
is happening in an industry, they are merely a support tool for the experts in the
market and control teams, who will need to scrutinize their results in any event
and, if necessary, adjust these in order to emphasize particular developments.

To give you a specific example: when simulating the portable audio device
market in the United States for the Booz Allen Hamilton CEO Challenge, we
prepared an elaborate model which used a wide variety of input parameters
and ratings to enable experts from the market team to assign market shares and,
DESIGN AND EXECUTION 121

at the second stage of the game, to calculate margins and net profitability for a
number of products. The assumptions used in order to estimate the cost levels
built into the model were based on industry research. This research estimates
material cost and R&D cost at various levels, depending on whether we were
dealing with an audio-only, mobile phone or hybrid product, based on certain
assumptions around the quality of components.

On one occasion, a team took a very low-cost approach to the design of a

mobile phone product, using cheap components and only basic functionalities
requiring lile R&D and so on. The model which assumed a specific cost level
for this type of product generated a negative profit figure, on the basis of the
price point at which the team intended to sell the product. This meant that the
control team needed to adjust some of the component costs manually in order
to do the product justice. Otherwise the team would not have been able to
break even within the constraints of the model. This example illustrates how
the model provides good direction, but needs a reality check by the experts on
an individual product basis.

Once the basic model is in place, a so-called pre-test “mini” game should
be conducted, in which the sensitivities of the model are tested and any bugs
are detected and corrected. The “mini game” usually follows one or more likely
scenarios, which reflect today’s level of knowledge in the industry. The type
of base scenario for the game depends on the objective of the wargame. If for
instance, the aim is to prepare for crises or to assess the crisis management
system of an organization, the scenario needs to be reasonably elaborate and
will be introduced by the control team step by step.

If the focus is strategy testing, then the scenario may only consist of certain
key developments, which are likely to take place over the course of the next
couple of years. Take, for example, the opening up of the market for electricity.
The scenario in this case may simply indicate that by the year X, the market for
corporate clients will be open, followed two years later by the consumer market.
A common framework is wrien on top of this basic scenario, based on what is
known or assumed about market regulation. The framework is introduced as a
set of guidelines for all players to follow. Beyond that the teams are free to do
whatever they want within the boundaries of reality (defined by regulation and
their own financial strength and capabilities).

All games have a common starting point of today, unless you deliberately
choose to set at a different timeframe. What is known in reality today is also
what is known in the game. However, from the second move on anything goes
122 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

as long as it is within the boundaries set by the control team. The interesting
thing is that at the outset of the game, even the game developers do not know
where the game will be going aer move two. It is also interesting that if one
and the same game framework is given to two different participant groups, the
game may develop quite differently, yet the lessons learned will be similar—as
was demonstrated in the game series dealing with global power shis which
was conducted by the US government in the 1980s. The outcome of the initial
game seemed so implausible that the game was repeated several times only to
repeat the same outcome each time.

So the preparation phase provides the data set and rules for the game,
which are important to structure the game and make sure it can be kept on
track and focused on the questions relevant to the client. The objective of the
rules are to keep the game close to reality and also keep the game playable,
avoiding a wargame that becomes so complex that no one understands what
they are doing. The trick is to give the teams plenty of leeway within the rules
so they can experiment with everything that would be available to them in the
real world. In order to keep the balance between playability and complexity,
the control team needs to be experienced in running games, but also possess
a profound understanding of the industry and market so that it can take
corrective actions should they become necessary.

In order to get the most out of the game, the participants, regardless of
their team, need to receive a proper briefing. This briefing, which can make up
the last step of the preparation or the first step during the game’s execution,
will set the common ground for all parties involved. During the briefing the
teams receive a crash course in strategy and wargaming; typically including a
high-level summary of industry trends and facts, which may include a detailed
competitor briefing as well a detailed explanation on how to play the game.
During the “how to play the game” part of the session, participants are divided
into the various teams, assigned coaches and familiarized with the expected
deliverables, how to communicate with other teams and the market and given
a very detailed schedule.

Execution
The execution of the game is the fun bit. Typically three moves are played
out and the teams are busy trying to meet their schedule. In Chapter Two we
provided a detailed description of what happens during a wargame, but it is
worth emphasizing some points at this stage. First of all, although it is called
game, this is serious business and it is of utmost importance to the success of the
DESIGN AND EXECUTION 123

exercise that every individual involved gives the game their best shot and tries
to live the role they have been assigned. Only if the competitors try their very
best to beat their real-life company will they create the necessary pressure that
will drive their peers in the company team to perform at their best. Switching
roles and viewing the company from the perspective of competitors is itself
enlightening and helps many long-term managers take a fresh look at what
their company is good at and where it can improve. In this sense business
wargaming is also a means to overcome organizational blindness.

The second important aspect for successful execution is to stick with the
schedule and agreed deliverables. There is nothing more annoying than a
situation in which four out of five teams are on time and deliver their solution
to the agreed level of quality while one team then lags behind. If this happens
the entire wargame is in danger of running out of sync, which will jeopardize
the objectives. For this reason, wargames are ideally conducted by a dedicated
team of experts and supported by experienced coaches, who can keep an eye
both on the clock and on the quality of the deliverables. Typically you need to
present an initial summary of the lessons learned aer each move and certainly
at the end of the actual game (which usually lasts between two and three days).
This summary is assembled from the observations of the coaches and the
control team as well as from the input provided by the participants.

Debriefing and Documentation

Arguably the most important part of any wargaming exercise, the detailed
debriefing, happens around a week following the actual game. Based on the
coaches’ observations, input from participants and hard data provided through
the models and evaluation of all the email traffic throughout the moves, the
consultants compile what could be called the core results of the game. This
includes a list with the most important observations made during the game,
followed by what could be learned from these observations and what the
consequences are for the client company. Based on this deductive approach,
you can formulate a set of specific recommendations, which it is to be hoped
will find their way back into the original strategic plan to enable you to improve
it or to avoid any undesirable outcomes or take certain action, such as acquiring
a competitor, launching a new technology, or entering new markets. The depth
and focus of the debriefing is again dependent on the objectives of the game,
Steinwachs (1992), for instance, provides several examples of how to go about
debriefing a simulation. In a strategy testing game, the debriefing follows the
just described path, while in a crisis prevention game typically an action plan
or contingency plans are developed. In educational games, the debriefing may
124 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

have a stronger focus on the group dynamics and what the key points were in
the decision process, where the group took quantum leaps or why mistakes
were made.

Summary
At this point, we would like to summarize what we believe are the critical
success factors for designing and executing a successful business wargame:

• Tailor-made for each client: Business wargames should be tailor-made

for each client and should reflect the overarching objective, issues,
and questions of that particular client.

• Thorough preparation: Preparation is critical and starts with in-depth

interviews with principal players prior to the wargame. Once buy-
in is obtained, thorough work needs to go into the preparation of
the gamebook and models.

• Solid quantitative data: Ideally a wargame should have solid

quantitative data. If this is not possible, it should always provide
a framework to allow you to reverse engineer why certain things
turned out the way they did.

• Pragmatic models: Models should be comprehensive, but focus on

the key questions and reduce complexity rather than trying to
model everything that is happening.

• Intensive and well structured: Good business wargames are intensive,

but also fun for the participants. They are tightly scheduled with
clear deliverables and a professional team to run and coach the
game. In this way the participating managers can fully submerge
themselves in the experience and actually live through a likely
future.

• Close to reality: The beer participants identify with their roles, the
beer the mutual learning experience. It is the role of the facilitators
to set the stage and make sure participants are motivated and
well prepared to take on their roles. The facilitators also need to
stay on top of all the actions and keep the participants within the
boundaries of reality.

• Follow through: Each wargame must have a proper debrief. Without

a debrief, lessons learned and an action plan it is nothing more than
a game and of lile use to the client.
DESIGN AND EXECUTION 125

Done well, participants and companies will get a great deal out of a
wargame. The most valuable aspect in our view is the unique ability to go
through a shared experience of seeing what is likely to happen. Managers will
see together what works well and what does not and learning takes place in
the group. It is not unusual that the energy experienced during a game will
continue to have a positive effect in facilitating cooperation within and across
departments. We believe the main drivers for this process are the intense
experience shared, the mutual learning and the common ground established
during the game and particularly during the debrief.
This page intentionally left blank
Bibliography

Aguilar, F.J. (1967), Scanning the Business Environment (New York: The Macmillan
Company).
Ahlquist, G. and Burns, H. (2002), ‘Bioterrorism Wargame’, www.boozallen.
com/media/file/103349.pdf.
Andlinger, G.R. (1958), ‘Looking Around: What Can Business Games Do?’,
Harvard Business Review 36:4, 147–52.
Ansoff, H.I. (1975), ‘Managing Strategic Suprise by Response to Weak Signals’,
California Management Review XVIII:2, 21–33.
Ansoff, H.I. (1980), ‘Strategic Issue Management’, Strategic Management Journal
1:2, 131–48.
Bazerman, M.H. and Watkins, M.D. (2004), Predictable Surprises (Boston MA:
Harvard Business School Press).
Bell, W. (2003), Foundations of Futures Studies, Vol. 1 (New Brunswick NJ:
Transaction Publishers).
Booz Allen Hamilton (2004), ‘The AIDS Epidemic: A Strategic Simulation’,
www.boozallen.com/media/file/137999.pdf.
Bracken, P. (2001), ‘Business War Gaming’, Scenario & Strategy Planning 3:2,
15–18.
Bracken, P. and Shubik, M. (2001), ‘War Gaming in the Information Age’, Naval
War College Review LIV:2, 47–60.
Brewer, G.D. and Shubik, M. (1979), The War Game (Cambridge MA: Harvard
Univeristy Press).
Broomley, D.B. (1993), Reputation, Image and Impression Management (Chichester:
John Wiley & Sons).
Caffrey Jr, M. (2000), ‘Toward a History-Based Doctrine for Wargaming’,
Aerospace Power Journal XIV:3, 33–56.
Courtney, H. (2001), 20/20 Foresight: Craing Strategy in an Uncertain World
(Boston MA: Harvard Business School Publishing).
Day, G.S. and Schoemaker, P.J.H. (2006), Peripheral Vision: Detecting the Weak
Signals That Will Make or Break Your Company (Boston MA: Harvard Business
School Press).
128 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

Duck, J.D. (2001), The Change Monster (New York: Crown Business).
Dunnigan, J.F. (2000), Wargames Handbook (New York: Writers Club Press).
Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. (1998), Making Strategy (London: Sage
Publications).
Faria, A.J. and Dickinson, R. (1994), ‘Simulation Gaming for Sales Management
Training’, Journal of Management Development 13:1, 47–59.
Feldmann, J. and Krüger, P. (2007), Die Systematik der strategischen Führung
(Frauenfeld: Huber).
Fombrun, C. (1996), Reputation - Creating Value from the Corporate Image (Boston
MA: Harvard Business School Press).
Fuld, L. (2003), ‘Be Prepared’, Harvard Business Review 81:11, 20–21.
Fuld, L. (2006), The Secret Language of Competitive Intelligence (New York: Crown
Business).
Fuller, T. and Loogma, K. (2007), ‘Constructing Futures; a Social Constructionist
Perspective on Foresight Methodology’, paper presented at the COAST A22
Conference ‘From Oracles to Dialogue; Exploring New Ways to Explore the
Future’, Athens, Greece.
Gilad, B. (2004), Early Warning: Using Competitive Intelligence to Anticipate Market
Shis, Control Risk, and Create Powerful Strategies (New York: AMACOM).
Ginter, P.M. and Rucks, A.C. (1984), ‘Can Business Learn from Wargames?’,
Long Range Planning 17:3, 123–8.
Grant, R.M. (2003), ‘Strategic Planning in a Turbulent Environment: Evidence
from the Oil Majors’, Strategic Management Journal 24:6, 491–517.
Haffa, R.P. and Paon, J.H. (1999), ‘The Need for Joint Wargaming: Combining
Theory and Practice’, US Army War College 29:3, 106–18.
Hall, R. (1992), ‘The Strategic Analysis of Intangible Resources’, Strategic
Management Journal 13:2, 135–44.
Hall, R. (1993), ‘A Framework Linking Intangible Resources and Capabilities to
Sustainable Advantage’, Strategic Management Journal 14:8, 607–18.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1994), Competing for the Future (Boston MA:
Harvard Business School Press).
Hartung, A. (2004), ‘Quotes: Pithy Sayings for the New World of Work’, www.
thephoenixprinciple.com/quotes/.
Hodge, B.J., Anthony, W.P. and Gales, L.M. (1996), Organizing Theory: A Strategic
Approach (Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall).
Jarre, M. (2003), ‘The Seven Myths of Change Management’, Business Strategy
Review, 14:4, 22–9.
Kalman, J.C. and Rhenman, E. (1975), ‘The Role of Management Games in
Education and Research’, in Greenblat, C.S. and Duke, R.D. (eds), Gaming-
Simulation: Rationale, Design, and Application (New York: Sage Publication),
233–69.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 129

Krasavin, A. (2006), ‘The Insider’s View of Consulting: Booz Allen Hamilton’s

CEO Challenge’, students.som.yale.edu/sigs/Euro/AK/BAH_CEO_Challenge
_Writeup_Krasavin.pdf.
Kurtz, J. (2002), ‘Introduction to Business Wargaming’, Competitive Intelligence
Magazine 5:6, 23–8.
Kurtz, J. (2003), ‘Business Wargaming: Simulations Guide Crucial Strategy
Decisions’, Strategy & Leadership 31:6, 12–21.
Lester, R. and Waters, J. (1989), Environmental Scanning and Business Strategy
(Cambridge: University Press).
Liebl, F. (2000), Der Schock des Neuen: Entstehung und Management von Issues und
Trends (München: Gerling Akademie Verlag).
Lüchinger, R. (2001), Der Fall der Swissair (Zürich: Bilanz Verlag).
Makridakis, S. (2004), ‘Foreword: Foresight Maers’, in Tsoukas, H. and
Shepherd, J. (eds), Managing the Future (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing), XIII–
XIV.
McCown, M.M. (2005), ‘Strategic Gaming for the National Security Community’,
Joint Force Quarterly 39, 34–9.
McKenna, T. (2003), ‘This Means War’, The Journal of Electronic Defence, December
42–6.
Merriam-Webster’s (1994), Merriam-Webster’s College Dictionary (Springfield IL,
Merriam-Webster).
Mitroff, I.I. (2000), Managing Crises Before they Happen (New York: Amacom).
Mitroff, I.I., Pearson, C.M. and Harrington, L.K. (1996), The Essential Guide to
Managing Corporate Crises (New York: Oxford University Press).
Nasbi, J. (1982), Megatrends. (New York: Warner Books).
Oriesek, D.F. and Friedrich, R. (2003), ‘Blick in die Zukun’, Harvard Business
Manager, May 65–71.
Perla, P.P. (1990), The Art of Wargaming (Annapolis MD: Naval Institute Press).
Rigby, D. (2005), Management Tools 2005: An Executive’s Guide (Boston MA: Bain
& Company).
Rodriguez, R. (2006), ‘Creating an Employment Brand for Your Organi-
zation’, Talent Management, www.talentmgt.com/recruitment_retention/2006/
November/196/index.php.
Roland Berger Strategy Consultants (2003), Excellence in Strategic Planning:
Roland Berger Studie über die strategische Planung (München: Roland Berger
Strategy Consultants).
Rubel, R.C. (2006), ‘The Epistemology of War Gaming’, Naval War College Review
59:2, 108–28.
Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1992), ‘How to Link Strategic Visions to Core Capabilities’,
Sloan Management Review 34:1, 67–81.
130 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

Schwarz, J.O. (2005), ‘Pitfalls in Implementing a Strategic Early Warning

System’, Foresight 7:4, 22–30.
Schwarz, J.O. (2006), The Future of Futures Studies: A Delphi Study with a German
Perspective (Aachen: Shaker).
Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fih Discipline (London: Century Business).
Starr, S.H. (2001), ‘Good Games: Challenges for the War-Gaming Community’,
Naval War College Review LIV:2, 89–97.
Steinwachs, B. (1992), ‘How to Facilitate a Debriefing’, Simulation & Gaming
23:2, 186–95.
The Thought Leadership Summit (2006), ‘Reinventing Distribution: The
Future of Asset Management’, www.tls-reedmidem.com/files/TLS2/
ThoughtsandFindingsFulDocument.pdf.
Toffler, A. (2000), ‘Interview with Alvin Toffler’, Business 2.0, September.
Treat, J.E., Thibault, G.E. and Asin, A. (1996), ‘Dynamic Competitive Simulation:
Wargaming as a Strategic Tool’, Strategy, Management, Competition, Second
Quarter, 46–54.
Tsoukas, H. (2004), ‘Coping with the Future: Developing Organizational
Foresightfulness’, Futures 36:2, 137–44.
van der Heijden, K. (1998), ‘Articulating the Business Idea: The Key to Relevant
Scenarios’, in Fahey, R. and Randall, R.M. (eds), Learning from the Future:
Competitive Foresight Scenarios (San Francisco CA: John Wiley & Sons), 335–
51.
van der Heijden, K., Bradfield, R., Burt, G., Crains, G. and Wright, G. (2002), The
Sixth Sense (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons).
Vanderveer, R. and Heasley II, J. (2005), ‘War Gaming: Exercises in Defending
Brand Territory’, MM&M, May, 68–72.
Watman, K. (2003), ‘War Gaming and its Role in Examining the Future’, Brown
Journal of World Affairs 10:1, 51–61.
Index

3G standard 49–50 competitor aacks 109–10

9/11 events 59, 67 corporate culture, change 107
corporate strategy, strengthening 106
accelerated learning, business wargaming counter-aacks, responses 110–11
as xiii crisis strategies 111
air travel, as commodity 43 current strategies, rehearsal 109
airline industry, strategic alliances 43–4, defense/counter-aacks 110
47–8 future opportunities 107
airline strategy game 43–8 goals 105–9
background 43–4 impact analysis 111
Booz Allen Hamilton 44 lessons learned 113
briefing 46 opening/introduction 109
game setup 45–6 participants 107
key questions/objectives 44 planning/preparation 107–9
lessons learned 47–8 process 107–9
teams 45 psychological problems 112
Allianz Global Investors 78 results 113
American Management Association, game success factors 111–13
19 Avalon Hill Company, games 16–17
anthrax threat 67–8
Army Infantry School (US) 17 Bain & Company 92
asset management game The Bale for the Clicks game 87–8
Allianz Global Investors 78 bioterrorism game
background 74–5 background 67–8
game setup 75–7 Booz Allen Hamilton 68
industry issues 76–7 challenges 69–70
key questions/objectives 75 game setup 68–71
lessons learned 77–8 key questions/objectives 68
moves 76 lessons learned 71–2
participants 77 teams 68–9
scenario 76 Booz Allen Hamilton 3
asset management industry 75 airline strategy game 44
automotive industry game 105–13 bioterrorism game 68
background 105 CEO Challenge game 91–7, 120
blind spots, reduction 106 HIV/AIDS game 61, 62, 63, 68
competitive situations, identification wargaming team 20
106 Boston Consulting Group 92
132 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

business wargames competitor teams, role 24

business school games, differences 21–2 computer simulations 21–2
crises management 57–9 computer wargames 15, 17, 18
business wargaming Confederation of Indian Industry, HIV/
as accelerated learning xiii AIDS game 61, 62, 63
applications 39–55, 99–104 control teams, role 25
automotive industry 105–13 corporate culture 107
benefits xiii, 1, 33–5, 42 corporate reputation management 101–4
change management 81–3 business wargaming 102–3
company team 23–4 sensitivity analysis 103
competitor teams 24 corporate strategy 106
control team 25 Council for Excellence in Government,
corporate reputation management 102–3 bioterrorism game 68
cost 2, 34 crisis management 57–9
definition 1, 21–2 crisis response preparation 57–72
design/execution 117–25 case studies 59–72
education/recruitment 85–97 crisis strategies 111
elements 23–5 customer focus 96
evolution 18–20
examples 22–3, 34–5 design/execution, business wargame 117–25
foresight development 74 briefing 122
interactions 25–6 cost 119
learning focus 19 debriefing/documentation 117, 123–4
market team 24–5 design 117, 118–20
methodology 21–35 execution 117, 118, 122–3
military wargames, similarities 18 key questions/objectives 118–20
moves 26–8 pre-testing 121
prerequisites 1 preparation 117, 118, 120–2
strategic focus 19–20 process 117
teams 23–5 rules 122
types 39 strategy testing 121
and uncertainty 1 success factors 124–5
in universities 20, 88–91 timeframe 121–2

CEO Challenge game education see management education

awards 95 Enron bankruptcy 103
background 92 European Economic Area 43
Booz Allen Hamilton 91–7, 120 European Union 43
game setup 93–6 Exxon Valdez incident 102
lessons learned 96–7
objective 92–3 financial information game
recruitment 91–3, 96 background 59
teams 94–5 game setup 60
change, phases 81 key questions/objectives 59
change management 81–3 lessons learned 61
plastics company 82–3 terrorism scenario 59–60
Chaturanga game 8 Firefight game 17
chess 8–9 foresight
China 79 and corporate success 74
company team, role 23–4 definition 73–4
INDEX 133

development 73–83 Prussia, wargaming 7, 11–13

see also strategic early warning systems public sector, wargames 78–80
Fuld & Company, education wargaming
87 recruitment, CEO Challenge game 91–3,
FutureManagementGroup AG 105 96
Roland Berger Strategy Consultants 99
Global Business Coalition, HIV/AIDS game
61, 62–3 scenario planning 32–3
Go game 8 scenarios xiii–xiv, 41–2
mobilization 13–14
HIV/AIDS, India 62 sensitivity analysis, corporate reputation
HIV/AIDS game management 103
background 62 shadow games 39
Booz Allen Hamilton 61, 62, 63, 68 ship bales, simulation 10
challenges 65 Simulations Publications Inc., games 17
game setup 62–5 Strategic Defense Initiative game 79–80
key questions/objectives 62 strategic early warning systems
lessons learned 66–7 assumption 99–100
participants 63–5 diagnosis 100
hybrid electronic devices 95–6 goal 99, 100
process 100–1
India, HIV/AIDS 62 weak signals, detection 100
see also foresight
key performance indicators 26 strategic planning 29, 32
King’s Game 9–10, 12 strategy
as bridge 30
management education/training definition 30–1
wargaming 85–91 main questions 31
applications 86–8 strategy consultants 92
benefits 85 strategy testing 34, 41–55, 121
organizational familiarity 86 case studies 43–55
market team, role 24–5 dynamic team approach 42
McKinsey & Company 92 scenarios 41–2
mobile network operators 48, 49 surprises 74
mobile phone market game 48–54 Swiss General Staff College 54–5
background 48–9 Swissair bankruptcy 103
game setup 50–2
key questions 49–50
Tactics game 16
lessons learned 52–4
technology integration games 39
objective 51
terrorism scenario 59–60
teams 50
see also bioterrorism
National Strategic Gaming Center (US) 18
uncertainty, and business wargaming 1
Naval War College (US) 7, 14–15, 16, 17
universities, wargaming 20, 88–91
Navy Electronic Warfare Simulator 15
background 88
game setup 89–90
Open Skies legislation 43
key questions/objectives 88–9
lessons learned 90–1
path games 39
teams 89–90
plastics company, change management 82–3
134 B U S I N E SS WA R G A M I N G

wargames origins 7
alternative names 1–2 political-military 14, 16, 18
in Cold War 78 post-World War II 17–18
public sector 78–80 prevalence 17
wargaming principles 10
benefits 7 Prussia 7, 11–13
in China (ancient) 8 realism 11, 13
computerized 15, 17, 18 sandbox 11
H.G. Wells’ influence 16 term, first use 12
hobby 7, 16, 17 topographical map 12
manual 17 US military 7, 14, 17–18
military 10–15 Vietnam War 16
miniature 16 see also business wargaming
mobilization scenarios 13–14 Wei-Hai game 8
non-military 16–18
About the Authors

Daniel F. Oriesek

Daniel F. Oriesek received his BSc in business administration from City

University in Zürich, his MBA from the Stern School of Business at New York
University and his PhD from Southern California University for Professional
Studies. He is a Principal with A.T. Kearney in Switzerland and consults
national and international clients on a variety of topics, including business
wargaming. Prior to joining A.T. Kearney, Daniel worked for Russell Reynolds
Associates and before that held leadership roles and worked for consulting
firm Booz Allen Hamilton, where he was also a member of the firm’s global
commercial wargaming team. Before joining Booz Allen, Daniel worked for
UBS in Zürich and New York, where he had different roles in private banking
and asset management. Daniel holds the rank of Major of the General Staff in
the Swiss Armed Forces, is married and has two sons.

Jan Oliver Schwarz

Jan Oliver Schwarz holds an MA in general management from the University of

Wien/Herdecke, Germany, and a MPhil in futures studies from the Graduate
School of Business, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa. Besides working
on his PhD in strategic foresight, Jan has published numerous articles on
strategic foresight and applies business wargaming for teaching master-level
students across Europe.

If you would like to comment on the book, get in touch with us or keep
informed on our activities concerning business wargaming, please refer to
www.business-wargaming.com.
This page intentionally left blank
If you have found this book useful you
may be interested in other titles from
Gower

Accelerating Business and IT Change:

Transforming Project Delivery
Alan Fowler and Dennis Lock
Hardback 978-0-566-08604-5
CD ROM 978-0-566-08742-4

Age Matters:
Employing, Motivating and Managing Older
Employees
Keren Smedley and Helen Whitten
978-0-566-08680-9

Benefit Realisation Management:

A Practical Guide to Achieving Benefits
Through Change
Gerald Bradley
978-0-566-08687-8

Digital Identity Management:

Building Relationships and Understanding
Cultures
Edited by David Birch
978-0-566-08679-3

Estimating Risk:
A Management Approach
Andy Garlick
978-0-566-08776-9
Integrated Intellectual Asset Management:
A Guide to Exploiting and Protecting your
Organization’s Intellectual Assets
Steve Manton
978-0-566-08721-9

Managing the Psychological Contract:

Using the Personal Deal to Increase Business
Performance
Michael Wellin
978-0-566-08726-4

The Relationship-Driven Supply Chain:

Creating a Culture of Collaboration throughout
the Chain
Stuart Emmett and Barry Crocker
978-0-566-08684-7

Senior Executive Reward:

Key Models and Practices
Sandy Pepper
978-0-566-08733-2

Strategic Negotiation
Gavin Kennedy
978-0-566-08797-4

For further information on these and all our titles

visit our website – www.gowerpublishing.com
All online orders receive a discount
For a monthly update on new titles, join our e-mail
news update. Visit www.gowerpublishing.com/
newsletter to view the latest edition and to sign up.