Using game theory for producing quality plans: A Pac-Man

simulation experimentPetter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

UKSS Conference, Sep 1.-2. 2009

Structure of presentation

1. Introduction

2. Brief review of game theory as part of systems theory

3. The Pac-Man model

4. Example of the model in practical use

5. Discussion

6. Conclusion

Doing OR without understanding organizational politics

• To succeed with OR it is necessary with sociological understanding and political skills (Checkland, 1981; Jackson, 2000; Mingers, 2006)

• Management scientists (change agents) and managers are ”natural enemies” (Beer, 1968)

ScientistsEngineers

Managers

Observations leading to a question

• The theory of “serious games” (Abt, 1969) is based on the idea that games can be used as general models for understanding conflict and competition

• Axelrod (2002) has written about the non-serious game of Monopoly as a model for understanding business strategy

• Some researchers believe that the video game generation see the world differently than previous generations (Beck & Wade, 2006)

• Could the non-serious Pac-Man video game be used as a model for understanding the politics of OR and TQM?

Structure of presentation

1. Introduction

2. Brief review of game theory as part of systems theory

3. The Pac-Man model

4. Example of the model in practical use

5. Discussion

6. Conclusion

Game theory & Systems theory

• In the early years of systems theory and cybernetics, game theory is explicitly seen as a part of systems theory (Wiener, 1950; Ashby, 1954; Churchman et al, 1957; von Bertalanffy, 1968; Weinberg, 1975; Rapoport, 1986)

• Metaphors about TQM as a game is common in business literature (e.g. Crosby, 1979; Berry, 1991; Cole, 1999), but strangely not so common in systems-based business literature (e.g. Flood, 1992; Jackson, 2000)

• Metaphors about science as a game is common (Latour, 1979; Sinderman, 2001), but strangely not so common when writing about action research (e.g. Reason & Bradbury, 2004)

Systems theory categorized by the Burrell&Morgan matrix (examples)

Subjective Objective

Radical change

(”conflict”)

Drama theory

(Howard, 1971)

Game theory (von Neumann, 1944)

Regulation

(”harmony”)

SSM OR

Game theory & GST

strategy payoffGame model(model of conflictual

system)

ChessBridgeMonopolyPac-Man…SportsDrama

GamesBusinessEconomicsPoliticsBiologyPsychology…

homomorphism

Structure of presentation

1. Introduction

2. Brief review of game theory as part of systems theory

3. The Pac-Man model

4. Example of the model in practical use

5. Discussion

6. Conclusion

Pac-Man (Iwatani, 1979)

Title screen Start of game

Ghost psychology & management grid (Blake & Mouton, 1964)

Score boardPac-Man

foodLevel Points TQM activity

Dot All 10 Document verification

Dot All 10 Quality audit

Dot All 10 Quality report not part of a management decision process

Power pellet All 50 Quality report as part of management decision process

1st Ghost All 200 Impact on manager

2nd Ghost All 400 Also impact on a second manager

3rd Ghost All 800 Also impact on a third manager

4th Ghost All 1600 Impact on four or more managers

Cherry 1 100 Positive feedback

Strawberry 2 300 Positive feedback

Lemon 3+4 500 Positive feedback

Apple 5 700 Positive feedback

Structure of presentation

1. Introduction

2. Brief review of game theory as part of systems theory

3. The Pac-Man model

4. Example of the model in practical use

5. Discussion

6. Conclusion

Insert coin: 1999

Pac-Man strategy

Game over: 2005

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Pac-Man score

6 years

Structure of presentation

1. Introduction

2. Brief review of game theory as part of systems theory

3. The Pac-Man model

4. Example of the model in practical use

5. Discussion

6. Conclusion

Applying Pac-Man philosophy in the real world

Pac-Man TQM politics

Principle 1

Keep eating, and reflect in action (or between games). For each board level, there are behavioural survival patterns (Zavisca & Beltowski, 1982).

Keep auditing, measuring, analyzing and making improvements. Data collection, analysis, action and progress must never stop.

Principle 2

Understand ghost psychology, both on individual level and how they act as a swarm (Kelly, 1994; Holland, 1995).

Expect conflict, study management psychology and avoid irritating people unnecessarily.

Principle 3

Get energized and attack when the ghosts are clustered, before they manage to scatter in all directions.

Design “management review” (Hoyle, 2006) to fit with institutionalized quality control practice (annual budget process, annual production cycles etc.), get as much management commitment as possible.

Structure of presentation

1. Introduction

2. Brief review of game theory as part of systems theory

3. The Pac-Man model

4. Example of the model in practical use

5. Discussion

6. Conclusion

Conclusion

• Seeing TQM as Pac-Man produces strategies of fight and flight that can help change agents interact with management

• Game theory was seen as a promising part of systems theory in the past – the study indicates the relevance of future exporation on the ”soft” aspects of GT