Simulation: Leveraging Networks

Runs:2
Images shared with the participants; Folder link: ________________

Some questions for group reflection: Group Assignment

• What worked well?

All members of the network were interested in helping one another to achieve the
common objective of collecting all resources required. Even after certain participants
completed their collection, they continued to help by seeking resources required from
the network. Another tactic that helped was to reach out to all members of the
network simultaneously, rather than waiting for responses from just one member.
• What didn’t work well?
Some members of the network did not understand the rules correctly, and ended up
believing that their collection complete, which wasn’t true. Due to this, we were not
able to help that member complete their collection.
Further, members in the network were not very prompt with their replies, which
created a hold up for the entire network. Members who had the maximum connections
in the network were especially slow to respond, probably burdened by several
messages from their connections.
• Who was fastest? Why?
The person at position no. 5 was the fastest as she had ample amount of opportunities
to reach out for whatever is needed. She had people already offering her resources
whichever she was looking for even without asking. Her position in the network
where she was connected to maximum no. of members made it possible to complete
her game fastest among all
• How is this simulation like real life?
This simulation replicates typical complex interconnected networks observed in real
life. As members of the network, we were unaware of other network connections of
our connections. Hence, trusting your network connections to deliver the resources
that you need was necessary.
• How is it different from real life?
Unlike in real life, we were not aware who our network connections were. They were
just represented by numbers, and the chats that we had. The benefit of interpersonal
connections that drive the desire to help one another was missing, which meant that
some members of the network probably did not put in much effort to help others. In
real life, based on the quality of relationships formed, we are able to extract better
 value out of the network. It is also possible to predict how much help we will receive,
and how long it will take.
• How would you have played differently if you knew what your network looked
like? What can you learn from that?
We were unaware that members of the network had varied number of connections. If
we were aware about how the network was constructed, we could have planned better
and prioritized reaching out to the network member with more connections.
• What lessons from this simulation can you use with your real-life network?
We learned that network benefits are largely derived by give-and-take. Whenever we
reach out to network connections for any support, we must also be prepared to bring
value to the table for them. During the game, we also noted a certain level of distrust
initially (players were unwilling to send resources till they received what they
wanted). However, this distrust disappeared over time as we conversed more with
each other. Similarly, trust within your network can only be created by putting in the
effort to nurture relationships, since trust is a very important driver of network value.

Overall experience of the game: 

 How did it feel to be in your role?
The game was an exhilarating experience. There was a lot of confusion initially while
we got comfortable with the game, but once we were clear on how to proceed, it was
great fun. In our roles as members of the network, we were entirely dependent on the
support of other network members to win the game. There was nothing that we could
have done, had they chosen not to help us. In that sense, it felt good, albeit a little
helpless, in this role.
 What was your personal strategy? What would have made this entire process
faster?
Most of our personal strategies involved reaching out to all connections specifying
what resources we need, and what resources we had to offer. When it was taking time
to get an exchange, we would also reach out to other members in the network to get
resources for someone else. That way, we could get the resource we want without
initially having the resource that the other connection needs.
If all members of the network were proactive in sharing resource information
(resources available with them, available with their connections and resources
required), required resource sets could have been collected faster.
 At what points were you surprised? How did it affect your play?
One point of surprise was when a connection committed a particular resource, if we
could find another resource in return. However, when we procured that resource, the
connection had already given his resource to someone else. This led to significant
wastage of time. In order to prevent this, we were more communicative with
 connections about our progress with their resource, and kept requesting them to hold
on to the one that we required.
A pleasant surprise was when some connections sent the resources we required right
away, before confirming whether we had the resource that they needed.
 Did you continue playing once you completed your personal game?
Yes, we continued to play after completing our personal games so that everyone in the
network would be able to complete within the provided time. Some of our
connections were stuck, unable to find the resources that they needed. We tried to
help them out by reaching out to our other connections. Further, some of us were
stuck and unable to complete our own resource set too, and hence were unable to help
each other.
 How would your play change if you had information about the entire network
and resources available in it?
If we were aware about what resources each network member had, we would have
simply matched resources required to resources available with each member. The
game could have been completed in just a few minutes.
Results based: 
• Top vs lowest scorers: What worked/what did not?
The lowest scorer was person at position 1 , he was depended on position 3 player for
all the requirements which made him the slowest in the entire process. For the top
scorer, 5 had maximum connections because of her central location in the network
therefore she could instantly get whatever she needed and completed the game in
fastest time. The no. of connections thus remains important in how well one can score
in the game. The lowest scorer also had the lowest no. of messages so one possible
reason for this was he didn’t reach out to make a strong tie with the other person.
While for the top scorer she went out of her way to help others even when she was
done with her own resources.
• Other strategies that worked
Some strategies that worked well for all of us were building trust among the players
we were playing with. We helped the other person with resources and even if we
didn’t have what they are asking for, we tried to trade it from others in return of
whatever we had. This made our connections know that we are trying to help them out
genuinely and hence same was reciprocated. This strategy of building trust and
leveraging our connection for the welfare of others helped all of us build a strong
network
• What was effective, what caused the most issues?
People who were unresponsive in the network caused most issues as they created a
blockage not just for themselves but for others who could help and needed it from
others in the network. People who were talking to others to help trade resources from
them to others in their network helped everyone complete their game in smooth
manner.