Development of a Game-Based Module to Teach
Engineering Students about Customer Value Propositions
Katharine M. Eichelman, Renee M. Clark, Steven B. Shooter, Cheryl A. Bodnar
Abstract: This work provides an overview of the creation of a game-based module
that could be used to teach undergraduate engineering students about customer value
propositions. The game-based module was based on the “World Without Oil”
alternate reality game, which set a context for students to explore how to reach out to
customers, what customer segments should be sought after when seeking feedback on
product development, and what customers value in terms of products. After its
development, the game-based module was tested through its implementation within
an undergraduate product design course and compared to a similar customer value
proposition exercise without the story and game-based elements in a parallel
undergraduate product design course. Preliminary results from this work showed
that the game-based module contributed to higher average scores on students’ ability
to identify customer market need/opportunity and determine the customerappropriate value proposition, although the results are not statistically significant
due in part to small sample sizes. In addition, the results demonstrated that in the
game-based module context, students were willing to reach out to on average 20
more customers than their peers to determine the value proposition for their
proposed product list.
1. Introduction
To create experiences that will resonate with students, it is necessary to get them actively involved
within the learning process. Utilizing an active pedagogical method, such as game-based learning
(Benek-Rivera and Mathews, 2004), is beneficial in engineering classrooms because engineering
students usually learn best through discussing and then testing a topic, making them active learners
(Felder and Silverman, 1988). Games are an excellent choice for active learning because they are
developed in a manner that engages individuals in tasks, provides rewards for strong effort, and
facilitates collaboration between individuals while promoting behavioral understandings, such as how
to persist when faced with difficult tasks (McGonigal, 2011). These are 21st century skills that
educators want students to develop but are not always at the forefront of content taught in the
classroom. In addition, games have been shown to allow individuals to overcome fears by placing
them in a safe environment in which failure can be utilized as a learning experience (Whitton &
Moseley, 2012). The students can view both their own failures and those experienced by their peers
within the games and learn how to both recover from these failures and avoid them in the future. This
will benefit them when dealing with aspects such as disappointing others or having an uncertain
future, common fears associated with becoming entrepreneurs (Mitchell and Shepherd, 2011). Games
mitigate this emotion because they allow the players to gain ownership over an activity (Pearce,
2006), experience failure in a safe environment, and learn from their mistakes (Cantaragiu and Hadad,
2013).
An example of the utilization of games to improve entrepreneurship skills, such as teamwork and
communication, occurred in a study of first-year engineering undergraduates at a university in Lille,
France. In the game, students were randomly assigned to teams and tasked with first building a bridge
*UniversityofPittsburgh
Volume7,Number3-2016
53
K.M.Eichelman,R.M.Clark,S.B.Shooter,C.A.Bodnar
and then a tower using only uncooked spaghetti sticks and sewing thread for their “construction”
materials. This game was successful because its novelty kept the students engaged. It required active
participation, and the team members had to work together in order to build the structures, within the
given time limit. According to the student survey conducted the same day as the spaghetti activity and
interviews with select students three months after the activity, the majority of students had a positive
experience. The replies indicated that team- and task-related learning had occurred due to the game
(Verzat, Byrne, & Fayolle, 2009).
Another example of utilizing games to teach entrepreneurial skills and know-how, such as planning
and cost-effectiveness, combined an interactive computer game module with the building of
structures using uncooked spaghetti. Both classes were given a traditional lecture on the engineering
design process. However, the comparison class then underwent an active learning exercise while the
experimental class used a design simulation game entitled “Engineering Heights: The Design Process
in Action.” This game allowed the students to build a tower and a train bridge in order to learn about
constraints on weight, cost, and load that occur during actual construction. This permitted the students
to surpass basic theoretical calculations and experience the multitude of problems that need to be
considered to efficiently build structures. When both class sections were asked to build a tower using
only uncooked pasta and masking tape, the experimental class section performed at a higher level
during this activity than the comparison class. In addition, the students in the experimental section
reported that they enjoyed the serious game (Rajan, Raju, & Sankar, 2013).
In this work, we sought to determine the effectiveness of a game module for teaching students about
customer value propositions. The customer value proposition is a statement that answers the questions
“Who is the target customer?”, “What are we selling?”, and “Why should the customer buy it?” in
order to focus the efforts of the company, determine how the company can deliver superior value to
potential consumers, and allow the company to position the product “relative to competitors”
(Webster Jr., 2002). Research shows that if products are not tested on the appropriate target market
participants, such as early product adopters versus the mass market, they may experience high failure
rates (Klink & Athaide, 2006). Also, rather than merely listing all the benefits that a product may
provide for a consumer or all of the favorable points of difference with an alternative product, a
superior customer value proposition is one with a resonating focus that establishes how the product is
“superior on the few elements that matter most to target customers, demonstrate[s] and document[s]
the value of this superior performance, and communicate[s] it in a way that conveys a sophisticated
understanding of the customers’ needs” (Anderson & Van Rossum, 2006).
A previous game-based exercise that focused on the importance of teamwork and responding to
customer value propositions is the egg-drop exercise implemented by Sullivan at the University of
Dayton. The exercise focuses on students being able to work cohesively on a team to build an eggcontaining vehicle that will meet specific target market value propositions, have a creative vehicle
design, and enable a safe landing of the egg after the vehicle has been launched from at least a second
story height. As an example of constantly changing target market values, the instructor indicates
(after the teams have already begun designing their vehicle) that the customer also values how
accurately the vehicle can land on a target . The team that is able to meet all customer values, and is
agile enough to respond to the changing markets and adjust their design, if needed, is declared the
winner. A survey was distributed to both the undergraduate and MBA entrepreneurial students about
their experience with the egg-drop exercise. The responses indicated positive results with the entire
experience, including the exercise’s ability to help them understand the importance of addressing the
needs of the target market and meeting the target market’s value propositions (Sullivan, 2011).
In this study, we examine the development of the game-based module “A World Without Oil” and
investigate its ability to teach students about customer value propositions and teamwork. We believed
that employing game-based pedagogy as a tool for teaching this key component of the product
54
JEEN–TheJournalofEngineeringEntrepreneurship
DevelopmentofaGame-BasedModuletoTeachEngineeringStudentsabout
CustomerValuePropositions
development process would more actively engage students in the customer inquiry process and allow
them to make meaningful connections between data collected from customers and the determination
of appropriate customer value propositions.
2. Game-Based Module Design
During the Epicenter Retreat at the Stanford Sierra Camp in 2012, six faculty members developed
“Customer Values in a World Without Oil (CWWO).” This game-based module was inspired by the
alternate reality game entitled World Without Oil, in which people are asked to imagine how their
lives would change (both at a local and national level) if the supply of oil no longer met the demand
(McGonigal, 2011; World Without Oil , 2007). A goal of this retreat was the development of new
teams to work on issues that were relevant to the development of innovation and entrepreneurship
skills among engineering undergraduate students. The game-based module was developed in response
to a challenge posed by the retreat organizers to create, within a 24 hour time period, a prototype
product or service that could benefit innovation and entrepreneurship education for engineering
undergraduates. As part of this challenge six faculty members, representing diverse departments and
institutions across the United States, worked together to develop a game-based module that could be
used to help students learn about customer value propositions.
The goal of this game-based module was to provide an engaging platform to expose students to
customer value propositions and the importance of solid communication with their customers.
CWWO was used to instruct the students on the importance of utilizing multiple customer segments
and methods of contact, and of being creative when deciding which product to manufacture. We
created an assessment plan that would allow us to evaluate whether students were developing an
understanding of the types of customer groups, the means to obtain customer based information, and
the necessary trade-offs when defining opportunity within a particular market.
In order to provide a storyline for the game-based module, it was decided that a fictitious company
would be aware of the upcoming deficit in oil, while the general public remained unaware. This
company would seek to determine a hygiene product that customers would desire the most after the
collapse of oil and which their competitors would be unlikely to develop. The company could then
design an oil-free alternative to this product and sell it for a large profit. The game-based module
requires the professor to act as a representative for the company, explain the situation and rules of the
game-based module to the students, and “hire” the students to be teams of investigators that will
interview customers to determine what personal hygiene product they value the most. To illustrate the
scenario, the professor shows the class approximately the first minute of a YouTube video entitled
World Without Oil, which demonstrates the various hardships that would arise including the lack of
food, clean water, and energy (National Geographic, 2014).
To avoid complications, the students are told to assume that all hygiene products have equal oil
footprints, profit margins, and total market size. In addition, an ethical component to the game-based
module was included in which no one is permitted to speak of the upcoming oil collapse, whether to
customers or their family when seeking input on potential products to manufacture. The customer
value proposition worksheet created at the Epicenter retreat tracked the number of customers
contacted, the ranking of the hygiene products (from 1 to 10, with 1 being the most important product
to customers), and the final product chosen to be redesigned. The students are also told how the game
points can be earned in the exercise, including by contacting more customers than the other teams,
deviating the least from the mean hygiene product ranking of the class, and selecting a unique product
to redesign. Once the assignment is submitted, the professor leads a reflective discussion centered on
discovering the logic behind the decisions made during the preparation of the customer value
proposition, the students’ experience while interviewing customers, resolving any differing opinions
Volume7,Number3–2016
55
K.M.Eichelman,R.M.Clark,S.B.Shooter,C.A.Bodnar
or conflicts within a team, and how the students were affected by the ethical dilemma of not warning
the general public of the upcoming catastrophe. It is critical for this debrief to take place, as this is the
time when students can make connections between content covered in class on customer value
propositions and a scenario where they must apply this knowledge (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002).
The first implementation of CWWO occurred at Bucknell University, a primarily undergraduate
institution, in a senior level mechanical engineering capstone course in Spring 2013 that had
approximately 30 students. Based on results from this implementation, the customer value proposition
worksheet was revised to include additional questions, such as which methods were used to determine
the product ranking, and the teams’ justification for which product was chosen, to allow for a more
accurate assessment of student learning from participation in the game module. The revised customer
value proposition worksheet can be viewed in the Appendix. The final implementation study was
performed at the University of Pittsburgh, an R01 research institution, in Spring 2014. It was
conducted in two Introduction to Chemical Product Design class sections, each consisting of 57
sophomore chemical engineering students. The CWWO module utilized the improvements made to
the customer value proposition worksheet after the Bucknell University implementation.
3. Game-Based Module Assessment Strategy
Among the desired goals of CWWO is the opportunity to expose students to customer value
propositions and the importance of a collaborative relationship with both their customers and their
colleagues, in this case their teammates. Therefore, the students were assessed using both the KEEN
Customer Value Proposition rubric and a collaboration survey based on the KEEN Collaboration
Rubric (KEEN, 2013). The selection of the KEEN rubrics was made to allow for the use of existing
instruments, which although not yet validated, would provide a starting point for measuring the
intended learning outcomes relevant to entrepreneurial mindset development (Kleine and Yoder,
2011).
Table 1: Questions and Expectations on the Customer Value Proposition Rubric (KEEN, 2013)
Question
Evaluate this team's work related to
important customer and market
need/opportunity.
Evaluate this team's unique
approach for determining the
customer-appropriate value
proposition (CAVP).
Evaluate this team's identification of
multiple customer groups.
Expectations
Prospective customer and market needs and characteristics
were identified.
The logic behind the selection of the chosen product was
justified.
Multiple methods of contacting potential customers were used.
A method of contact not utilized by many teams, such as
Twitter, was employed.
•
•
•
•
Identified multiple customer groups previously suggested
Identified a unique customer group not already listed on the
Customer Value Proposition worksheet, as seen in the
Appendix. For example, young children who do not have
direct access to money, but who may strongly influence the
purchasing decisions of their parents.
•
•
The initial KEEN Customer Value Proposition rubric, utilized at Bucknell University, consisted of six
questions; however, it was decided that three of the questions did not pertain to information this
game-based module was designed to collect from students. Therefore, after communication with the
authors of the rubric, a modified version was used that consisted of only three questions and measured
information that aligned with the customer value proposition worksheet. While the questions
56
JEEN–TheJournalofEngineeringEntrepreneurship
DevelopmentofaGame-BasedModuletoTeachEngineeringStudentsabout
CustomerValuePropositions
remained similar to those asked during the Bucknell University implementation, the grading scale
was defined in greater detail to avoid any confusion in scoring. A summary of the questions and
expectations can be found in Table 1. Each of these questions was graded on a scale from 1 to 4,
representing “does not meet expectations” to “proficient.”
Two coders graded the customer value proposition worksheet using this rubric. One coder was the
instructor of the course, and the other was an undergraduate chemical engineering student. When the
two coders disagreed on a score, the matter was discussed until an agreement was reached. No scores
were averaged together. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), which is commonly utilized to
measure the agreement between rater’s scores, was determined for each question and the overall
rubric (Norusis, 2005). The first-time reliability for the overall rubric, based on the ICC, was 0.933,
which represents excellent reliability (Fleiss, 1986; Lexell & Downham, 2005). The first question had
an ICC value of 0.602, which signifies fair to good reliability, and the second question had a value of
0.968, which represents excellent reliability (Fleiss, 1986; Lexell and Downham, 2005). The third
question had an ICC value of 1.0, which demonstrates complete agreement. However, it should be
noted that this question, counting the number of customer groups contacted, was not subjective. All
ICC values were based on the “average measures” value in SPSS (Norusis, 2005).
In order to determine how well each team functioned together, each student was given a collaboration
survey based on the KEEN Collaboration Rubric, which asked them to respond to the same five
questions for each member of the team. The questions requested information about the teammate’s
contributions to team meetings, their engagement of other team members, their individual
contributions outside of team meetings, their ability to handle any conflict within the team, and the
degree to which they fostered a constructive team climate (KEEN, 2013). This survey remained
unchanged throughout all of the CWWO implementations. The students’ responses were averaged
together to give each team a “teamwork score” ranging from 1 to 4, with 4 being the highest rating.
In addition to the customer value proposition and the KEEN teamwork scores, the CWWO class
could also earn points from the game-based module. The group that earned the most points (to be
described below) was declared the winner of the game, and each member of the winning group
received a gift card. It is important to note that performance on the game element did not impact the
students’ course grades. While these points did not affect grades, students were likely motivated to
perform well by the temptation of a prize for the winning team.
Thirty percent of a team’s possible game points were determined by the number of customers the
team spoke to, normalized to the maximum number of customers contacted by any one team in the
class. For example, if the maximum number of customers spoken to was 100, and a certain team only
spoke to 50, the score would be 0.30*(50/100) = 0.15.
Fifty percent of a team’s total possible game points were calculated by the deviation of the team’s
ranking of the hygiene products’ importance from the class mean. First, the mean ranking of each
product was obtained by averaging the results obtained across all student groups. Then the deviation
in the team’s ranking was measured by taking the absolute difference between their rank for an
individual product and the mean rank. For example, if the team ranked soap as second and the class
mean was 1.91, the deviation for that specific product would be 0.09. Subsequently, the sum of all the
deviations across all product options for a team was normalized against the maximum sum of the
deviations for all groups. This led to teams with the smallest deviation obtaining the highest number
of points. This deviation in mean ranking was calculated under the assumption that student teams who
contacted a significant customer base would end up with mean rankings close to the classroom mean
while those student teams who only contacted a small customer base would have larger deviations
from the classroom mean.
Volume7,Number3–2016
57
K.M.Eichelman,R.M.Clark,S.B.Shooter,C.A.Bodnar
The final twenty percent of the possible points was based upon the uniqueness of the product that the
team selected. For example, if only one team selected that product, then it would receive the full
twenty percent. However, if five teams chose that product, then each of those five teams would only
receive four percent (equivalent to twenty percent divided by 5).
4. Study Results
The “Customer Values in a World Without Oil” final implementation study occurred at the University
of Pittsburgh in the spring semester of 2014, and utilized two Introduction to Chemical Product
Design classes. The students in each class were divided into teams of four or five. One class was
utilized as a comparison class; therefore, while the students were assigned the customer value
proposition project, they were not provided with the video demonstrating the storyline, the fictitious
company, or the point structure associated with the CWWO game-based module. However, the
importance of the customer value proposition for creating a new product was still emphasized, in
particular the significance of contacting sufficient and specific customers. Also, the students in the
comparison class still had the inherent incentive to perform well on the assignment, due to its effect
on their course grade. Both classes were given identical customer value proposition worksheets, as
seen in the Appendix, and both classes were evaluated using the same rubrics.
To determine the impact that CWWO had on the students’ ability to create a customer value
proposition, the experimental and comparison class scores were compared using both t-tests and
Mann Whitney tests, due to the small sample size. All three questions on the Customer Value
Proposition Rubric and the overall score, calculated by averaging the scores from the three questions,
are compared in Table 2.
Table 2: Results from the Customer Value Proposition Rubric (KEEN, 2013)
Question
Evaluate this team’s work related to important customer
and market need/opportunity.
Evaluate this team’s unique approach for determining
the customer-appropriate value proposition.
Evaluate this team’s identification of multiple
constituencies (i.e., customer groups).
Overall – Average of previous three questions
Sample Size (n)
CWWO
Game
AVG
Comparison
AVG
p-value
(t)
p-value
(Mann
Whitney)
2.55
2.50
0.837
0.880
3.18
3.08
0.793
0.833
3.09
3.42
0.310
0.288
2.94
11
3.00
12
0.784
0.786
The CWWO game section had higher means for its ability to determine market opportunity and
approach customers using varying methods, which were skills that were emphasized during the gamebased module. The game section scored on average lower than the comparison class at identifying
multiple customer groups; however, this skill was not emphasized during the game-based module.
Despite not being stressed as a learning point in the game-based module, identifying the customer
groups was still included in the rubric to demonstrate to the students that it is not enough to contact
customers through various methods. They must learn to contact the correct customer group or
multiple customer groups depending on the specific product under development. The differences
between the two class sections were not statistically significant based on either test; however, the
sample sizes were small.
58
JEEN–TheJournalofEngineeringEntrepreneurship
DevelopmentofaGame-BasedModuletoTeachEngineeringStudentsabout
CustomerValuePropositions
One of the learning objectives of CWWO was student participation in team decision making. Both
class sections received high teamwork scores from the KEEN Collaboration Survey; however, similar
teamwork scores between the two classes was expected because teamwork was not specifically
addressed during the game-based module, and both sections received their instruction on teamwork
during similar classroom lectures. These teamwork scores were correlated with the customer value
proposition overall scores to determine if being in a well-functioning team impacted performance. We
examined both the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients. The Spearman is a nonparametric
coefficient, which was used because of the small sample sizes. The game section had a sample size of
n=11 teams, and the comparison class had a sample size of n=12 teams.
Figure 1. Customer Values in a World Without Oil (CWWO) Team Performance. This figure
illustrates the relationship between teamwork score and Customer Value Proposition score.
We actually found a negative correlation between the teamwork score and the Customer Value
Proposition overall score in the game section (n=11). Pearson’s r was -0.273 and Spearman’s rho was
-0.404; however, neither coefficient was statistically different from zero (p=0.217 based on
Spearman’s). This suggests no linear relationship from a statistical standpoint. We believe that this
correlation may be due to the minimal amount of time that teams actually worked together on this
assignment. In many cases, based on anecdotal observation, students would just sub-divide the work
associated with this assignment and then come together shortly before it was due in order to prepare
the final worksheet. We believe if the assignment had a longer duration or involved a more specific
emphasis on teamwork our results may have differed.
When examining this relationship in the comparison section (n =12), a negative correlation was
likewise discovered. Pearson’s r was -0.439 and Spearman’s rho was -0.449. Again, neither
coefficient was statistically different from zero (p=0.143 based on Spearman’s). These preliminary
results suggest no linear relationship at this point between the teamwork score and the customer value
proposition score in either class section.
A major goal of the CWWO game-based module was to motivate students to be comfortable with
interacting with numerous customers and to improve the quality of their customer engagement;
therefore, we investigated how many customers each class section contacted for their customer value
proposition assignment. The average number of customers contacted was compared using both a t and
Mann Whitney test, as shown in Table 3.
Volume7,Number3–2016
59
K.M.Eichelman,R.M.Clark,S.B.Shooter,C.A.Bodnar
Table 3: Results for the number of customers contacted for the Customer Value Proposition
Number of customers contacted
Sample size (n)
CWWO
Game
AVG
Comparison
AVG
p-value
(t)
p-value
(Mann
Whitney)
75.7
11
55.6
12
0.241
0.211
The CWWO class section, on average, contacted approximately twenty more customers than the
comparison section while completing their customer value proposition. Although the difference was
not statistically significant, it suggests a positive trend towards more customer contact with the
incentives provided by the game-based assignment.
Once the customer value proposition assignment was completed, both class sections had a reflective
discussion led by the instructor. This discussion centered on discovering the logic behind the
decisions made by each team during the customer value proposition, the students’ experience while
interviewing customers, resolving any differing opinions or conflicts within a team, and exploring
how the students were affected by the ethical dilemma of not warning the general public of the
upcoming catastrophe. The purpose of the reflective discussion was to review the connections
between the concrete experience (i.e., the customer value proposition and CWWO game experience),
and the classroom educational experience (i.e., activities and lectures). The reflection aids the
students in making connections between these experiences and in retaining the knowledge gained
throughout the exercise (Kolb, 1984).
5. Discussion
This study investigated the impact that a game-based module can have on the development of
students’ abilities to generate customer value propositions. There were several key observations noted
when comparisons were made between the class that performed the exercise without the game
elements and the class that completed the game-based module. For instance, it was observed that
when a storyline and extrinsic motivational elements such as a point structure and prizes were
incorporated, the students reached out to a larger number of customers, perhaps being motivated by
these game-based elements. The World Without Oil storyline for the game-based module motivated
students by using content to create interest, according to the ‘perspective of interest’ (Sailer et al.,
2013). By creating an upcoming disaster in which oil is no longer available, and engaging the
students by making them privy to this protected information, the game module forced the students to
consider life in the bleak future and how they should ethically conduct themselves in the time leading
up to this oil depletion. Surrounding the students with this storyline likely motivated them to engage
in the exercise by sparking their interest in this impending world disaster.
A second source of motivation for the students in the game-based module class was the
implementation of a point system and the eventual reward provided for the team that earned the most
points. From a ‘behaviorist learning perspective,’ motivation is influenced by previous positive and
negative reinforcements, as these experiences can alter the student’s future behavior (Sailer et al.,
2013). Providing a clear understanding of how to earn the most points provides students with the
possibility of immediate positive feedback in the form of a virtual reward (Sailer et al., 2013). In
addition to these virtual rewards, promising an actual reward motivated the students in the game
module class by providing them with a potential material reward. When the game module class
created their customer value propositions, likely motivated by the storyline and the possibility of
earning the most points, they contacted on average twenty more customers than the comparison
60
JEEN–TheJournalofEngineeringEntrepreneurship
DevelopmentofaGame-BasedModuletoTeachEngineeringStudentsabout
CustomerValuePropositions
classroom. Since an important component of product development is “getting out of the building” and
speaking with customers (Blank, 2013), the use of this game-based module encouraged this behavior
amongst students while in their degree program.
Similarly, it was found through this study that the addition of game-based elements within
undergraduate engineering classes can encourage students to gain a better understanding of elements
associated with customer-value propositions, such as market need and opportunity as well as
approaches to customer-appropriate value propositions. The ability for games to provide learning
benefits as well as engaging student experiences was also seen in the work of Verzat, Byrne, &
Fayolle (2009). Their study demonstrated how utilizing a game within a technology management
education course could expose students to teamwork and the difficulties they may face in their future
careers when working on teams.
To determine our assessment plan for the customer value propositions, we examined methods used in
other game-based exercises and in the general literature. Sullivan evaluated the success of the eggdrop exercise by requesting that the students complete a survey intended to gather their opinions on
their experience and whether it helped them to better understand key concepts related to customer
value propositions and entrepreneurship (2011). While this survey provided for an interesting and
informative analysis, we decided to utilize a rubric that enabled direct measurement of a student’s
ability to create a customer value proposition versus indirect measurement via his/her self-assessment.
Self-reported data has been found to be greatly influenced by social desirability bias and the halo
effect, which may result in unreliable and invalid results (Gonyea, 2005). Social desirability bias is a
person’s inclination to acknowledge socially desirable traits and to distance himself from undesirable
traits by denying them (Phillips & Clancy, 1972). Therefore, when completing a survey, a student
may be inclined to report that he/she achieved a better understanding of concepts so as to portray
intelligence, a desired trait, rather than admitting a lack of understanding. The Halo effect occurs
when a person’s opinion on a particular topic is largely influenced by his/her impression of the
overall experience (Cooper, 1981). For example, if a student enjoyed an educational exercise, such as
a game-based module, or achieved a deep understanding of one facet of an exercise, he/she may
develop a positive impression of the entire experience. This overall positive impression may lead the
respondent to answer all of the questions on a survey with a high rating regardless of differences. The
KEEN rubric used to evaluate the students’ customer value propositions enabled direct measurement
of important aspects of a customer value proposition, such as identifying market needs and
identifying and contacting customer groups. Using this rubric instead of a self-assessment survey
allowed the data to be collected without self-assessment biases. In addition, having two raters assess
the de-identified customer value propositions and discuss any differing opinions helped to reduce
biases. Therefore, we used this method to ensure that we would collect accurate data for our analysis.
6. Limitations of the Study
Given that the testing of this game-based module was performed with student teams rather than
individual students, a smaller sample size resulted, which may have been a factor in the lack of
statistical significance that was observed. According to statistical analysis procedures outlined by
Minitab, to perform a two sample t-test the sample size should be a minimum of 15 which is why we
enlisted nonparametric tests as well as parametric tests in our analysis. Ideally, parametric tests make
for better analysis as they have greater statistical power and are more likely to be able to demonstrate
statistical significance than their nonparametric equivalents (Frost, 2015). Further, given the small
sample sizes and assessment of students at just one institution, it may be difficult to generalize our
results.
7. Conclusions
Volume7,Number3–2016
61
K.M.Eichelman,R.M.Clark,S.B.Shooter,C.A.Bodnar
“Customer Values in a World Without Oil” allows a student to learn about customer value
propositions and the importance of reaching out to customers for their opinions in an immersive and
motivating environment. Although we do not have statistically significant evidence at this point that
CWWO improves the students’ understanding of customer value propositions or that there is a
relationship with the team’s cohesiveness, the gaming aspects likely have motivated the students to
contact more customers on average than those in the comparison class. An end goal of the gamebased module was for the engineering students to feel comfortable interacting with customers;
therefore, the increase in the number of customers contacted is a definite success for the
implementation of this game-based module.
The game-based module development work highlighted in this study has since led to the development
of other game-based activities that can be incorporated within undergraduate engineering classes to
develop concepts related to an entrepreneurial mindset, which have been disseminated to the broader
entrepreneurship community through workshops at the Venture Well Open conference.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Venture Well (formerly NCIIA) and Epicenter for providing
a resource grant for this project (grant # 10015-12). The authors would like to acknowledge Sridhar
Condoor, Joy Godesiabois, Iris Quan, Ramachandran Radharamanan for their help in the
development of the initial version of this World Without Oil Game Module for teaching customer
value propositions to engineering students at the Epicenter Retreat. The authors would also like to
thank the Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Pittsburgh that
served as the classroom setting for testing many of the later implementations of this game-based
module.
References
Anderson, J.C., Narus, J.A., & Van Rossum, W. (2006). Customer value propositions in business
markets. Harvard Business Review, 84, 91–99.
Benek-Rivera, J., & Mathews, V. (2004). Active learning with Jeopardy: Students as the questions.
Journal of Management Education, 28(1), 104–118.
Blank, S. (2013). Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Business Review, 63–69.
Cantaragiu, R., & Hadad, S. (2013). The importance of play in overcoming fears of entrepreneurial
failure. 14th European Conference on Knowledge Management. Kaunas, Lithuania, September
5–6, 2013.
Cooper, William H. (1981). Ubiquitous halo. Psychological Bulletin, 90(2), 218–244.
National Geographic. (2014). World without oil [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYlukM3BKKA
Felder, R., & Silverman, L. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education.
Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681.
Fleiss, J. (1986). The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons.
Frost, J. (2015). Choosing between a nonparametric test and a parametric test [Web log post].
Retrieved
from
http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics/choosing-between-anonparametric-test-and-a-parametric-test
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J.E. (2002). Games, motivation and learning: A research and
practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33, 441¬467.
Gonyea, Robert M. (2005). Self-reported data in institutional research: Review and
recommendations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 127, 73–89.
62
JEEN–TheJournalofEngineeringEntrepreneurship
DevelopmentofaGame-BasedModuletoTeachEngineeringStudentsabout
CustomerValuePropositions
KEEN. (n.d.). Customer value proposition rubric [Web page]. Retrieved from
http://www.keennetwork.org/uploads
KEEN.
(n.d.).
Collaboration
survey
[Web
page].
.
Retrieved
from
http://www.keennetwork.org/uploads
Kleine III, R.E. & Yoder, J.D. (2011). Operationalizing and assessing the entrepreneurial mindset:
A rubric based approach. The Journal of Engineering Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 57–86.
Klink, R.R., & Athaide, G.A. (2006). An illustration of potential sources of concept-test error.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 359–370.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lexell, J., & Downham, D. (2005). How to assess the reliability of measurements in rehabilitation.
American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 84(9), 719–723.
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken. Why games make us better and how they can change the
world. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Mitchell, J.R., & Shepherd, D.A. (2011). Afraid of opportunity: The effects of fear of failure on
entrepreneurial action. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 31(6), 195–203.
Norusis, M. (2005). SPSS 14.0 statistical procedures companion. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Pearce, C. (2006). Productive play: Game culture from the bottom. Games and Culture, 1(1), 17–
24.
Phillips, Derek L., Clancy, & Kevin J. (1972). Some effects of “social desirability” in survey
studies. American Journal of Sociology, 77(5), 921–940.
Rajan, P., Raju, P.K., & Sankar, C.S. (2013). Serious games to improve student learning in
engineering classes. 120th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. Atlanta, Georgia, June
23–26, 2013.
Sailer, M., Hense, J., Mandl, H., & Klevers, M. (2013). Psychological perspectives on motivation
through gamification. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal, 19, 28–37.
Sullivan, D.M. (2011). Egg-drop exercise revisited: An in-class entrepreneurship exercise. Journal
of Entrepreneurship Education, 14, 49–73.
Verzat, C., Byrne, J., & Fayolle, A. (2009). Tangling with spaghetti: Pedagogical lessons from
games. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(3), 356–369.
Webster Jr., F.E. (2002). Market-driven management. How to define, develop, and deliver
customer value (2nd ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
Whitton, N. & Moseley, A. (2012). Using games to enhance learning and teaching: A beginner’s
guide. New York: Routledge.
World Without Oil. (2007). About world without oil [Web page]. Retrieved from
http://www.worldwithoutoil.org/
Volume7,Number3–2016
63
K.M.Eichelman,R.M.Clark,S.B.Shooter,C.A.Bodnar
Appendix
Customer Values in a World without Oil
Student deliverables.
1. Team Number __________
2. Number of customers_________________________________
3. Types of customers contacted (please circle):
a. Teenagers
b. College or Graduate-level Students
c. Working Professionals
d. Retired
e. Other (please list):
4. Method of contact with customers:
5. Rank order of the products by team
Rank (1 – most important; 10 – least
important)
Personal Hygiene Products
Soap
Shampoo
Makeup
Toothpaste/brush
Shaving cream/razor
Hand lotion/moisturizer
Towel
Hair Brush
Deodorant
Other_________________________
6. Describe the process for determining your ranking:
7. Product chosen to be re-designed_____________________________________
8. Justify (based on your ranking) how you decided which product type should be re-designed
64
JEEN–TheJournalofEngineeringEntrepreneurship