When in Doubt, Just Say "NO"

Denial: Not just a river in Egypt anymore. That is the attitude that many of my managers take...unfortunately, denial involves the rejection of technology. To make this situation even more odd, these are the people who are in charge of adopting and integrating new technologies into our organization.

Their philosophy is relatively simple: to stall and delay new ideas and concepts, clinging to the status quo for as long as possible. I find it intriguing that these people seem to have no curiosity or imagination, and are unwilling to consider either changing or stepping aside to allow others who are willing to evolve and adapt to new ideas and technologies.

There are policies to encourage innovation--these are interpreted as loosely as possible in order to minimize the amount of change that is implemented. This is all a source of great frustration to me.

The example of this is the use of game in training. My job is to integrate and develop games to enhance and even replace traditional training classes that are both currently being taught as well as future requirements for training. So far, so good. However, there is a great deal of reluctance on the part of management to actually allow this to happen. First, they wnat to ensure that we refer to games as "SERIOUS games" so as not to possibly confuse higher management and suggest that someone might enjoy training (like it should hurt?). Then, they cite all the possible excuses: we don't have the funding (I have some offers of games that would not cost us anything), we can't put games on our intranet because our network people won't allow it (yes, this is a major obstacle), and we don't have anyone to do the coding required to do high-level gaming (I have computer science interns who have volunteered their time and effort--several actually have concentrations in game development). Suffice it to say that the past 9 months have been a time of great learning for me--all about games and game development and technology, and learning how these ideas quickly get marched into the closet, never to see the light of day again by my management.

If I were dealing with normal and rational people, I would use Keller's ARCS model in the following manner:

Attention: I would arrange for a demonstration of new gaming technology that is designed to support serious learning and government organizations. I would make sure I had some of the coolest and best-designed content available to put up on the screen in order to show the flash and sparkle that games can uniquely provide.

Relevance: I would present a course outline for a new course that a real requirement has been put in for that incorporated a game rather than conventional platform instruction. This will also include the learning objectives as well as the rationale for using a game.

Confidence: I would present a compilation of the research that is already published on the use of games for teaching and the effectiveness of these games as compared to traditional instruction. If necessary, I will do some research within my own organization to show where a game has been demonstrated to be more useful and applicable than a traditional approach. This answers the "are you sure that this will work?" concern that is likely to be asked.

Satisfaction: I will provide feedback data from courses using my game to show student scores as well as student satisfaction as indicated on their Level 1 evaluation forms.

Remember: I said that this approach would work with normal and rational people. I haven't found an abnormal and irrational approach that will work with my management yet (but I'm still looking!).