Hi Guys, An interesting perspective of using Game theory to improve team effectiveness. Do read and share your thoughts / experiences. Arun
From India, New Delhi
81From India, New Delhi
Leave requests, approvals & tracking in one place?smart HRMS for growing teams. See It In Action - Book Your Demo
Hi Cite Contribution,
The attachment did open up, and the source is as under.
Reference: Magic Of Teams
It is an interesting post and worth a read. For serious HR practitioners, it is a new input that can be productively leveraged. Thanks, Arun, for that thought-provoking post.
Regards
From India, Mumbai
The attachment did open up, and the source is as under.
Reference: Magic Of Teams
It is an interesting post and worth a read. For serious HR practitioners, it is a new input that can be productively leveraged. Thanks, Arun, for that thought-provoking post.
Regards
From India, Mumbai
Dear Arun,
All thanks to Jacob for sharing the post. I read the post. Here's my take on it; it's a real-life experience.
There was an IT firm that had an Operations vertical and a Product Development vertical. The Operations Team had to use the products developed by the Product Development team. This was a result of an organization policy to use the products developed internally first and then market them to the clients. These products were one of the key strengths of the company. The Operations delivered a much higher volume of work. The revenue generation was higher by the Ops team, although the Products made the company an industry leader. This was the first bone of contention. The Ops team knew that they were the rulers, yet had lower visibility. The conflicts deepened each time a new product was developed by the PD Team and had to be used by the Ops team. Generally, the pilot phase wouldn't reveal all the bugs. It's only the go-live phase where the bugs would surface and slow down the production in Operation. This would become a major cause of concern as any slowdown would significantly affect the operation.
The management within the firm showed biased attention towards these verticals. The top tier had all its support for the PD Team, whereas Tier 2 was operation-oriented. As you suggested, the game theory worked best there with a Nash equilibrium at Ops refusing, but Product supporting quadrant. Here, the product team has a dominant strategy as they have the support from the top bosses.
Here's another article on Game theory in Biblical Times [Games strategy in Biblical Times](http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/game-strategy-in-biblical-times).
Regards,
(Cite Contribution)
From India, Mumbai
All thanks to Jacob for sharing the post. I read the post. Here's my take on it; it's a real-life experience.
There was an IT firm that had an Operations vertical and a Product Development vertical. The Operations Team had to use the products developed by the Product Development team. This was a result of an organization policy to use the products developed internally first and then market them to the clients. These products were one of the key strengths of the company. The Operations delivered a much higher volume of work. The revenue generation was higher by the Ops team, although the Products made the company an industry leader. This was the first bone of contention. The Ops team knew that they were the rulers, yet had lower visibility. The conflicts deepened each time a new product was developed by the PD Team and had to be used by the Ops team. Generally, the pilot phase wouldn't reveal all the bugs. It's only the go-live phase where the bugs would surface and slow down the production in Operation. This would become a major cause of concern as any slowdown would significantly affect the operation.
The management within the firm showed biased attention towards these verticals. The top tier had all its support for the PD Team, whereas Tier 2 was operation-oriented. As you suggested, the game theory worked best there with a Nash equilibrium at Ops refusing, but Product supporting quadrant. Here, the product team has a dominant strategy as they have the support from the top bosses.
Here's another article on Game theory in Biblical Times [Games strategy in Biblical Times](http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/game-strategy-in-biblical-times).
Regards,
(Cite Contribution)
From India, Mumbai
Greetings,
To the fans of Game Theory, here are a few of my favorite knowledge bases which I visit to read about this subject:
- [Game Theory](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory)
- [A few more from SEP](http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=game+theory)
Regards,
(Cite Contribution)
From India, Mumbai
To the fans of Game Theory, here are a few of my favorite knowledge bases which I visit to read about this subject:
- [Game Theory](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory)
- [A few more from SEP](http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=game+theory)
Regards,
(Cite Contribution)
From India, Mumbai
Hi (Cite Contribution) - thanks for sharing these other resources. Also your experience really vindicates the theory quite nicely. Lockley / Avuya - glad you guys liked the post. Arun
From India, New Delhi
From India, New Delhi
Dear Arun,
I am waiting to read about the situations faced by our members, where they created a win-win situation using this theory. Even a new situation which we can brainstorm using this decision-making model.
In HR, we do get situations like this almost every day, where both parties are equally correct, yet strike a balance with rewards. These models help the decision-making objective, free of organizational politics. That remains the upside of using such theories and models.
The downside is the presentation beyond the academic realms. The Nash Equilibrium remains in making the implementation relevant close to reality.
Here's one research paper which shatters the myth attached to the financial theories and how it failed in the real world. This necessarily shares the bridge that leads to Nash equilibrium when accurately applied.
Regards,
(Cite Contribution)
From India, Mumbai
I am waiting to read about the situations faced by our members, where they created a win-win situation using this theory. Even a new situation which we can brainstorm using this decision-making model.
In HR, we do get situations like this almost every day, where both parties are equally correct, yet strike a balance with rewards. These models help the decision-making objective, free of organizational politics. That remains the upside of using such theories and models.
The downside is the presentation beyond the academic realms. The Nash Equilibrium remains in making the implementation relevant close to reality.
Here's one research paper which shatters the myth attached to the financial theories and how it failed in the real world. This necessarily shares the bridge that leads to Nash equilibrium when accurately applied.
Regards,
(Cite Contribution)
From India, Mumbai
Thank you for the very interesting article. I do not quite understand the scenario C of the second matrix. How can it be that you get the highest revenue if one department refuses to cooperate? Jorge
From Argentina, Buenos Aires
From Argentina, Buenos Aires
Hi, (Cite Contribution) - I agree with you. Frameworks like this help make decision-making more analytical and logical for everyone involved - and helps people get out of the "us" and "them" syndrome.
Hi Jorge - while the situation explained is hypothetical, you can perhaps understand it better by thinking of a real-life scenario. Let me share one. The team handling wholesale distributors in a certain company was at cross-purposes with the field sales team, not seeing eye to eye on many issues. In one particular instance, the team selling material into distributors pumped in huge inventory, not in sync with what the field sales team could sell out. Now, this created a situation wherein the month revenue contributed by the distribution team was particularly high. However, the field sales team took a beating because they were not in sync with the inventory with distributors that needed to be sold out. A classic scenario!
If others have some examples to share - please jump in!
From India, New Delhi
Hi Jorge - while the situation explained is hypothetical, you can perhaps understand it better by thinking of a real-life scenario. Let me share one. The team handling wholesale distributors in a certain company was at cross-purposes with the field sales team, not seeing eye to eye on many issues. In one particular instance, the team selling material into distributors pumped in huge inventory, not in sync with what the field sales team could sell out. Now, this created a situation wherein the month revenue contributed by the distribution team was particularly high. However, the field sales team took a beating because they were not in sync with the inventory with distributors that needed to be sold out. A classic scenario!
If others have some examples to share - please jump in!
From India, New Delhi
Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
