Eastman Chemical feedback

[koay9f]

1. After a few years, both teams received a free capital project. It was implemented the following year. Then, later in the game, there was another green screen which said we got another free capital project. Neither team was able to use the second free capital project – that is, no options were given for implementation. It appears you can only do one free capital project during the course of the game, but the option never went away after using it.
2. Another thing we noticed was that there was inconsistency on which projects showed the implementation bar (green) under the individual project. At one time, it appeared that it only showed if you had already selected and viewed information on the project. At another time, it seemed to indicate which projects had sufficient information to implement.
3. We got comments (I think I’ve already passed these on to you) that it would be helpful if we could see the cost of the project on the main screens (before you click implementation). It’s also time consuming to convert units to compare projects. I think using different units was intentional but in a time-constrained environment it does add some frustration. I think if we do it again, I would develop a “cheat sheet” at least for the facilitator(s) to have the full project list with the cost and equivalent units. That would make it easy to guide the group and answer questions. A couple of ideas on how this could be implemented:
   a. Add a toggle button or slider that specifies the level of difficulty. The current setup with project details buried could be the “hard” mode. An “intermediate” mode might show more information (e.g. cost, savings in energy and/or GHG) directly on the card. Then there could be an “easy” mode that would tabulate all available projects on one page with sortable columns including cost, GHG savings, $/GHG, etc. This “level of difficulty” toggle could be selected as part of the initial setup and/or be included in an “options” pane.
   b. Another approach might be to include text input fields on each card where the user can enter/store key metrics for each project. For example, there could be fields where the user may enter things like project cost and estimated GHG savings. When the user/group reviews a project, this would give them a way to store the information they need for project comparisons in a way that is easily accessible for the group to view. Their inputs would persist from one round to the next if the project is not implemented. These optional fields would simply be for reference and the system would not indicate if the user’s inputs are correct or not.
4. Participants mentioned it would be helpful to understand within each year what remaining balances exist on previously financed projects and when they are expected to be paid off. This would provide information on what available funds would look like in future years adjusting for loan payments.

NOTES from koa:

1. cannot replicate... need to investigate more
2. I think this is the financing implementation problem
3. This could be interesting, but would be a big lift
4. isn't this there in the bar at the top? I guess it doesn't have the "expected to be paid off".