Whenever I tackle anything new, especially if it's big and new, I like to examine what I know and what I don't know. What the givens, are and what remain variables. In a way, it's like sorting the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, where the edge pieces are the givens, and everything else is a variable.

Here are some of the ideas that we consider givens in simulation design:

• We use simulations to provide safe practice in making critical decisions (with our clients, mostly soft skills, but sims are excellent for mechanical or other processes, too)
  
  
• We use avatars to make soft skill simulations more social and engaging (this social sensibility also gains us trust and credibility with learners)
  
  
• Avatars can demonstrate, coach or role play with the learner (all are valid roles, depending on the learning objectives and social setting)
  
  
• The more real-world we can make the simulation, the better results we will get (something to remember here is that the real world may not be simple or predictable, so neither should sims be)
  
  
• In a simulation, if learners don't have a good opportunity to fail, they also don't have a good opportunity to learn (the real advantage to building in failure is that you can help learners discriminate between small, but important, concepts and options)
  
  
• The simpler, more streamline we can construct the simulation, the more learning time will be available (when there's value in it, people will go through a sim more than once...so don't use up more time than necessary; this gives them more time to practice)
  
  
• The construction of the simulation should give the learner the same sort of options, process, flow as the real situations (even while designing in failures and demanding critical thought, you don't want to trick the learner) 

Do you have any other givens, to add to our list? Let me know!

In the most current issue of the Harvard Business Review, I learned that neuroscientists have discovered that social interactions literally effect our brain chemistry. Not such a surprise, really since our interactions create emotional responses and, in the brain and body, different emotions are associated with different chemicals.

The article features Daniel Goldman, who launched the concept of emotional intelligence in leadership a decade ago, and contends:

“Leading effectively is, in other words, less about mastering situations — or even mastering social skill sets — than about developing a genuine interest in and talent for fostering positive feelings in the people whose cooperation and support you need.”

As we have noted before, other research is clear that we humans are such social creatures that we even interpret interactions in front of a computer as being social. So what does Goldman's new work tell us for more successful elearning? In my take-away...

1. We need to stay attuned to the personal needs of our learners (delivering solutions that meet these needs).
2. We need to understand how elearning fits within the social system of our learners (the entire picture of their work and time needs and demands).
3. We need to be part of the mentoring and coaching that every employee benefits from (making it obvious that there is more value to our programs than just shoving new information at our learners).

Will that change the brain chemistry of our learners? Apparently. But whether you believe that or not, you can be certain it will help build better relationships with their learners. And relationships with employees, sales channels and customers that gain more trust and commitment are always incredibly valuable when it comes to building brand and achieving business objectives.

It's nice to have the scientific foundation for these ideas, but these have always been the principles embedded in our work here at w/. That's why, when we say "w/" what we mean is: "We're w/ you."