Simulation-Based Learning for L&D (Part A): Theories, Models, and What Each Game Reveals


L&D teams don’t use simulations because they’re “fun”.

They use them because a good simulation does something most workshops struggle to do: it makes invisible dynamics visible, discussable, and repeatable.

This two-part blog compares eight classic simulations and team games, not as “paper vs online”, but as theories-in-action. Each one owns a slightly different learning space. None is “best”; each is best for a specific constraint.

Tools covered:


The shared foundation: why simulations change behaviour

Across all eight, the learning engine is the same:

  • Experiential learning: people learn faster when they do and then reflect.
  • Safe-fail practice: you can try, fail, adapt, and try again without real-world damage.
  • Compression of time: weeks of team dynamics show up in 60–90 minutes.
  • Emotion as memory: urgency, frustration, and breakthrough create recall.


The “content” isn’t the props. It’s the patterns participants notice when the pressure is on.

1) Flight from Savo: the supervisor as the balancing act

Model it’s built on

Flight from Savo is explicitly built on five supervisory skill dimensions:

  • Guiding the Work
  • Organising the Work
  • Developing Your Staff
  • Managing Performance
  • Managing Relations


The underlying principle is that supervision is a balancing job: organisational goals, the needs of the work, and the needs of the people.

What it reveals

It surfaces how supervisors translate intent into action:

  • Do they create clarity or confusion?
  • Do they allocate work well or just “throw tasks”?
  • Do they remove obstacles or become one?
  • Do they coordinate with others or stay in their lane?


It’s less about “leadership style” and more about core supervisory capability.

2) Mars Rover (Teamwork Version): group work vs real teamwork

Model it’s built on

This version is built on teamwork fundamentals: interdependence, common goals, continuing interaction, valuing diversity, and a supportive environment.

The design (individual work first, then team completion) is the model.

What it reveals

It makes the difference between a group and a team unavoidable:

  • When do people share information (or hoard it)?
  • Do they integrate expertise or work in parallel?
  • Do they align on the goal or optimise locally?


It’s a clean diagnostic for a team’s operating system.

3) Maestro: team performance under uncertainty and pressure

Model it’s built on

Maestro is an “unstructured problem” simulation: limited information, time pressure, role selection, planning, and execution.

The theory-in-practice is decision-making under uncertainty:

  • role clarity and leadership selection
  • planning without full data
  • communication and coordination under stress


What it reveals

It exposes how teams behave when they can’t “analyse their way out”:

  • Do they over-plan or under-plan?
  • Who takes leadership, and how?
  • How do they make decisions when they don’t know the full brief?


4) Hat Factory: operations thinking (planning, scheduling, control)

Model it’s built on

Hat Factory is built on practical operations management principles:

  • estimating task durations
  • sequencing and prioritising work
  • resource allocation
  • inventory control and lead times
  • managing planned/unplanned delays
  • cost control


What it reveals

It shows that performance is often a system design issue:

  • poor sequencing creates bottlenecks
  • inventory decisions create downstream pain
  • ignoring lead times creates late delivery


It’s a strong bridge between “teamwork” and “how work flows”.

5) Common Currency: cooperative competition and principled negotiation

Model it’s built on

Common Currency is built on cooperative competition: teams compete, but can’t win alone. Scarce resources + unequal distribution + information asymmetry force negotiation.

What it reveals

It surfaces the tension between:

  • short-term wins vs long-term relationships
  • hoarding vs sharing
  • trading information vs trading resources


It’s a practical lab for negotiation behaviours and inter-team collaboration.

6) Tall Ships: the “Seven C’s” of high-performing teams

Model it’s built on

Tall Ships is explicitly tied to a “Seven C’s” model of team effectiveness and uses three rounds to reveal and improve team dynamics.

What it reveals

Because teams must improve across rounds (time, cost, then new specs), it highlights:

  • learning agility (do we actually improve?)
  • coordination and communication under changing requirements
  • the cost of poor planning and unclear roles


It’s a team effectiveness accelerator with a built-in improvement loop.

7) Rainforest Game: collaboration across boundaries (virtual/dispersed)

Model it’s built on

Rainforest is built around a four-phase model for working across boundaries:

  • Reaching Out
  • Sharing Information
  • Exploring Alternatives
  • Making It Happen


It’s designed for virtual/dispersed teams and cross-organisation collaboration.

What it reveals

It makes boundary problems concrete:

  • assumptions about “how others work”
  • friction caused by distance and partial information
  • relationship-building as a performance enabler


8) Junkyard Games: innovation as a process, not a personality

Model it’s built on

Junkyard Games distinguishes creativity from innovation and teaches a 7-step innovation process. It also highlights managing task-driven and process-driven behaviours.

What it reveals

It surfaces:

  • fear of risk and judgement
  • how constraints can drive creativity
  • whether teams iterate and improve or stick with the first idea


It’s a safe environment to practise innovation behaviours.

The big idea (Part A takeaway)

These games don’t just teach “soft skills”. They teach different levers:


In Part B we’ll get practical: strengths, watch-outs, and a simple selection guide for L&D professionals (including how to sequence these without turning your programme into a “game day”).