ICONS User Manual: Implementation Issues

Country-Team Roles

Country-Team Roles
Team Organization
Decision-Making Procedures
Scenario
Position Papers
Communication
Foreign Language
Umpiring
Grade
Facilitation

Typically, when one thinks of simulation and gaming exercises, one has images of the model United Nations or of mock legislatures, in which students engage in role playing. In the ICONS simulation exercises, a more analytic, if possibly less dramatic, mode of participation is encouraged. Stylistic mimicry is discouraged because it tends to perpetuate stereotypical perceptions of foreign policy behavior.

What is important is for students to think about the situations posed by the scenario and developments within the simulation from the point of view of the nation they represent in the exercise. The aim of the simulation is to produce good analysts, not good actors, by encouraging students to evaluate foreign policy in the following manner: "If I were making foreign policy decisions for nation X, and if a particular situation occurred, then I would have to take the following considerations into account. . .; I would conclude that such and such a course of action is the most desirable."

Consistent with this approach, the participant is asked to view his or her role as being analogous to the kinds of high-level advisors and staff that are found in most foreign ministries or other foreign policy making structures. Two sets of activities are involved: 1) policy planning and analysis, and 2) policy implementation and operations. For this reason, students are encouraged from the very beginning of the semester to consult a variety of general economic, political, and military sources so that by the time the simulation begins, they will have developed a sound research content for their policy decisions. The participant wears a "planner’s hat" prior to the beginning of the exercise, and focuses his or her attention on the creation of the "position paper."

Once the simulation has begun, the participant functions as a policy implementer, that is, one who works in day-to-day operations, initiating and responding to situations within the policy guidelines set down in the position paper. This distinction parallels the classic "staff-line" distinction in administrative agencies. In practice, it is bound to become blurred: many statements of policy cannot be implemented in concrete situations, and many concrete situations emerge for which there are no existing policy guidelines. Nonetheless, it will be instructive for the participant to develop an awareness of the two different functions the team must perform as the exercise unfolds.

Given this conception of the role of country-teams, certain assumptions must be made about decision-making and societal factors in the various countries being played in the exercise. For example, although country-teams do not directly represent internal elements of their nations, e.g., legislatures, public opinion, and the like, decisions made by students should be assumed to have met domestic policy constraints. To this end, we think it is useful to have a country-team member specialize in domestic politics. This person generally will have an overview of all aspects of the country-team’s policies, and will be able to veto decisions that are not feasible within a domestic context.

Student participants are often a bit confused as to how much freedom they have in developing their nation’s foreign policies. For example, must the U.S. team strictly adhere to the policies set forth by the current administration? Or is the U.S. team allowed to diverge from those policies? In response to these questions, we generally respond that each country-team must maintain a certain degree of accuracy so that others in the simulation can expect a minimal level of realism. All students will have researched the positions of their negotiating partners and they should be able to expect realistic positions from the other teams. Still, the simulation seeks a degree of creativity in developing solution to the issues that might diverge from policies the countries have pursued to date.

Ultimately, the policies and strategies developed by the team are subject to review by either the local instructor or simulation control or both. The team’s policies and strategies should be construed as recommendations which will generally be translated directly into actions by the teams, but which, on occasion, may not be accepted as is. This review function is not intended to thwart the team’s initiatives. Rather, it is a means for the instructor and/or simulation control to encourage students to concentrate on certain problems, to assure that the game as a whole maintains focus, and to prevent a team from becoming entangled in tangential issues. The extent to which the review function is exercised by either a local instructor or simulation control varies from exercise to exercise, depending upon the focus, objectives, and level of participants.