ICONS User Manual: Structure of an ICONS Simulation

Simulation

Before the simulation begins, the students should have had adequate opportunity to master the issues raised in the scenario, divide themselves up into functional working units, prepare a rather detailed position paper, and familiarize themselves with ICONSnet.

Several distinct types of communication take place in the exercise. Messages are the primary form of communications, either bilateral or multilateral, and it is in this context that most of the business of the exercise is conducted.

In addition, communiques are routinely issued by country-teams as the need arises, at least twice per week. These are meant to be official public statements of policy on specific issues, and are sent to all other country-teams (unlike regular messages, which may be sent to a more restricted group of countries).

Real-time conferences are the final means of communication. While issues are handled through the normal message flow, there is usually a need for a conference to hammer out details of a particular negotiation, or at least to give some issues a public airing. Thus, conferences might take place on issues like arms control, international development, and other global issues. (A conference schedule is distributed to participants before the simulation begins. It is not possible to schedule conferences to coincide with class times, but ICONS does take vacation schedules into account. Further, the number of time zones spanned by a given simulation may complicate scheduling, but project staff tries to minimize inconvenience for the participating teams.)

The simulation is administered by a member of the ICONS staff. SIMCON (Simulation Control) is responsible for monitoring all messages (providing feedback when necessary), chairing all conferences, and managing all administrative issues. SIMCON keeps in touch with faculty members so that they can work together to enhance the students’ educational experience. (For more information about SIMCON’s role in the simulation, please see Umpiring under Implementation Issues below.)

As might be imagined, while the faculty involved in the preparation of the simulation may have certain ideas as to the directions various issues and negotiations will take, after the first few days each exercise takes off and develops a character of its own. It is this evolution, and the students’ ability to take over the exercise and turn it in unforeseen directions, which makes this type of simulation such a powerful and effective educational tool.

Simulations rarely end with closure on any particular issue or problem. Students at both the high school and college levels are often frustrated that closure was not reached. They must be made to understand that the intent is not to resolve all issues, but rather to gain a better appreciation of their complexity, and of the difficulties in achieving consensus among actors with drastically divergent world views. Debriefing is vital in bringing this realization to light.