The choice between individual or team simulation is not a matter of trend: it is an instructional decision that determines what is learned, how it is learned, and—most importantly—whether that learning is transferred to the workplace. At CompanyGame, we design simulators to achieve concrete learning objectives; here I explain, from practice, when to recommend each model and how to maximize its impact.
1. What we mean by each model
Individual simulation: the participant makes decisions alone in a digital (or blended) scenario, receives personalized feedback, and progresses at their own pace. Ideal for assessment and development of personal competencies.
Team simulation: multiple participants (teams) make collective decisions, negotiate roles, coordinate actions, and compete or cooperate with other teams. It reproduces real organizational dynamics.
2. Advantages and limitations — quick comparison
Individual simulation
Advantages
- Personalized feedback and traceability of decisions.
- Facilitates diagnostic evaluation and individual measurement (personal KPIs).
- Scalable: can be deployed to many people without complex coordination.
- Suitable for self-learning and microlearning.
Limitations
- Less realism in interpersonal skills (negotiation, team leadership).
- Lacks the social component that boosts observational learning and constructive conflict.
Team simulation
Advantages
- Reproduces real interdependencies: communication, negotiation, shared decision-making.
- Strengthens collective skills: situational leadership, conflict management, operational coordination.
- Promotes social learning and transfer to teamwork.
Limitations
- Requires greater logistics and synchronization (schedules, roles, facilitation).
- Evaluation is more complex: distinguishing individual contributions vs. collective results.
- Risk of “free-riding” (members contributing little) if roles and individual metrics are not designed.
3. How to decide? — A practical framework
Choose based on these criteria:
- Learning objective
- Technical skills, individual diagnostics, or skills depending on personal decision-making → Individual.
- Collaboration, leadership, cross-functional processes, negotiation → Team.
- Work context
- Autonomous roles (analysts, developers) → Individual.
- Interdependent roles (product teams, operations, sales) → Team.
- Scale and resources
- Large audience, limited facilitators → Individual.
- Small cohorts, focus on interaction → Team.
- Measurement and evaluation
- Need individual metrics and traceability → Individual.
- Want to measure collective processes, coordination, group outcomes → Team.
- Time available
- Short or asynchronous formats → Individual.
- In-person sessions or extended workshops → Team.
4. The best option: the hybrid model (highly recommended)
In many programs, the optimal solution is a mix: individual + team. A typical and effective design:
- Pre-simulation individual phase: diagnostic assessment and micro-roles to ensure baseline knowledge.
- Team session (capstone): participants apply what they learned, negotiate, and execute strategy in a competitive context.
- Collective debrief + individual feedback: analysis of results, reflections, and personal development plans.
This approach combines scalability, personalization, and transfer to real work.
5. Best practices for each format
For individual simulation
- Design immediate, actionable feedback (score + 2–3 practical recommendations).
- Include progressive challenges and checkpoints to maintain motivation.
- Measure key decisions with clear metrics (timing, accuracy, consistency).
- Add brief guided reflection activities to consolidate learning.
For team simulation
- Limit team size (4–6 people is usually ideal).
- Define clear roles and responsibilities (CEO, CFO, Head Ops, Marketing…).
- Include mechanisms to evaluate individual contribution (logs, signed decisions, rotating roles).
- Provide a facilitator or referee to guide the debrief and manage conflicts.
- Schedule strategy rounds + operational rounds to show cause/effect.
6. Evaluation: what to measure and how
- Results: performance in simulator KPIs (profitability, market share, lead time, customer NPS).
- Behaviors: communication, decision-making, leadership (observed by facilitators or through log analysis).
- Transfer: post-course surveys, manager feedback, and real job performance metrics.
- Engagement: completion rate, active time, participation in debriefs.
Combining quantitative indicators (simulator KPIs) with qualitative ones (360º feedback) provides the complete picture.
7. Typical use cases
- Technical onboarding: individual simulation to level knowledge.
- Middle management training: team simulation to practice coordination and cross-functional communication.
- Assessment centers: hybrid—individual exercises to assess competencies, team exercises to observe interaction.
- Executive programs: teams competing in complex scenarios to work on strategy and leadership.
8. Final recommendations
- Define the desired outcome first (which competency should be evident in real work).
- Do not rely solely on technology: instructional design, debrief quality, and facilitator support are key.
- Use hybrid formats when you want to combine scale with social realism.
- Establish impact metrics before launching the simulator to demonstrate training ROI.
Conclusion
There is no universal “best” format: the choice between individual or team simulation depends on pedagogical objectives, organizational context, and resources. At CompanyGame, we design tailor-made solutions—individual, team-based, or hybrid—to ensure that learning not only happens but translates into real behavior and performance.
Would you like us to adapt a pilot program (individual, team, or hybrid) to your needs? I can propose a design outline with duration, facilitator role, and suggested KPIs.
Logical, clear, and very well-explained.