The last question I wanted to address was Francis's question, which was about the World of Warcraft. I did want you guys to consider this a case for organizational learning, and I think Francis caught on that yeah, there are elements, and many of you did, that there are elements about the World of Warcraft that reflect organizational learning. But that it would be a substitute for an MBA is kind of a stretch, and I think that's a fair assessment. So let me just rattle off how it reflects organizational learning to some extent and what's kind of neat about it, and then try to relate what's maybe missing in it too. So Shirley has a nice characterization of the World of Warcraft where she says, look, it's learning by doing. The players are self-motivated, they use dashboards, they collect data, they process it, they have leader boards to continually evaluate themselves and develop further. If you had workers that set their own benchmarks and were self-motivated, it would revolutionize the way organizations work. Neal caught this too, I think. Kathleen argues it's the game. In the game players can flexibly and willingly adapt and work together. They can explore and improvise, and that makes them attractive on a theoretical level for organizational learning. Alan mentions that they have a lot of passion. These are people who identify with the game, at least at the expert levels, high levels of experience with the game and complex quests. That these are people who highly identify and play this game for many hours. Kate O, one of the last posts, said that these games are simulated situations, and if you think about role playing and simulations of team coordination and kind of organizational processes that reflect learning, this game environment establishes habits of that sort, perhaps. That might be good training. Arguably, though, on the other hand, this world is all fantasy, it's not real. Another thing, I think Francis had an elaborate characterization of how the World of Warcraft fit organizational learning. I encourage you all to look at it. It's very well done, I think, and he reflects on his own experiences. A lot of the quests are very complex and they require multiple players. It's like a complex project or task. And as they do this task, they can experiment and fail. It's not real life per se. Players can die and be resurrected. So they have a system where risk is feasible where they can try out things. It's feasible to think that you can have that in an organization as well, if you have simulations of tasks where it's okay to mess up, like a simulation of triage in an emergency room to figure out the best ways to coordinate, or simulations of ambulance kind of coordination with the hospital, etc., as training. Those kind of things are often done. Why can't we do it with more complex tasks that are relatively predictable? Another thing is that a lot of what's online is a memory, it's distributed memory through this network of practice, where throughout the network of World of Warcraft they're sharing information, they're looking up databases of what works and didn't work with each quest. So that's kind of interesting. So there's a network of practice, and they translate or they bring back that information to their particular team or their melee where they're going to go on this quest. And they figure out amongst themselves in their community of practice, of that guild and that warring community, how to implement it. So a lot of things here have a reflection of organizational learning that clearly are kind of neat. However, I think it's also clear that it's not the same as reality. Luigi wonders if the World of Warcraft manager would only be good for exploration organizations as opposed to ones that are in exploitation mode. And Paul rightly reveals that the work in the World of Warcraft has no real risk. People die, it's not a big deal, you can resurrect them, whereas in reality of a world of work, things cost a lot. You can't do that kind of performance with that high risk. And Christina says there's a lot of anonymity, meaning that you don't know who these players are, and that removes risk, whereas in the work world, there may be less anonymity. So someone like Francis suggests that maybe the virtual life, Second Life, is a better indication where we don't have as clear roles and rules, where the risk are a little higher perhaps in Second Life, where the games we invent are more varied and complex than the ones perhaps even in the World of Warcraft. That that comes a one step closer to the kinds of experiences within a firm. I'm not sure about that, I haven't experienced it much. But I do wonder as a thought exercise that this gamification of kind of the work world, if we could accomplish that to some a degree with simulations and kinds of projects, that a lot of these features could be integrated and heighten the experience or heighten the improvement of practice within a lot of firms. So it's interesting to think about. I'm not 100% sure on how to actually accomplish that in concrete terms. But I think we see it in lots of little ways. Whether a larger project and an actual accomplishment of that within the work world can be done, I'd love to hear about it. I think it's feasible and I'd love to hear whether you guys have some recollections of where that might be. Okay, so I'll see you next week on the forum. I hope you enjoyed the video of the World of Warcraft with the one player going crazy. The video hopefully showed you kind of how people coordinate and process information. But I hope it also showed you that you need everybody kind of on the same page for that process to work. And whether that means you have the same orientations and values and culture, let's think about that as we go into the next week. Bye.