Abstract
Understanding key concepts and theories in strategy is essential for students to know why some firms outperform others. Traditional teaching methodologies, such as case studies and simulations, can help students understand and apply the key concepts/theories in a real-world scenario. However, relying too much on case studies and simulations may cause fatigue. Some mature students may find these teaching methodologies less appealing due to their advanced working experience. This paper outlines an innovative experiential learning exercise that transcends traditional teaching methodologies and offers a unique avenue for students to engage with theoretical frameworks. This teaching approach incorporates LEGO® sets as a learning tool to enhance the internal assimilation of strategic concepts, such as the resource-based view, while providing students with a memorable and enjoyable experience. It also catalyses cognitive assimilation to ensure long-term retention, fostering collaboration and team-building and encouraging communication, and problem-solving.
In the ever-evolving landscape of management education, the integration of innovative and experiential teaching methods has become paramount (Kolb, 2014). Innovative teaching methods can make the materials more interesting and enhance students’ engagement (Mozahem & Ghanem, 2018). This article centers around a dynamic pedagogical approach that harnesses the power of LEGO® for experiential-based learning, particularly in the context of teaching key concepts in strategy. The objective is to transcend traditional teaching methodologies and offer a unique avenue for students to engage with theoretical frameworks such as the resource-based view (RBV) (Barney, 1991). This teaching approach draws inspiration from the insightful “paper tower building” game (Sheehan, 2006).
LEGO® bricks have been frequently used in classrooms to teach general management (Erskine & Sablynski, 2016), task assignment (Bolinger & Burch, 2018), and teamwork (Lambert et al., 2023; Stewart, 2024). In this exercise, LEGO® bricks are used as a learning tool to help students have a better understanding of strategic concepts and provide a memorable and enjoyable experience for students. This deepens participants’ interest in the subjects and strikes a balance between serious topics and fun games. It forms a unique learning experience. Moreover, it helps to build cohesive seminar groups, fostering an environment conducive to future in-depth discussions.
This article aligns with the discipline of management, specifically within the realm of strategic management. The utilization of LEGO® for teaching the RBV extends its applicability to various courses and programs focusing on organizational strategy, business policy, entrepreneurship, innovation, and leadership. The activity was developed in the context of a graduate-level Introduction to Strategic Management course and has also been used in undergraduate-level courses and executive training. A single instructor can run the exercise with 20 to 60 participants, and the whole exercise can take 60 to 120 minutes.
Theoretical Foundation
The RBV is a strategic management theory that suggests a firm’s unique bundle of resources and capabilities are the primary drivers of competitive advantage and superior performance in the marketplace (Wernerfelt, 1984). It emphasizes that not all resources are equally important or valuable, and that sustained competitive advantage can be achieved through the possession of valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable resources, also known as VRIN resources (see Appendix A) (Barney, 1991).
RBV analysis includes both resources and capabilities. Resources are the tangible and intangible assets and human resources owned, controlled, or accessible to a firm. These can include physical assets (such as equipment and facilities), human capital (skills, knowledge, and experience of employees), organizational assets (culture, reputation, and brand), and technological assets (patents, proprietary technology) (Hitt et al., 2016). Capabilities refer to the firm’s ability to deploy its resources effectively to achieve a desired outcome or competitive advantage. They are the routines, processes, and skills within an organization that enable it to perform tasks and activities more efficiently and effectively than its competitors (Barney, 2017).
Learning Objectives
After completing the exercise, participants will be able to:
Gain a deeper understanding of the RBV and how it can lead to competitive advantage.
Practice using VRIN framework to analyze resources and capabilities that lead to competitive advantage.
Reflect on the diversity of strategic decision-making related to deploying resources and capabilities.
Instructions for Running the Exercise
Overview
This LEGO® game is designed to help students better understand strategy concepts such as the RBV in an interactive and engaging learning environment that combines fun and learning together. Students will work in teams to build “LEGO® kits” based on a given task, utilizing their strategic thinking and resource allocation skills.
Logistics
Participants are divided into groups of 3 to 5 and sit/stand around a table. I have tried to ask students to form their groups in the past, but they tend to form more homogeneous groups. There are studies showing that self-formed groups are normally based on shared attributes and are less diverse and creative (Calder-Wang et al., 2021). Nowadays, I normally assign the team randomly to be more inclusive. It is much easier for them to understand diverse resources and capabilities, and reflect on their abilities and experiences in the reflection part. At each table, the instructors need to tip a range of LEGO® pieces before the class, ensuring there are a variety of colors, sizes, and shapes. It is essential that each group gets a different variety and number of bricks.
It is not required for the participants to have experience in playing with LEGO® bricks before. Those who have the experience may become a valuable resource for this exercise, which will be discussed and reflected on after the game.
The exercise can last between 60 and 120 minutes, depending on the available time. If the class time is longer, then the game can be run twice. Generally speaking, participants perform much better in the second round. In the discussion and reflection part, instructors can talk about experimentation and learning in decision-making and how experience and familiarity with resources and capabilities can help to find a better strategy. Some participants will try to imitate the success team’s strategy in the second round but based on my experience, they are very unlikely to succeed. That is because imitation of intangible resources and capabilities is difficult. They will have a better understanding of “I” in the VRIN framework.
Step-by-Step Instructions
At the beginning of the class, the instructors just need to state the task: You will be asked to build a LEGO® kit and tell a story about what you have built later. Previously, students have built a Barbie Kingdom, a space park and a time machine. You can build anything if you can tell a good story about it.
Then, give the participants 10 to 20 minutes to plan their kit. At this planning stage, participants are not allowed to build anything. However, they can check what kinds of bricks they have. They can sort the bricks by color, size, shape, and so on, but they should not build. This is because an assessment of resources and planning before building can be beneficial for this exercise. This will also be helpful for further reflection since they need to identify valuable resources.
After planning, participants have 20 minutes to build the kits. It is useful to have a timer displayed on the projector, or the instructors can warn the participants regularly about the time.
After they finish building, gather the participants around each table to allow each team to showcase their LEGO® kits and describe the story behind them. They can enjoy and appreciate the creativity displayed by each team. In the end, the instructors can ask students to vote for the best team based on their judgment.
As the game progresses, it is a good idea for the instructors to observe each team’s dynamics, decision-making, and resource utilization. The instructors can take notes to provide feedback on leadership, teamwork, and strategic thinking. The information gathered here will be useful for discussion and reflection. In the debriefing stage, the instructor should point out that there is no perfect way of strategic decision-making and that a variety of ways of decision-making can lead to success. It is more about the resources and capabilities the group has and the efficiency of using them (see Appendix B for the flow and timing of this exercise).
Variations
It is possible to introduce different themes or constraints for the exercise to explore various strategic challenges. For example, the themes could be more specific topics, such as kits that relate to the city or university. If the course is related to entrepreneurship, then there could be two rounds of building exercises and in the second round, the instructors can take away some of the bricks. In this way, the participants normally find it much harder to build something meaningful. Comparing these two rounds, they will have a better understanding of the limited resources that entrepreneurs face and how that is going to limit their strategy and operation. Alternatively, the external environment could change during the game, that is, the “rules of the game” could alter to demonstrate the need for dynamic capabilities. For example, a new theme can be imposed so that the participants need to change their design and building process.
Before the planning stage, the instructors can allow teams to trade bricks with each other. This relates to the real-world situation as companies can trade physical resources. Trading resources also relates to market dynamics. It is also possible to experiment with different team compositions or sizes to observe their impact on strategic decision-making.
Instructions for Debriefing the Exercise
The debriefing provides an opportunity for participants to realize the purpose of this exercise and deepen their understanding of RBV.
Generally speaking, for case studies and simulations, it is better to allow the groups to discuss the questions among themselves before a large group debrief since it can create a higher level of engagement. However, this LEGO® exercise can create a more dynamic class environment and enhance students’ willingness to contribute to the discussion. Therefore, the instructor can go straight to the whole class debrief.
The instructor can start the debriefing by asking the winning group about the key resources and capabilities that contribute to their success. Participants’ responses often focus on particular bricks. The instructor can ask other groups whether they will build the same thing if they have the same bricks and why. Most participants will say no, and then they will realize that they focus too much on one type of resource-tangible resources but ignore intangible resources and human resources. Participants also tend to forget to discuss capabilities, such as the ability to work together, creativity in planning, ability to work quickly (as students only have 20 minutes to complete the task), previous construction experience, engineering background, or experience with LEGO®. The instructors can mention this and guide the discussion toward capabilities. One way to do this is to point out innovative brick use, such as sorting by color and shapes, and good storytelling. Some groups may not be able to build a fancy kit, but they can tell an appealing story that goes beyond what they have built. This discussion can lead to an examination of the role of capabilities because it is generally capabilities that decide which team wins.
Then, the instructors can ask the participants why they think these resources and capabilities are important for success. Some of the participants will say that the resources and capabilities are valuable and rare. The instructors can remind the participants that we can use the VRIN framework to analyze the resources and capabilities, and if the resources and capabilities are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable, then they will lead to success and competitive advantage. The instructors can encourage the participants to read the paper by Barney (1991) to learn more about the history and development of VRIN framework.
Another question the instructors can ask is whether the participants changed the design after they started construction. Based on my experience, many groups will answer yes to this question. Then, the instructors can talk about the fact that it is quite common for firms to remain flexible during implementation. The instructors can talk about COVID-19, which forced many companies to adapt to online meetings due to the lockdown. Many universities have moved their teaching online for the same reason.
Finally, the instructors can reflect on the exercise and share their observations. This can often be great fun as groups notice their differences, but it is also very informative. For instance, teams will often organize differently with hierarchies or leaders developing. Cultures may develop too, even within one round, with some noisier argumentative teams and some collaborative ones, or some stood up and others more passive, and so on. Capabilities may be noticeable too, for example, innovative brick use or storytelling and presenting skills.
Conclusion
This exercise provides an opportunity for participants to understand key concepts in strategy, such as RBV, through a game. It enhances participants’ cognitive assimilation to ensure long-term retention. It also builds a more dynamic teaching and learning environment, which will enhance future class participation and discussion.
Footnotes
Appendix A
Appendix B
Acknowledgements
I am grateful for comments on the design of this exercise and the drafts of this article by Rachael Lamb, Surya Mahdi, and Hazel Nendick. I am also grateful for the comments and support from the editors and reviewers. All errors are my responsibility.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
