Simulation library
Eight simulations. One clear way to teach by doing.
Choose the course fit, inspect what students decide, and follow each Round from the company plan to the evidence you can debrief.
Principles of Microeconomics
Soda Market Intro
Give an introductory class a market they can see and question. Teams choose price and production before marketing and R&D unlock, creating a clear progression from demand and availability to differentiation, profit, and competitive response.
- Course fit
- Principles of Microeconomics
- Duration
- 75 minutes
- Rounds
- 10
- Access
- Free
Students decide
- Price and production
- Marketing from Round 3
- R&D from Round 6
You can observe and debrief
- Market Share, profit, and stockouts
- Elasticity and availability effects
- How delayed investment changes Brand and Quality Index
Learning outcomes
- Explain how price and availability shape demand and Market Share.
- Evaluate delayed, diminishing-return investments.
- Revise a strategy using profit, cash, inventory, and competitor evidence.
Illustrative completed example
A completed game, at a glance
This fixed example shows one possible result. Results change with student decisions.
Market Share by Round
- Empty Shelf Cola
- Value Pop
- Blue Label Soda
View Market Share data
| Round | Empty Shelf Cola | Value Pop | Blue Label Soda |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9.9% | 26.2% | 9.9% |
| 2 | 9.9% | 26.2% | 9.9% |
| 3 | 9.9% | 26.2% | 9.9% |
| 4 | 0.0% | 29.0% | 11.0% |
| 5 | 22.1% | 22.6% | 8.6% |
| 6 | 22.1% | 22.6% | 8.6% |
| 7 | 22.5% | 21.9% | 8.7% |
| 8 | 22.5% | 21.9% | 8.7% |
| 9 | 22.5% | 21.9% | 8.7% |
| 10 | 22.5% | 21.9% | 8.7% |
Final standings
Overall rank comes from the complete example game, not only the three Team Companies shown here.
| Rank | Team Company | Final Market Share | Net income | Shareholder Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Empty Shelf Cola | 22.5% | $2,744,325 | $19,364,966 |
| #2 | Value Pop | 21.9% | $1,177,942 | $13,658,193 |
| #4 | Blue Label Soda | 8.7% | $616,838 | $8,068,383 |
Teaching goal
Soda Market Intro
Connect a familiar supply-and-demand model to decisions every team can defend.
Student decision
Soda Market Intro
Students set price and production within clear guardrails, then submit one company plan.
Result and why
Soda Market Intro
Market Share and profit change together; the evidence shows whether price or availability drove the result.
Instructor debrief
Soda Market Intro
The instructor compares companies, isolates mechanisms, and frames the next Round question.
Pricing Strategy
Hotel Revenue Strategy
Put willingness-to-pay and rate fences into one operating room. Teams manage standard and flexible offers against leisure, business, and group demand while perishable capacity makes both occupancy and contribution visible.
- Course fit
- Pricing Strategy
- Duration
- 75 minutes
- Rounds
- 8
- Access
- Pro
Students decide
- Standard and flexible rates
- Room allocation and promotion
- Service, capacity, and finance choices
You can observe and debrief
- Occupancy and contribution by offer
- Demand mix and price sensitivity
- When capacity expires unused
Learning outcomes
- Distinguish occupancy from profitable occupancy.
- Explain willingness-to-pay across customer segments.
- Evaluate rate fences and capacity commitment.
Illustrative completed example
A completed game, at a glance
This fixed example shows one possible result. Results change with student decisions.
Market Share by Round
- Full House
- Northstar Hotels
- Quiet Capital
View Market Share data
| Round | Full House | Northstar Hotels | Quiet Capital |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 13.1% | 9.3% | 8.4% |
| 2 | 13.1% | 9.3% | 8.2% |
| 3 | 14.6% | 10.0% | 7.6% |
| 4 | 12.9% | 18.0% | 6.8% |
| 5 | 13.0% | 18.2% | 6.9% |
| 6 | 13.0% | 18.1% | 6.9% |
| 7 | 13.3% | 18.3% | 7.0% |
| 8 | 14.1% | 19.4% | 0.0% |
Final standings
Overall rank comes from the complete example game, not only the three Team Companies shown here.
| Rank | Team Company | Final Market Share | Net income | Shareholder Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Full House | 14.1% | $1,408,000 | $9,283,633 |
| #2 | Northstar Hotels | 19.4% | $1,361,750 | $8,907,610 |
| #7 | Quiet Capital | 0.0% | $-213,000 | $6,087,858 |
Teaching goal
Hotel Revenue Strategy
Teach price discrimination through a familiar, capacity-constrained service business.
Student decision
Hotel Revenue Strategy
Students set rate plans and allocate rooms before the Round closes.
Result and why
Hotel Revenue Strategy
Occupancy can rise while contribution falls, exposing the cost of undisciplined discounting.
Instructor debrief
Hotel Revenue Strategy
Compare rate fences, demand mix, and contribution to debrief willingness-to-pay.
Entrepreneurship
Meal-Kit Startup
Make growth discipline tangible. Teams balance acquisition, customer learning, unit economics, capacity, and financing as the addressable market expands, then explain whether their startup is scaling a repeatable model or only spending faster.
- Course fit
- Entrepreneurship
- Duration
- 80 minutes
- Rounds
- 8
- Access
- Pro
Students decide
- Offer price and kit volume
- Customer research and acquisition
- Capacity and growth financing
You can observe and debrief
- Adoption, unit economics, and cash runway
- Capacity bottlenecks and inventory risk
- Whether growth creates or consumes durable value
Learning outcomes
- Connect acquisition spending to contribution and runway.
- Test product-market-fit assumptions with evidence.
- Distinguish disciplined scaling from premature growth.
Illustrative completed example
A completed game, at a glance
This fixed example shows one possible result. Results change with student decisions.
Market Share by Round
- Margin Meal
- Pivot Plate
- Cash Pantry
View Market Share data
| Round | Margin Meal | Pivot Plate | Cash Pantry |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 8.2% | 7.3% | 7.7% |
| 2 | 7.9% | 7.0% | 7.3% |
| 3 | 7.5% | 6.6% | 7.0% |
| 4 | 5.6% | 12.4% | 5.3% |
| 5 | 6.7% | 14.4% | 6.1% |
| 6 | 6.2% | 13.3% | 5.7% |
| 7 | 6.6% | 13.4% | 5.9% |
| 8 | 7.0% | 14.2% | 0.5% |
Final standings
Overall rank comes from the complete example game, not only the three Team Companies shown here.
| Rank | Team Company | Final Market Share | Net income | Shareholder Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Margin Meal | 7.0% | $1,533,900 | $12,181,922 |
| #7 | Pivot Plate | 14.2% | $1,196,808 | $9,273,957 |
| #8 | Cash Pantry | 0.5% | $-52,429 | $9,231,862 |
Teaching goal
Meal-Kit Startup
Turn “scale” into a sequence of testable operating and financing choices.
Student decision
Meal-Kit Startup
Students form an offer, prepare capacity, and fund customer learning.
Result and why
Meal-Kit Startup
Growth and runway respond together, making cash discipline visible.
Instructor debrief
Meal-Kit Startup
The instructor compares assumptions, constraints, and paths to disciplined scaling.
Marketing Management
Athletic Footwear
Move positioning from a slide to a resource-allocation decision. Teams choose target segments, price, marketing, and product investment, then see how fit differs across performance, lifestyle, and value customers.
- Course fit
- Marketing Management
- Duration
- 70 minutes
- Rounds
- 8
- Access
- Pro
Students decide
- Target segment and price
- Marketing allocation
- Product and capacity investment
You can observe and debrief
- Demand and contribution by segment
- Positioning fit and competitive crowding
- Tradeoffs across customer groups
Learning outcomes
- Evaluate segment attractiveness and competitive fit.
- Connect positioning choices to contribution.
- Revise allocation when competitors reposition.
Illustrative completed example
A completed game, at a glance
This fixed example shows one possible result. Results change with student decisions.
Market Share by Round
- Volume Sole
- Turnaround Run
- Reserve Shoe
View Market Share data
| Round | Volume Sole | Turnaround Run | Reserve Shoe |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 19.9% | 17.3% | 8.9% |
| 2 | 17.1% | 14.9% | 7.7% |
| 3 | 17.2% | 15.0% | 7.7% |
| 4 | 18.4% | 15.8% | 8.5% |
| 5 | 18.4% | 15.8% | 8.6% |
| 6 | 18.1% | 15.6% | 8.9% |
| 7 | 17.5% | 15.9% | 9.3% |
| 8 | 19.4% | 17.6% | 0.0% |
Final standings
Overall rank comes from the complete example game, not only the three Team Companies shown here.
| Rank | Team Company | Final Market Share | Net income | Shareholder Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Volume Sole | 19.4% | $9,538,875 | $79,404,388 |
| #3 | Turnaround Run | 17.6% | $6,886,300 | $57,246,713 |
| #7 | Reserve Shoe | 0.0% | $-297,400 | $46,791,000 |
Teaching goal
Athletic Footwear
Teach segmentation as a choice about whom to serve and what to sacrifice.
Student decision
Athletic Footwear
Students select a segment and allocate price, promotion, and product resources.
Result and why
Athletic Footwear
Segment contribution reveals whether a position attracted the right demand profitably.
Instructor debrief
Athletic Footwear
The instructor compares positioning maps and asks which allocation created fit.
Industrial Organization
EV Charging Networks
Let students experience entry, commitment, and industry structure. Teams choose local capacity and network investment while fixed costs, rival expansion, and finite demand reveal the difference between sunk and variable cost.
- Course fit
- Industrial Organization
- Duration
- 80 minutes
- Rounds
- 8
- Access
- Pro
Students decide
- Market entry and station capacity
- Price and network investment
- Commitment, finance, and exit responses
You can observe and debrief
- Concentration, utilization, and profit
- Fixed-cost exposure after entry
- Competitive response across regions
Learning outcomes
- Explain how entry and capacity affect concentration.
- Separate sunk, fixed, and variable costs.
- Assess strategic commitment under finite demand.
Illustrative completed example
A completed game, at a glance
This fixed example shows one possible result. Results change with student decisions.
Market Share by Round
- Reserve Power
- Adaptive Plug
- Wide Network
View Market Share data
| Round | Reserve Power | Adaptive Plug | Wide Network |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6.0% | 7.5% | 14.0% |
| 2 | 6.0% | 7.5% | 13.9% |
| 3 | 5.7% | 7.1% | 13.2% |
| 4 | 5.6% | 12.1% | 12.8% |
| 5 | 5.6% | 11.6% | 12.9% |
| 6 | 6.6% | 12.4% | 13.7% |
| 7 | 6.7% | 12.6% | 13.6% |
| 8 | 0.0% | 13.6% | 14.6% |
Final standings
Overall rank comes from the complete example game, not only the three Team Companies shown here.
| Rank | Team Company | Final Market Share | Net income | Shareholder Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Reserve Power | 0.0% | $-215,400 | $-7,999 |
| #6 | Adaptive Plug | 13.6% | $-337,012 | $-1,391,219 |
| #8 | Wide Network | 14.6% | $-364,918 | $-1,742,917 |
Teaching goal
EV Charging Networks
Make market structure emerge from company-level entry and investment choices.
Student decision
EV Charging Networks
Students choose where to enter and how much network capacity to commit.
Result and why
EV Charging Networks
Concentration and profit expose whether demand can support the committed fixed cost.
Instructor debrief
EV Charging Networks
The instructor separates avoidable operating cost from sunk investment in the debrief.
Product Management
Smartphone Portfolio
Give roadmap tradeoffs a financial consequence. Teams manage a core phone, time a premium launch, allocate product investment, and decide when to retire aging offers while demand shifts across the portfolio.
- Course fit
- Product Management
- Duration
- 85 minutes
- Rounds
- 8
- Access
- Pro
Students decide
- Launch timing and product prices
- Roadmap and marketing allocation
- Capacity and product retirement
You can observe and debrief
- Contribution by product
- Cannibalization and demand migration
- Portfolio timing across the lifecycle
Learning outcomes
- Recognize cannibalization across a product line.
- Evaluate launch timing and roadmap allocation.
- Use lifecycle evidence to retire or sustain an offer.
Illustrative completed example
A completed game, at a glance
This fixed example shows one possible result. Results change with student decisions.
Market Share by Round
- Margin Device
- Pivot Handset
- Old Model
View Market Share data
| Round | Margin Device | Pivot Handset | Old Model |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 11.8% | 9.1% | 9.9% |
| 2 | 11.8% | 9.1% | 9.9% |
| 3 | 9.2% | 14.1% | 7.7% |
| 4 | 16.3% | 13.0% | 6.1% |
| 5 | 13.9% | 11.4% | 5.3% |
| 6 | 13.2% | 11.0% | 5.2% |
| 7 | 14.2% | 11.9% | 0.0% |
| 8 | 14.2% | 11.9% | 0.0% |
Final standings
Overall rank comes from the complete example game, not only the three Team Companies shown here.
| Rank | Team Company | Final Market Share | Net income | Shareholder Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Margin Device | 14.2% | $42,234,500 | $263,567,176 |
| #4 | Pivot Handset | 11.9% | $25,077,600 | $157,951,355 |
| #10 | Old Model | 0.0% | $-407,200 | $52,988,000 |
Teaching goal
Smartphone Portfolio
Turn a roadmap into explicit choices about timing, investment, and product roles.
Student decision
Smartphone Portfolio
Students allocate resources across the current offer and the next launch.
Result and why
Smartphone Portfolio
Product contribution shows when a launch grew the portfolio or only shifted demand.
Instructor debrief
Smartphone Portfolio
The instructor traces cannibalization and compares lifecycle timing across teams.
Operations Management
Coffee Roaster
Put service, cost, and resilience on the same operating plan. Teams forecast demand, mix suppliers, choose inventory and capacity, then absorb lead-time and disruption consequences that can be traced through landed cost and service.
- Course fit
- Operations Management
- Duration
- 100 minutes
- Rounds
- 8
- Access
- Pro
Students decide
- Demand forecast and production
- Supplier mix and inventory
- Capacity and resilience investment
You can observe and debrief
- Service level, shortages, and waste
- Landed cost and supplier exposure
- Recovery across a disruption
Learning outcomes
- Balance service level against landed cost.
- Evaluate supplier diversification and lead time.
- Explain resilience with operational evidence.
Illustrative completed example
A completed game, at a glance
This fixed example shows one possible result. Results change with student decisions.
Market Share by Round
- Late Order
- Adaptive Roast
- Cash Coffee
View Market Share data
| Round | Late Order | Adaptive Roast | Cash Coffee |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6.4% | 6.4% | 6.4% |
| 2 | 6.4% | 6.4% | 6.4% |
| 3 | 7.1% | 7.1% | 7.1% |
| 4 | 6.0% | 15.1% | 6.0% |
| 5 | 6.1% | 14.8% | 6.1% |
| 6 | 13.7% | 13.7% | 5.3% |
| 7 | 13.7% | 13.7% | 5.3% |
| 8 | 14.5% | 14.5% | 0.0% |
Final standings
Overall rank comes from the complete example game, not only the three Team Companies shown here.
| Rank | Team Company | Final Market Share | Net income | Shareholder Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Late Order | 14.5% | $307,260 | $2,647,706 |
| #8 | Adaptive Roast | 14.5% | $39,205 | $2,183,343 |
| #10 | Cash Coffee | 0.0% | $-95,559 | $1,359,076 |
Teaching goal
Coffee Roaster
Teach resilience as an operating tradeoff, not a slogan.
Student decision
Coffee Roaster
Students forecast demand and choose a supplier, inventory, and capacity mix.
Result and why
Coffee Roaster
Service and landed cost show which plan absorbed uncertainty without excess waste.
Instructor debrief
Coffee Roaster
The instructor compares supplier exposure and traces the operational path to recovery.
Core Finance
Heat-Pump Factory
Bridge project appraisal to financial statements and ownership. Teams choose capital projects and funding, then follow NPV, liquidity, debt service, dilution, and realized operating performance through one coherent valuation story.
- Course fit
- Core Finance
- Duration
- 120 minutes
- Rounds
- 8
- Access
- Pro
Students decide
- Capital project and timing
- Debt or equity funding
- Repayment, dividends, and final recommendation
You can observe and debrief
- NPV, liquidity, leverage, and dilution
- Project variance and statement effects
- The bridge from operating choices to value
Learning outcomes
- Appraise projects with NPV and realized variance.
- Compare debt, equity, liquidity, and dilution.
- Build a recommendation from statements to value.
Illustrative completed example
A completed game, at a glance
This fixed example shows one possible result. Results change with student decisions.
Market Share by Round
- Debt Stack
- Late Build
- Northstar Thermal
View Market Share data
| Round | Debt Stack | Late Build | Northstar Thermal |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 13.2% | 6.1% | 6.1% |
| 2 | 13.2% | 6.1% | 6.1% |
| 3 | 13.2% | 6.1% | 6.1% |
| 4 | 12.8% | 12.4% | 5.9% |
| 5 | 12.8% | 11.9% | 6.0% |
| 6 | 12.8% | 11.9% | 6.3% |
| 7 | 12.4% | 11.9% | 6.3% |
| 8 | 13.3% | 12.7% | 0.0% |
Final standings
Overall rank comes from the complete example game, not only the three Team Companies shown here.
| Rank | Team Company | Final Market Share | Net income | Shareholder Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Debt Stack | 13.3% | $9,412,446 | $79,644,853 |
| #7 | Late Build | 12.7% | $3,783,346 | $29,833,606 |
| #6 | Northstar Thermal | 0.0% | $-720,000 | $30,051,847 |
Teaching goal
Heat-Pump Factory
Connect appraisal, financing, accounting, and valuation in one decision sequence.
Student decision
Heat-Pump Factory
Students choose a project and funding mix within cash and ownership constraints.
Result and why
Heat-Pump Factory
NPV, liquidity, and dilution reveal different dimensions of the same capital choice.
Instructor debrief
Heat-Pump Factory
The instructor follows the statement bridge and compares final recommendations with evidence.
Start with Soda
Run the first 30 students free.
Create an instructor account, choose Soda Market Intro, and build the Team Companies for your class.