麻省理工史隆管理學院（Slaon School of Management）當初發展啤酒遊戲時，並沒有加入價格變數。其所持原因有二：（1）只要有時間滯延就會產生動態性複雜（2）多了價格，或許反而使我們無法觀察變化型態與底層結構。
本研究企圖將價格變數加入啤酒遊戲中，一方面驗證麻省理工的說法，另一方面探討價格對於參與者在遊戲中的決策會有什麼樣的影響，以及參與者的學習效果如何。
經過幾次遊戲實驗之後，發現雖然長鞭效應仍然存在，然而並沒有比原始的啤酒遊戲明顯；此外，參與者均會受到價格的影響，而進行囤積行為。由遊戲後的討論中，可以發覺參與者均缺乏系統思考能力、產生回饋的錯誤感知（Misperceptions of Feedback）、容易歸罪於外等傳統啤酒遊戲中都可觀察到的現象，亦即，兩者所帶來的學習效果並無不同。然而，在加入價格的啤酒遊戲中可歸納出很多參與者共同的行為模式、心路歷程，再對照著很多因為價格波動而產生的搶購、囤積行為，例如2003年SARS引起的口罩風波；2004年紙漿價格上漲，而帶動衛生紙跟著調漲，業者擔心消費者搶購、囤積等事件，可讓參與者藉由遊戲模擬真實世界狀況，進一步學習與反思，再將此經驗帶入真實情境，使得學習能夠達到效果。

Beer Game developed by Slaon School of Management didn’t add price variable into the game. It’s reasons were : (1) As long as there is time delay, it will induce dynamic complexity. (2) If there is price variable, maybe we can’t observe patterns and structure.
In the research, we try to add price variable into Beer Game to verify the statement made by Slaon School of Management. Besides, we can explore whether it will influence players’ decisions or not. The learning effects are also we concern about.
After a few experiment, althought bullwhip effect is still existing, it’s not much apparent then before. Besides, players are affected by price variables. From discussions after the game, we can find players lack systems thinking, they have misperceptions of feedback and get used to put blame on others. Those learning effects are the same as traditional beer game induced. However, beer game with price variable can conclude many behaviors made by players. To contrast with the panic buying and stock conditions, such as respirators panic buying in 2003, toilet paper price rise caused by pulp cost increased in 2004, players can simulate the real world throuth playing the game. They can reflect and learn, then bring this experience into real life.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的 1
第三節 研究範圍 2
第四節 研究概念性架構 2
第五節 研究流程 3
第六節 研究限制 5
第二章 文獻探討 6
第一節 啤酒遊戲之介紹、發展與學習理論 6
第二節 管理飛行模擬器相關研究文獻回顧 12
第三節 學習理論回顧 17
第三章 研究方法與流程 22
第一節 研究方法 22
第二節 研究對象與地點 23
第三節 研究者的角色 24
第四節 研究的設計與過程 24
第四章 加入價格變數之啤酒遊戲設計、實驗與結果 25
第一節 中山大學系統思考與組織學習研究室定版之傳統啤酒遊戲 25
第二節 加入價格變數的啤酒遊戲 27
第五章 實驗發現 44
參考文獻 48
一、中文部分 48
二、英文部份 49
三、網站部分 52
附錄一 5/11第四次紙板遊戲各角色心路歷程逐字稿 53
附錄二 5/14醫策會啤酒遊戲逐字稿 55

一、中文部分
1. 王思峰，管理學習實驗室之設計與學習遷移，動態性複雜案例之處方性實驗室，國立中山大學企業管理系博士論文，1994。
2. 方家娣，以系統動態學建構供應鏈績效評估模式，私立淡江大學資訊管理研究所，碩士論文，2001。
3. 夏林清譯，行動研究方法導論—教師動手做研究（Altrichter, Posch & Somekh,1993），遠流出版社，1998。
4. 施良方，1996，學習理論，高雄：麗文文化。
5. 屠益民，管理飛行模擬器理論架構之設計與應用，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告NSC88-2416-H-110-022，2000。
6. 張清溪、許嘉棟、劉鶯釧、吳聰敏，經濟學—理論與實際，翰蘆圖書，2000。
7. 楊碩英與王思峰，不動產波動學習實驗室之研究，高雄：中山大學管理學院系統思考與組織學習研究室，1993。
8. 楊碩英，再造組織的無線生機。第五項修練中文版，導讀，pp.xiii-xxiv。台北：天下，1994。
9. 郭進隆譯，第五項修練— 學習型組織的藝術與實務（Senge, Peter M., The Fifth Discipline, 1990），台北：天下文化出版社，1994。
10. 陳家芳，前置時間變動下供應鏈系統成本與長鞭效應之關係，國立成功大學工業管理研究所，碩士論文，2003
二、英文部份
1. Argyris, C., and Schön, D., 1978, Organizational Learning：A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
2. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., and Smith, D.M., 1985, Action Science, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
3. Bakken,B.E., Gould, J., and Kim, D., 1992, “Experimentation in Learning Organizations：A Management Flight Simulator Approach,” European Journal of Operational Research, 59(1),pp.167-182.
4. Berry, D.C. and Broadbent, D.E.,1984, “On the Relationship between Task Performance and Associated Verbalizable knowledge,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, pp.209-231.
5. Berry, D.C. and Broadbent, D.E.,1987, “The Combination of Implicit and Explicit Learning Processes,” Psychological Research,49,pp.7-15.
6. Berry, D.C. and Broadbent, D.E.,1988, “Interactive Tasks and the Implicit-Explicit Distinction,” British Journal of Psychology,79,pp.251-272.
7. Dewey, J., 1938, Education and Experience, Kappa Delta Pi.
8. Diehl, E., 1992, “Participatory Simulations for Managers：The Design Philosophy behind Microworld Creator,” European Journal of Operations Research, 59(1), pp.210-215.
9. Fangruo Chen, Rungson Samroengraja. The stationary beer game. Production and Operations Management. Spring 2000.
10. Forrester, J.W. 1961. Industrial Dynamics, The M.I.T. Press.
11. Frank H.Maier, Andreas Größler,What are we talking about？--A Taxonomy of Computer Simulations to Support Learning,System Dynamics Review,Summer 2000, Number 2, vol 16：135-148.
12. Graham, A.K., Morecroft, J.D.W., Senge, P.M. and Sterman, J.D., 1992, “ Model-Supported Case Studies for Management Education,” Modeling for Learning Organization, Productive Press, Porland, OR., pp.219-241.
13. Harvard College and High Performance Systems, Inc., 1996, “An Interactive Simulation：Building Service, Driving Profits,” CD-ROM, Harvard Business School Publishing.
14. Harvard College and High Performance Systems, Inc., 1998, “Balancing the Corporate Scorecard,” CD-ROM, Harvard Business School Publishing.
15. Hopkins, D., 1993, A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research. Philadelphia：Open University Press.
16. Issacs, W. and Senge, P.M., 1992, “Overcoming Limits to Learning in Computer-Based learning Environment,” European Journal of Operational Research, 59(1), pp.183-196.
17. Jack S. Goodwin, Stephen G. Franklin, Sr. The beer distribution game：Using simulation to teach systems thinking. The Journal of Management Development, 1994
18. James R. Coakley, John A. Drexler Jr, Erik W.Larson, Anna E. Kircher.Using a computer-based version of the beer game：Lessons learned. Journal of Management Education, Vol.22 No.3, June 1998 416-424.
19. Jose A.D.Machuca, Rafael del Pozo Barajas.1997.A computerized network version of the Beer Game via the Internet, System Dynamics Review, Vol.13,No.4,（Winter 1997）：322-340
20. Joseph Whelan, Kamil Msefer, Economic of Supply and Demand, Prepared for the MIT System Dynamics in Education Project, January 14, 1996
21. Meadows, D.L., 1989, “Gaming to Implement System Dynamics Models,” in P.M. Milling and E.O.K. Zahn (eds.), Computer Based Management of Complex Systems, Berlin, Germany：Springer Verlag, pp.635-640.
22. Michael Li, David Simchi-Levi.M.Goodman, W.B.Kreutzer, J.D.Sterman and D.P.kreutzer.1993. “Electrifying” learning：computerizing the beer game. In System Dynamics 1993.（E.Zepeda and J.A.D.Machuca, Eds）pp.184-192. System Dynamics Society, Boston.
23. Milling, P., 1991, “Learning and Understanding Innovation Dynamics：A Gaming Approach,” Proceedings of the 1991 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society.
24. Moissis, A., 1989, Decision Making in the Insurance Industry：A Dynamic Simulation Model and Experiment Results, S.M. thesis, Sloan School of Management, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
25. Morecroft, J.D.W.,1988, “System Dynamics and Microworlds for Policymakers,” European Journal of Operational Research,35(5), pp.301-320.
26. Paich, M. and Sterman, J.D., 1993, “Boom, Bust, and Failures to Learning in Experiment Market,” Management Science, 39(12), pp.1439-1458.
27. Peterson, S., 1990, “Designing Learning Environment,” Proceedings of the 1990 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA, pp.852-862.
28. Senge , P.M., 1990, The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Duubeday Currency.
29. Senge, P.M. and Sterman, J.D.,1992, “Systems Thinking and Organizational Learning：Acting Locally and Thinking Globally in the Organization of the Future,” European Journal of Operational Research, 59(1), pp.137-150.
30. Senge, P.M., 1994, The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook：strategies and tools for building a learning organization, New York, USA.
31. Steven O. Kimbrough, D.J. Wu, Fang Zhong, Computers Play the Beer Game：Can Artificial Agents Manage Supply Chains ? , Proceedings of the Thirty-fourth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, California, 2001.
32. Sterman, J. D., J.W. Forrester, A.K. Graham, and P.M. Senge. 1983. An Integrated Approach to the Economic Long Wave. Paper read at Long Waves, Depression , Innovation, Siena-Florence, Italy.
33. Sterman, J. D. 1984. Instructions for running the beer distribution game. Working paper D-3679, available from E52-562, Sloan School of management, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA.
34. Sterman, J. D. 1989. Modeling Managerial Behavior：Misperceptions of Feedback In a Dynamic Decision Making Experiment.Management Science 35（3）：321-329.
35. Sterman, John D.1992. Teaching Takes Off-Flight Simulators for Management Education, OR/MS Today,October 1992：40-44.
36. Vennix, J.A.M., 1990, Mental Models and Computer Models：Design and Evaluation of a Computer-Based Learning Environment for Policy Making, Ph.D.dissertation, Catholic University of Nijmegen..
37. Wang, S. and Young, S.H.,1992, “A Preliminary Experiment on Examining Thinking in a Meta-Dynamic Decision Making Environment,” Proceedings of the 1992 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Utrecht, Netherlands, pp.757-766.

三、網站部分
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Equipment_Corporation 930304
http://www.innovationassociates.com/index.htm 930304
http://www.sol-en.org/repository/download/bibl.html?item_id=456327 930304
http://www.sol-en.org/repository/download/instr.html?item_id=456354 930304
http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/HubNetBeerGame 930304
http://beergame.mit.edu/ 930306
http://web.mit.edu/sdg/www/ 930306