For small organizations, this could work. For large enterprises (4+ layers of management; 2-5+ yr product development cycle, etc.) no.

Emergent behavior of the organization leads to stable "Dilbert points" where the right thing (even mandatory, career-wise) actions for individuals are demonstrably the wrong things for the company in the long run. In this environment, no CEO would ever last part the first year.

So -- they're suggesting running a game in a CAVE virtual environment? Not exactly new. Multiscreen flight sims [xplane] are examples of one form of prior art (ok -- not quite CAVEs, but I don't know of a game in a CAVE environment. To argue that doing so is somehow non-obvious would be ridiculous. But I guess that's what lawyers are paid to do.

If you think you're a good enough leader to recreate and improve on the fun environment you have now in the new job, then take it. As director you'll be in the rare position of being able to set the expectations on your groups culture. On the other hand - if you aren't 100% sure you can pull that off -- I'd stay where you are. Nothing beats having fun at work. Except maybe the joy of creation when you build your own team, the way you want it, and it works. The one downside as leader, though --- in making things fun for everyone else, you'll find that you are doing a lot more 'unfun' stuff yourself. Leadership as service...

For failing to recognize that "can do something" doesn't necessarily mean "should do something"

Last time I checked, one had to take freshman calculus to get in to med school -- at which point the good Dr. should have been exposed to things like the trapezoid rule. But what's really scary is that the journal is (I believe) peer-reviewed -- so the reviewers missed it too.

Actually, some of the folks I know who worked early NASA efforts (Mercury-Apollo) did exactly this [weighing graph paper] as a means of integrating functions. Indeed, the graph paper they used was spec'd to have uniform density to within a specified tolerance - so that variations in thickness, etc. didn't affect the integral.

Look at how long it too for someone to completely 'solve' the game of checkers (using a computer)

Depends on your definition of 'solved' -- Samuelson's 'solution' was a brute force attack that relied heavily on position evaluation functions provided by human experts. [slightly off topic, I know, but...] Good discussion can be found in Dave Fogel's book, Blondie 24 The book discusses Samuelson's work in the background discussion, but its main subject is development of a checkers playing program from 'first principles' - only givens were the physics of the game (legal moves) and one heuristic: more pieces is better. Everything else was learned. The program was eventually playing at an expert level against human players on the web. My point, relevant to the post above: While simple games like checkers are considered 'solved' algorithmically by many in the AI community, those 'solutions' often actually rely heavily on the kind of human reasoning / intuition / learning -- combined with brute force evaluation of future move possibilities. [end off topic]

Shakespeare, Henry VI

http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lets-kill-all-lawyers

Guess they were unpopular even before Brooks Bro's suits were invented

Well -- not more than once, anyway.

re -- "Shoot back?" comment above -- the answer for PRISim was "yes, it did shoot back and yes, it could shoot first." Used to teach LEOs proper use of cover -- but the rounds are 'toned down' a bit -- just left a bruise. "credible threat of pain" really puts your head in the game !

However - slightly off topic since this was not sold with the live fire system. The purpose was to provide the trainer with a means of forcing the user to make their mistakes in the sim, not the field. Mistakes w/ live ammo "would be bad"

[disclaimer - worked for them]

Worked for a company (Advanced Interactive Systems) in the late '90s that had a system to track real bullets from real guns, with the bullets passing through a self-healing screen. System could track anything from a single shot from a .45 to every round out of an AR-15 at full auto, etc. Was the basis for FPS and other apps for indoor shooting ranges and an option for the PRISim system for police & military training.

From their website, it looks like this 'lives on' in some of their current products.

Actually - the authors already thought of this - and warn against it. From the last paragraph in the article...

Even if a way is devised to attach a high-fidelity quality measure to a citation, there is no substitute for scientific judgment to assess publications. We need to avoid falling into the trap of relying on automatically generated citation statistics for accessing the performance of individual researchers, departments, and scientific disciplines, and especially of allowing the evaluation task to be entrusted to administrators and bureaucrats

Seems to me that there's a significant methodological problem with this study -- "driving" by using a mouse isn't the skill that most folks have done a lot. Seems that they've realy shown that answering questions or listening to a conversation can interfere with exercising a NEW skill -(mouse-driving navigation). What's this say about real driving? -TBD. Might be interesting to see if skill with FPS or other mouse-nav intensive games correlates with impact from distractions.