Stakeholder Analysis
Individual rating per student summarized across HSO and MSH (n = 20)
Note: HSO = Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences; MSH = Medical School Hamburg.
Analysis complementing the paper "Evaluating an AI-supported serious game in digital health management education: Mixed-Methods Approach" (Hering et al., 2026).
| Method | n | M | SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stakeholder Analysis | 20 | 4.26 | 0.84 |
| Empathy Map | 18 | 4.34 | 0.86 |
| Process Analysis | 33 | 4.24 | 0.79 |
| PESTEL Analysis | 16 | 4.19 | 0.79 |
| SWOT Analysis | 14 | 4.55 | 0.74 |
| IRLM and KPIs | 3 | 4.22 | 0.64 |
Note: n = individual rating per student summarized across HSO and MSH; HSO = Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences; MSH = Medical School Hamburg; M = Mean score; SD = Standard deviation; for process analysis, evaluations of both the current-state and target-state analyses were pooled.
Individual rating per student summarized across HSO and MSH (n = 20)
Note: HSO = Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences; MSH = Medical School Hamburg.
Individual rating per student summarized across HSO and MSH (n = 18)
Note: HSO = Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences; MSH = Medical School Hamburg.
Individual rating per student summarized across HSO and MSH; evaluations of both the current-state and target-state analyses were pooled (n = 33)
Note: HSO = Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences; MSH = Medical School Hamburg.
Individual rating per student summarized across HSO and MSH (n = 16)
Note: HSO = Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences; MSH = Medical School Hamburg; PESTEL = Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, Legal.
Individual rating per student summarized across HSO and MSH (n = 14)
Note: HSO = Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences; MSH = Medical School Hamburg; SWOT = Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats.
Individual rating per student summarized across HSO and MSH (n = 3)
Note: HSO = Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences; MSH = Medical School Hamburg; IRLM = Implementation Research Logic Model; KPI = Key Performance Indicator.
| Method | Item | n | M | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stakeholder Analysis | I1: The lecturer's introduction to the method was helpful. | 20 | 4.60 | 0.60 |
| Stakeholder Analysis | I2: The description of the method in the game was clearly worded. | 20 | 4.35 | 0.49 |
| Stakeholder Analysis | I3: Working with the method was clearly structured. | 20 | 4.75 | 0.55 |
| Stakeholder Analysis | I4: The individual work steps were logically connected. | 20 | 4.65 | 0.49 |
| Stakeholder Analysis | I5: I understood why the method was applied. | 20 | 4.15 | 0.81 |
| Stakeholder Analysis | I6: The implementation of the method was comprehensible to me. | 20 | 4.30 | 0.73 |
| Stakeholder Analysis | I7: I was able to apply the method independently after the introduction and the information provided in the game. | 20 | 4.15 | 0.88 |
| Stakeholder Analysis | I8: The method helped me better understand the complexity of implementing a digitalization strategy. | 20 | 4.05 | 0.69 |
| Stakeholder Analysis | I9: The method helped me derive actions for the Gantt chart. | 20 | 3.35 | 1.14 |
| Stakeholder Analysis | I10: The results of the method were substantively coherent and comprehensible. | 20 | 4.20 | 0.83 |
| Stakeholder Analysis | I11: I perceived the exchange with the stakeholders as helpful for applying the method. | 20 | 4.75 | 0.44 |
| Stakeholder Analysis | I12: I can imagine applying the method in practice. | 20 | 3.80 | 1.06 |
| Empathy Map | I1: The lecturer's introduction to the method was helpful. | 18 | 4.11 | 0.83 |
| Empathy Map | I2: The description of the method in the game was clearly worded. | 18 | 4.72 | 0.46 |
| Empathy Map | I3: Working with the method was clearly structured. | 18 | 4.72 | 0.46 |
| Empathy Map | I4: The individual work steps were logically connected. | 18 | 4.67 | 0.49 |
| Empathy Map | I5: I understood why the method was applied. | 18 | 4.33 | 0.84 |
| Empathy Map | I6: The implementation of the method was comprehensible to me. | 18 | 4.33 | 0.84 |
| Empathy Map | I7: I was able to apply the method independently after the introduction and the information provided in the game. | 18 | 4.33 | 0.97 |
| Empathy Map | I8: The method helped me better understand the complexity of implementing a digitalization strategy. | 18 | 4.06 | 0.87 |
| Empathy Map | I9: The method helped me derive actions for the Gantt chart. | 18 | 3.56 | 1.15 |
| Empathy Map | I10: The results of the method were substantively coherent and comprehensible. | 18 | 4.50 | 0.71 |
| Empathy Map | I11: I perceived the exchange with the stakeholders as helpful for applying the method. | 18 | 4.83 | 0.38 |
| Empathy Map | I12: I can imagine applying the method in practice. | 18 | 3.94 | 1.16 |
| Process Analysis | I1: The lecturer's introduction to the method was helpful. | 33 | 3.94 | 0.83 |
| Process Analysis | I2: The description of the method in the game was clearly worded. | 33 | 4.27 | 0.91 |
| Process Analysis | I3: Working with the method was clearly structured. | 33 | 4.42 | 0.75 |
| Process Analysis | I4: The individual work steps were logically connected. | 33 | 4.48 | 0.71 |
| Process Analysis | I5: I understood why the method was applied. | 33 | 4.48 | 0.67 |
| Process Analysis | I6: The implementation of the method was comprehensible to me. | 33 | 4.33 | 0.69 |
| Process Analysis | I7: I was able to apply the method independently after the introduction and the information provided in the game. | 33 | 4.27 | 0.72 |
| Process Analysis | I8: The method helped me better understand the complexity of implementing a digitalization strategy. | 33 | 4.30 | 0.64 |
| Process Analysis | I9: The method helped me derive actions for the Gantt chart. | 33 | 3.67 | 0.78 |
| Process Analysis | I10: The results of the method were substantively coherent and comprehensible. | 33 | 4.27 | 0.67 |
| Process Analysis | I11: I perceived the exchange with the stakeholders as helpful for applying the method. | 33 | 4.55 | 0.71 |
| Process Analysis | I12: I can imagine applying the method in practice. | 33 | 3.94 | 0.97 |
| PESTEL Analysis | I1: The lecturer's introduction to the method was helpful. | 16 | 3.38 | 0.89 |
| PESTEL Analysis | I2: The description of the method in the game was clearly worded. | 16 | 4.31 | 0.60 |
| PESTEL Analysis | I3: Working with the method was clearly structured. | 16 | 4.38 | 0.62 |
| PESTEL Analysis | I4: The individual work steps were logically connected. | 16 | 4.50 | 0.63 |
| PESTEL Analysis | I5: I understood why the method was applied. | 16 | 4.44 | 0.73 |
| PESTEL Analysis | I6: The implementation of the method was comprehensible to me. | 16 | 4.38 | 0.72 |
| PESTEL Analysis | I7: I was able to apply the method independently after the introduction and the information provided in the game. | 16 | 4.12 | 0.72 |
| PESTEL Analysis | I8: The method helped me better understand the complexity of implementing a digitalization strategy. | 16 | 4.31 | 0.70 |
| PESTEL Analysis | I9: The method helped me derive actions for the Gantt chart. | 16 | 3.94 | 0.77 |
| PESTEL Analysis | I10: The results of the method were substantively coherent and comprehensible. | 16 | 4.44 | 0.63 |
| PESTEL Analysis | I11: I perceived the exchange with the stakeholders as helpful for applying the method. | 16 | 4.38 | 0.89 |
| PESTEL Analysis | I12: I can imagine applying the method in practice. | 16 | 3.69 | 0.87 |
| SWOT Analysis | I1: The lecturer's introduction to the method was helpful. | 14 | 3.57 | 1.16 |
| SWOT Analysis | I2: The description of the method in the game was clearly worded. | 14 | 4.57 | 0.51 |
| SWOT Analysis | I3: Working with the method was clearly structured. | 14 | 4.64 | 0.63 |
| SWOT Analysis | I4: The individual work steps were logically connected. | 14 | 4.86 | 0.36 |
| SWOT Analysis | I5: I understood why the method was applied. | 14 | 4.79 | 0.43 |
| SWOT Analysis | I6: The implementation of the method was comprehensible to me. | 14 | 4.79 | 0.58 |
| SWOT Analysis | I7: I was able to apply the method independently after the introduction and the information provided in the game. | 14 | 4.79 | 0.43 |
| SWOT Analysis | I8: The method helped me better understand the complexity of implementing a digitalization strategy. | 14 | 4.50 | 0.76 |
| SWOT Analysis | I9: The method helped me derive actions for the Gantt chart. | 14 | 4.21 | 0.80 |
| SWOT Analysis | I10: The results of the method were substantively coherent and comprehensible. | 14 | 4.71 | 0.47 |
| SWOT Analysis | I11: I perceived the exchange with the stakeholders as helpful for applying the method. | 14 | 4.71 | 0.61 |
| SWOT Analysis | I12: I can imagine applying the method in practice. | 14 | 4.43 | 0.94 |
| IRLM and KPIs | I1: The lecturer's introduction to the method was helpful. | 3 | 3.67 | 1.15 |
| IRLM and KPIs | I2: The description of the method in the game was clearly worded. | 3 | 4.33 | 0.58 |
| IRLM and KPIs | I3: Working with the method was clearly structured. | 3 | 4.67 | 0.58 |
| IRLM and KPIs | I4: The individual work steps were logically connected. | 3 | 4.67 | 0.58 |
| IRLM and KPIs | I5: I understood why the method was applied. | 3 | 4.33 | 0.58 |
| IRLM and KPIs | I6: The implementation of the method was comprehensible to me. | 3 | 4.33 | 0.58 |
| IRLM and KPIs | I7: I was able to apply the method independently after the introduction and the information provided in the game. | 3 | 4.00 | 0.00 |
| IRLM and KPIs | I8: The method helped me better understand the complexity of implementing a digitalization strategy. | 3 | 4.33 | 0.58 |
| IRLM and KPIs | I9: The method helped me derive actions for the Gantt chart. | 3 | 3.67 | 0.58 |
| IRLM and KPIs | I10: The results of the method were substantively coherent and comprehensible. | 3 | 4.33 | 0.58 |
| IRLM and KPIs | I11: I perceived the exchange with the stakeholders as helpful for applying the method. | 3 | 4.67 | 0.58 |
| IRLM and KPIs | I12: I can imagine applying the method in practice. | 3 | 3.67 | 0.58 |
Note: n = individual rating per student summarized across HSO and MSH; HSO = Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences; MSH = Medical School Hamburg; M = Mean score; SD = Standard deviation; for process analysis, evaluations of both the current-state and target-state analyses were pooled.