The schedule is slipping, costs are rising, and the team lacks the right expertise. This is the moment when course knowledge must turn into a decision. An analysis of the results of 633 IPMA trainees suggests that simulation may help bridge that gap – though its impact should not be overstated.
Participants who used a computer-based project simulation scored an average of 3.2 points higher in the external IPMA Level D examination. The clearest differences concerned teamwork, responding to change, scope, resources and finance. The overall effect was small, and the study does not show that the simulation caused the higher scores. Yet the distribution of results reveals something important: participants performed better mainly in areas where they had previously been required to act, make choices and face the consequences.
Knowledge under pressure
A project manager may know planning methods, budgeting principles and the full range of project risks. That knowledge is put to the test when several problems emerge at once and every decision affects time, cost, scope or the team.
In the PM2PM simulation, participants took responsibility for a newly assigned project. They defined its scope and schedule, selected team members, estimated costs, set a budget and identified risks. Then the conditions began to shift. Delays, skills gaps and cost fluctuations emerged.
The exercise lasted 135 minutes: 45 minutes for planning, one hour for delivery and half an hour for a group debrief. That final stage was as important as the game itself. It allowed participants to retrace their reasoning, identify mistakes and see when their plan had ceased to fit the situation.
633 participants, one external examination
Dr. Małgorzata Ćwil and Marcin Opas of Kozminski University compared the results of people preparing for IPMA Level D certification between December 2022 and March 2024. Of these, 178 completed a course supplemented with the simulation, while 455 took the same course without it.
A key strength of the analysis lies in its measure of performance. The researchers used an anonymised database of IPMA Poland examination results. They did not ask participants whether they had enjoyed the game or felt better prepared. They examined the outcome of an external, standardised examination. The mean score was 110.54 points in the simulation group and 107.34 in the comparison group. The difference was statistically significant but small.
A small effect, a clear pattern
The map of differences is more revealing than the overall average. The authors analysed 28 IPMA competence elements. Significant differences appeared in eight of them, all within the People and Practice areas.
The largest differences appeared in Teamwork and Change and transformation. Others included Relationships and engagement, Result orientation, Scope, Resources, Finance and Project design. These competences were deeply embedded in the simulation scenario. Participants had to align priorities, allocate scarce resources and adjust their plans while the project was under way.
In the Perspective area – which covers strategy, governance, regulations, power and culture – the differences did not reach statistical significance. The scenario engaged these issues less directly. The result points training designers towards a simple principle: a simulation primarily develops the competences that are genuinely built into the participant’s decisions.
A game needs a purpose
The appeal of a digital environment has limited value on its own. A good simulation begins with a precise question: which decision should the participant practise, and how will we know they are making it better? Only then come the mechanics, scenario and presentation.
The study also suggests designing clear consequences for each choice and leaving time for a debrief. Participants should be able to see how one move changes the budget, deadline, risk profile and the team’s work. The discussion that follows helps translate that experience into the language of their own organisation.
For companies and training providers, the practical lesson is to evaluate development programmes beyond the platform itself. An external examination, observed behaviour and a follow-up measurement several months later answer different questions. Together, they can distinguish stronger test performance from a genuine change in working practices.
What happens after the examination?
The study used a quasi-experimental design. Participants were not randomly assigned to the groups, no pre-test was conducted, and the examination was the sole outcome measure. The groups may have differed in experience, motivation or learning approach. We also do not know whether the difference persisted over time or translated into the management of real projects.
The 3.2-point difference is therefore best read as a signal. Its strongest finding lies elsewhere: the design of the learning experience aligns with the pattern of the results. The largest differences appeared where the simulation demanded action.
A good simulation gives a future project manager room to decide, make a mistake and analyse the consequences. This is the moment when knowledge stops being course material and becomes a tool for judgement.
About the study
Marcin Opas, Małgorzata Ćwil, „Simulation-based Learning and Project Management Certification Outcomes: Evidence from IPMA Level D Training”, Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 2026, vol. 24, issue 3, s. 79–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.24.3.4740
