Negocios

Transparencia Activa

The director of transparency and integrity of a fictional Colombian municipality has to install anticorruption controls without paralysing the town hall: about COP 60,000 million of investment contracted a year, 78% executed, 60 days to award a contract, about 12% of what is executed lost to irregularities and barely

4 rondas MBA / Máster English, Español

Vista previa

Sobre la simulación

The director of transparency and integrity of a fictional Colombian municipality has to install anticorruption controls without paralysing the town hall: about COP 60,000 million of investment contracted a year, 78% executed, 60 days to award a contract, about 12% of what is executed lost to irregularities and barely one in ten detected, and a mayor who promised zero corruption and wants everything to go through his signature.

Decision 1 (February 2028): the corruption risk map (copy the old plan, zero risk with a committee for everything, or strong controls where money and discretion concentrate); conflicts of interest; and who owns each control (internal control as co-designer, an ISO 37001 certification, or three lines).

Decision 2 (August 2028): how contracts are awarded, including splitting large works into minimum-amount contracts to award them before December; how red flags are detected (complaints, prior review of every contract, or an alert board on procurement data); and what is published (the legal minimum, open data by default, or a seal and a media campaign).

Decision 3 (May 2029): an anonymous report that a supervisor certified works not done - the reporting channel (including identifying and moving the reporter), what is done with this report and what changes afterwards. Decision 4 (January 2030), before the electoral restrictions: who sustains the programme, what is reported and what happens to the controls piled up since 2028.

The model is deterministic and quarter by quarter: every control lowers the irregularity rate or raises detection, and every control costs days to award, which lowers budget execution; detection deters, the risk map decides how well the targeted controls fit, and reports follow the reporting climate.

The score combines the quality of each decision with the additional investment reaching citizens, the irregularity rate, execution, citizen trust and the reporting climate, and is capped when a decision breaks the law (contracts split to avoid the competitive procedure, a reporter identified and moved). Spanish (primary, Colombia) and English.

Para quién es

Una simulación de nivel intermedio para participantes que ya conocen los conceptos básicos de la materia, pensada para programas de máster y MBA.

Cómo funciona una sesión

  1. El docente crea una sesión desde el panel de Eureka e invita a los participantes.
  2. Los participantes juegan 4 rondas. En cada una envían sus decisiones y la simulación calcula los resultados.
  3. La simulación se puede jugar en: English, Español.
  4. El docente sigue el progreso y los resultados de cada participante desde el panel, y usa los resultados de la clase para el debriefing.

Decisiones que toman los participantes

Las decisiones que toman los participantes durante la simulación:

  • El mapa de riesgos
  • Los conflictos de interés
  • De quién es cada control
  • Cómo se contrata
  • Las señales de alerta
  • Lo que se publica
  • El canal de denuncias
  • Esta denuncia
  • Lo que cambia
  • Quién sostiene el programa

Qué siguen los participantes

Lo que los participantes siguen en pantalla a medida que avanzan las rondas:

  • Decisión 1 · Dónde está el riesgo y de quién es cada control
  • Decisión 2 · Contratar sin atajos
  • Decisión 3 · La denuncia
  • Decisión 4 · Que dure más que la administración

¿Quieres usar Transparencia Activa con tus estudiantes?

Escríbenos y te preparamos una sesión de prueba gratuita.

Contactar