Design games as a tool, a mindset and a structure Kirsikka Vaajakallio

in 1) documenting the discussions, 2) exploring alternative solutions, 3) illustrating
the progress, and 4) as reminder for those who created it. These
all are important aspects in supporting the overall purpose of the design
games driven co-design that aims at leading to personal discoveries and
informing the design process. The next sections look more closely into
these two objectives.
According to Brandt (2001, p 84), there are three different purposes for
user involvement, which cover other interest groups as well: 1) gathering
information for the basis of the development task, 2) the political need
to involve certain people for the decision-making process, and 3) reaching
mutual knowledge between different competencies. In the design games
driven approach, introduced in the last chapter, co-design culminates in
two types of co-design gatherings with distinct purposes and participants
embracing the overall purpose of the first and third points in Brandt’s list.
The first co-design gathering puts emphasis on mutual learning between
researchers, core development team members and decision makers from
the company’s side in creating a common vision for the coming project.
It touches upon the first purpose by considering participants as relevant
experts by holding information about the company’s needs and desired
goals and the ways of achieving them. However, possible users or interest
groups are not yet present at this stage.
The second gathering expands the number and variety of participants by
involving people outside the core project team attending the first gathering.
The people invited includes users or other interest groups, depending
on the dominant purpose; in other words, it depends on whether the users’
direct input for co-constructing design openings is seen as more relevant
than indirectly representing the users’ world as a basis for mutual learning
between the development team and various interests groups.
Although neither of these options takes into account who should be
involved from a political point of view, the process of debate and discussion
(ibid., p 84) is central in both gatherings. It is considered necessary for
learning that goes beyond individual preconceptions. As Westerlund demonstrates
(2009, pp 71–73), in idea generation between participants with diverse
backgrounds, many possibilities and challenges of both existing and
future solutions become topics of debate evoking insights that go beyond
researchers’ knowledge. By putting emphasis on stating different opinions,
values and experiences, such idea generation aims at evoking personal
discoveries which emerge from actively processing various people’s viewpoints
and engaging in continuous reflection between me and the other.
By considering co-design gatherings through the performance process
with three main phases: proto-performance, performance, and aftermath
5.3
Design
games
as
tools
for
binding
inputs
from
various
people
184