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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

simultaneously. The emphasis given to different inputs varies from game to game depending on how structured or open the game world is. There are two distinct phases where most of the contribution takes place: 1) when designing the design game in proto-p, and 2) during the performance of playing the design game. These will be further discussed in the next section. 5.3.2 Co–designing design games As mentioned earlier, designing design games is as important as playing the design game with regard to its influence on the players and the design project within which it is undertaken. Typically, this phase mainly involves the design researchers leading the collaborative process. In the Extreme Design project, we found it essential to already commit all of the relevant parties to the design phase of the performance process for two reasons. Firstly, the decisions made in design influence the actual performance, including considerations regarding what will be the focus, how the new ways of approaching the topic are promoted, what roles are given to the participants and how those are supported, and what the results will be. Secondly, if the performance script will be based on the user study, appropriate fragments need to be selected and transformed into the game. This requires immersing oneself in the user data. Many of the implicit outcomes from the co-design process emerge already during this stage. Only fractions are gained while playing the design game. With this in mind, we extended the collaboration from playing the design games to designing them together with the company partners. The only exception was the Project Planning Game, which was used to establish the case studies and introduce the design games approach. In developing the Character Game an apprentice who did her diploma work for KONE was actively involved throughout the project, whereas one designer from Palmu took part in designing the Storytelling Game. In addition, there were some meetings among the whole case study team to make collective decisions about the main purpose of the particular design game and its focus. Collaboration at the phase of designing the design games concentrated on formulating the basic idea, content and progress of the game, whereas the part of actualising the game materials was left for the design researchers. The tight collaboration demanded flexibility and resources from every participant, but also offered positive experiences. On the one hand, the researchers gained insights about the companies to ensure the relevance of the co-design, help in designing the games and reallife challenges to work with. On the other hand, the companies learned more about their potential users and got first-hand experiences from the innovative methods to be adopted in their everyday practices. By being involved throughout the process, companies were able to apply new insights immediately to daily practice instead of waiting till the design research project is over and the final report delivered. From the companies’ perspective, this is characteristic of and strength of many design research 189
knowledge creation processes (Gibbons et al. 2004). Active participation from the companies’ side was crucial, especially since researchers’ control of the project didn’t reach inside the company and the follow-up activities happening there. Let me indicate the meaning of collaboration by quoting the project manager from KONE: “An especially great thing was the attitude of doing things together – the “co-creation spirit” − now we have those parts [codesign methods] and we have already tested them a bit, which gives us an opportunity to do different things in appropriate situations” (last steering group meeting, June 2010, translated from Finnish 20 ). As mentioned above, the Project Planning Game was the first rehearsal for applying design games in the Extreme Design project, and the partners were not invited to contribute to its design. By controlling the design phase of the design game, researchers’ preconceptions about the possible stream of activities and phases that the case study could follow – in particular, the selection of the titles and methods – dominated the game compared to other participants’ input. In this sense, the possible outcomes were predetermined within the boundaries given by the predesigned game materials and rules. Inside these borders, however, the project’s vision was open to different points of emphasis and details in terms of the goals and means of reaching them. In formulating the final project plan, the input of company representatives was fundamental, since it was the dialogue during the Project Planning Game that pinpointed people’s distinct expectations from the collaborative project that project researchers needed to be aware of. In order to create a shared language that would support building common goals understood by everyone, the first step of the meeting was critical, in other words, the illustration of a typical development process as seen in partnering companies. It made researchers aware of the concepts used in the partnering company illustrated in the example below, whereas the second activity of collectively defining phases and methods deepened this understanding for both sides. 5.3.3 Setting the boundaries for contribution Kirsikka: “What does a business case contain? These are new terms for me.” Project manager from KONE: “It is... how to describe it... it includes what, why, to whom and then the business case. So what are the goals, and how to realize the plan?” (KONE / Project Planning Game, December 2008, translated from Finnish) 20 Ollaan tyytyväisiä projektiin, erityisen hienoa on ollut aktiivinen yhdessä tekemisen meininki puolin ja toisin - “co-creation meininkiä”, on nyt ne palaset ja niitä on vähän kokeiltu niin se antaa mahdollisuuden tempaista sopivissa yhteyksissä erilaisia juttuja. (Original quotation in Finnish) 190
Page 1 and 2:
5mm Design games as a tool, a minds
Page 3 and 4:
Aalto University publication series
Page 5 and 6:
Chapter 3: Diving into games, play
Page 7 and 8:
This thesis has been made possible
Page 10:
Chapter 1 Setting the stage for co-
Page 13 and 14:
When I started my research, my view
Page 15 and 16:
three terms throughout the disserta
Page 17 and 18:
claring my preconceptions and the w
Page 19 and 20:
Setting the stage for co-design: Th
Page 21 and 22:
The observational part aimed at est
Page 23 and 24:
Creative interplay between current
Page 25 and 26:
My research approach follows the
Page 27 and 28:
The methods developed for sharing k
Page 29 and 30:
Based on our experiences, we propos
Page 31 and 32:
As for sharing experiences during t
Page 33 and 34:
All three gatherings aimed at ident
Page 35 and 36:
the core spirits and values of Desi
Page 37 and 38:
The cases introduced above followed
Page 39 and 40:
Creative interplay between current
Page 41 and 42:
Johnston (1998/2005, p 69) has poin
Page 44:
Chapter 2 Direct and indirect user
Page 47 and 48:
see user experience as a complex se
Page 49 and 50:
By considering users’ creative in
Page 51 and 52:
material”, I continue from that b
Page 53 and 54:
part of collaborative design) is, s
Page 55 and 56:
the UK, and there are more market-o
Page 57 and 58:
What I find worth of further studie
Page 59 and 60:
According to Wright and McCarthy (2
Page 61 and 62:
in its aims of eliciting inspiratio
Page 63 and 64:
Contextual approaches in performing
Page 65 and 66:
Above I pointed out some of the ben
Page 67 and 68:
Sensitising in empathic design ofte
Page 69 and 70:
example through the performance. Ma
Page 71 and 72:
are intertwined: since the stage is
Page 73 and 74:
ative was a story about an archaeol
Page 75 and 76:
sign partners are not professional
Page 77 and 78:
as inspiration and empathic underst
Page 79 and 80:
Fig.17 In this dissertation, when I
Page 81 and 82:
The selection of props is relevant
Page 83 and 84:
enhancing the creativity of ordinar
Page 86:
Chapter 3 Diving into games, play a
Page 89 and 90:
Design games: As a research tool. F
Page 91 and 92:
Like concept design games organizat
Page 93 and 94:
(2000) have proposed a technique ca
Page 95 and 96:
96 methods for this category typica
Page 97 and 98:
designing involves agreement-making
Page 99 and 100:
about qualities, but instead focus
Page 101 and 102:
utilized card based approaches in s
Page 103 and 104:
with someone who is employed by the
Page 105 and 106:
size and amount of video-cards can
Page 107 and 108:
ut not be overwhelming, and so fort
Page 109 and 110:
Common qualities for all design gam
Page 111 and 112:
or revelations may emerge. These in
Page 113 and 114:
ing the introduction speech, consid
Page 115 and 116:
“In one case games are systematic
Page 117 and 118:
ut it still has all the essential c
Page 119 and 120:
According to Caillois (1961, p 5),
Page 121 and 122:
as artistic events, many of them sh
Page 123 and 124:
e-invention: betwixt and between. I
Page 125 and 126:
It could be claimed that the notion
Page 127 and 128:
The critique that Ehn and Sjögren
Page 129 and 130:
emained the same, the players have
Page 131 and 132:
materials. As such, design game is
Page 134 and 135:
This chapter discusses how the Play
Page 136 and 137:
(discussed in pages 94-96); in that
Page 138 and 139: Fig. 31 The phases are partly overl
Page 140 and 141: Since the approach emphasis on desi
Page 142 and 143: 4.3 The three cases: Seeking for ne
Page 144 and 145: methods as well. In the Project Pla
Page 146 and 147: The methods placed under different
Page 148 and 149: The difficulties in encouraging par
Page 150 and 151: Some of the personal discoveries ma
Page 152 and 153: whereas in the first time the metho
Page 154 and 155: out-of-box thinking in co-design. I
Page 156 and 157: services. The Extreme Design case s
Page 158 and 159: 3 Experiences that the participants
Page 160 and 161: As was illustrated, the development
Page 162 and 163: 4.4 The fun of playing Fig. 43 Desi
Page 164 and 165: Fig. 45 A sequence of the game: Nin
Page 166 and 167: which the turn to introduce a scena
Page 168 and 169: a radio play by taking the characte
Page 170: 4.5 Between a process overview and
Page 174 and 175: This chapter discards the chronolog
Page 176 and 177: the places of the cards, and throug
Page 178 and 179: 5.2 Leaving visual traces: material
Page 180 and 181: happen in the magic circle that is
Page 182 and 183: action in the Character Game, a spe
Page 184 and 185: presented earlier, we may analyse t
Page 186 and 187: words, everyone had mixed roles as
Page 190 and 191: During the design games, the discus
Page 192 and 193: The notion that people are easily c
Page 194 and 195: Fig. 58 Participants started to go
Page 196 and 197: and one from YIT, referred as Playe
Page 198 and 199: 5.3.8 Insights through role-play On
Page 200 and 201: Player 4: “I have my mobile phone
Page 202 and 203: As has been mentioned previously, r
Page 204 and 205: Like Hannu and Nina, who began joki
Page 206 and 207: Planning Game, mainly utilised desi
Page 208 and 209: dependent from the overall applicat
Page 210 and 211: ous people and what information is
Page 212: epresentations such as co-construct
Page 216 and 217: Whereas metaphors are useful in gui
Page 218 and 219: framework, this theoretical backgro
Page 220 and 221: 6.1.1 Design games as a tool As Kei
Page 222 and 223: ery design researcher designs an ap
Page 224 and 225: printouts given to the participants
Page 226 and 227: The purpose of role-immersion, for
Page 228 and 229: 6.2.1 Reflection on research aims I
Page 230 and 231: 1 2 3 The Project Planning Game str
Page 232 and 233: the design purposes, but, since I w
Page 234: As has been discussed in relation t
Page 237 and 238: Fulton Suri, J. (2003). Empathic de
Page 239 and 240:
Sanders, E.B.-N. (2002). From User-
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?