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

active participant in the co-design process. These observations point out
the need for other means of documentation besides a co-created artefact,
to capture the process of designing in order to understand the link between
an artefact and the life of the people who created it. In this view,
I am distancing myself from researchers (e.g. Sanders & Dandavate 1999)
who emphasize the resulting artefact and its descriptions as the main
source of inspiration in co-design. I agree with them in that the resulting
artefact has an important role in evoking further ideation, especially by
allowing more concrete story-telling through it. My concern, however, is
that in co-design, where several participants’ views and insights meet,
what has been left out of the resulting artefact may be as important for
guiding further understanding of the topic and ideas as the ones integrated
within the artefact. And, if these decisions and negotiations are not
incorporated within the presentation of the artefact to researcher, how
can we know about them?
In the fourth case, it was noticed that lot of learning and ideas related
to the new premises emerged already when preparing the actual co-design
gatherings, but without proper documentation those ideas remained
partly unrevealed for those attending only to the gatherings. This may be
improved by more careful documentation; however, it also suggests the
importance of engaging persons who should apply insights in their daily
work – as much as possible throughout the process.
Exploring design games in co-design
Some reasons for inviting different people to contribute to design in the
previous cases included: achieving several perspectives to a topic, mutual
learning among participants, and finding inspiration from other people
and their experiences. Consequently, design games were utilised to frame
the interaction in various ways, with game characteristics being more evident
in some exercises than in others. Visual and playful elements were
applied for instance in order to evoke curiosity towards the topics and to
direct the discussion towards certain themes. As examples, playing cards
depicting well-known characters were utilised to invite opinions about
the core values of Design Factory, and scene images with empty speech
bubbles triggered children’s reactions towards ecological issues. Game
material helped to maintain the focus in the topic while the game rules
made the participants to approach it from many directions. This provided
valuable observations and ideas for group discussions.
But as the experiences from the Eco-Game indicate, design games do not
provide a self-evident solution: there is always a need for sensitivity towards
the participants’ capabilities and what inspires them in order to
design the activities and rules accordingly. This is relevant in co-design
because “disappointment and confusion can arise when objectives are set
beyond the abilities of the group” as drama workshop facilitator Chris
41