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

are intertwined: since the stage is a symbolic territory defining the group,
it is necessary to be there in order to become a member of that group. But,
entering the centre exposes one to emotional risks; one is more vulnerable
in the centre than when hiding at the edge. (Johnston 1998/2005) The
emotional risk involved in co-design becomes evident when people are
invited to do things they are not familiar with, or if they need to work with
people with different opinions. In the “Co-designing University” case, we
did a brief user study before the gatherings and utilised material from that
in the form of playing cards that presented various opinions, expectations
and wishes related to the Design Factory. By introducing various views on
the topic without pointing to anyone present, the quotations from the interviews
gave an equal starting point for each participant in the co-design.
The statements became building blocks that were directed towards the
desired values, thus excluding the need to defend one’s own stance.
All group work involves interplay between individuals and collective,
thus a successful group needs to tolerate and moreover to celebrate personal
differences. Being in a group requires one to support others’ creativity
besides focusing on one’s own needs. If everyone plays according
to these rules, the group becomes more than the sum of individuals in it.
(Johnston 1998/2005) This is the basic principle in multidisciplinary codesign
and the reason behind it. The methods used to enhance collaboration
and creativity leave room for participants’ subjective experiences
and skills as well.
The relationship between the simple and the complex is close with the
structure of the workshop and the order of the activities applied in it. As
was already discussed, in most co-design gatherings, like in community
drama, the natural progression is from the simple to the complex. One
strategy is to establish a familiar territory through simple exercises that
gradually move towards more difficult challenges. For instance, spontaneity
of drama games (i.e. easy and playful tasks) may help the participants to
accept unusual challenges and eases one’s entry into improvisations. (ibid.)
Summary
Above I illustrated some of the co-design techniques that aim at engaging
participants in creative collaboration by acting out future visions. I
pointed out the need for building a ritual bridge between ordinary behaviour
and co-design gathering, to allow participants draw from their
inner experiences and inner feelings alike. I also described six polarities
through which we can better understand the governing rules of co-design
gatherings. One of these polarities – fixed and free – can be seen as a
concrete quality of co-design, a view that will be taken further in the next
chapters, whereas the others are more implicit factors of co-design. I will
continue with the challenges and strategies for engaging participants in
role immersion. First I will be focusing on facilitation and then on design
72