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

Although explorative design games come in many varieties, good
design games seem to share some characteristics. According to
Brandt (2006), these include but are not limited to the following:
they have open tasks that allow the participants make their own
interpretations and find meaningful focus; are engaging; create
relaxed and informal atmosphere that increases creativity; utilise
various senses; include ambiguous and open ended props that
force the players to be explicit in describing how they understand
and interpret them: and they provide a shared design language.
3.1.2
Purposes
of
design
games
in
general
and
in
co–design
particularly
The variety of design games illustrates the flexible character attached to
them that allows a wide application area. Whereas Habraken and Gross
(1987) found concept design games useful research tools for understanding
designers’ concepts in academic context, Iversen and Buur found their value
in teaching design students to become sensitive towards social aspects of
Participatory Design. Ehn and Sjögren’s (1991) organizational design games,
for their part, focused on empowering users to express their insights to designers,
while Buur and Søndergaard (2000), Johansson (2005) and Brandt
(2006) looked beyond users to open the design process to several stakeholders.
All of these authors referred to their approaches or methods as a game
or a design game. Does this then mean that they share some attributes or
elements, even though they seem distinctive from the outset?
Firstly, Habraken and Gross (1987), as well as Ehn and Sjögren (1991),
state that they were inspired by Wittgenstein’s language-game, and since
the other authors build on them, we can say that the above-mentioned
methods all share the same base. Brandt (2006, p 57) describes the
general idea of the language-game in the following way: “On a general
level the philosopher Wittgenstein 12 sees the notion of language-games as
constituting human practices. Rather than individuals formulating exact
statements, the intertwining of different voices in specific situations shapes
language and herby the practice.” For their part, Ehn and Kyng (1987, pp
169–195) state that the purpose of the organizational games is to create a
language-game common to both designers and users. Despite this starting
point, they remind us that there is more to design games than just a
language; namely, design games use tangible elements, mock-ups, to provide
users with hands-on experiences.
Secondly, the authors share a similar view on the design. According to
Habraken and Gross (1987), “Designing is a social activity that takes place
among people who negotiate, make proposals, set rules for their conduct
and for the work to be done, and follow such rules. In short, to a large extent,
12 Wittgenstien, L. (1953). Filosofiska undersökningar (in Swedish). Philosophical Investigations.
Stockholm, Thales
97