Article | Service Design Geographies. Proceedings of the ServDes.2016 Conference | Efficiently Inefficient: Service Design Games As Innovation Tools
Göm menyn

Title:
Efficiently Inefficient: Service Design Games As Innovation Tools
Author:
Otso Hannula: Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Aalto University School of Science, Finland J. Tuomas Harviainen: Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Aalto University School of Science, Finland
Download:
Full text (pdf)
Year:
2016
Conference:
Service Design Geographies. Proceedings of the ServDes.2016 Conference
Issue:
125
Article no.:
020
Pages:
241-252
No. of pages:
12
Publication type:
Abstract and Fulltext
Published:
2016-05-17
ISBN:
978-91-7685-738-0
Series:
Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings
ISSN (print):
1650-3686
ISSN (online):
1650-3740
Publisher:
Linköping University Electronic Press, Linköpings universitet


Export in BibTex, RIS or text

This paper analyses the effectiveness of service design games (SDGs) based on their ability to trigger participant reflection. The paper draws upon game studies to present how SDGs appear as ineffective innovation tools, and combines it with organizational knowledge creation to show how the “gameness” of SDGs actually drives their effectives. The paper contributes to the understanding of SDGs by offering a theoretical explanation for their effectiveness, and presents a framework for analysing design games as productive dialogues. ATLAS, a board game for service co-design project planning, is presented as an example of embedding reflection into the design of a SDG.

Keywords: service design games, knowledge creation, innovation tool, service co-creation

Service Design Geographies. Proceedings of the ServDes.2016 Conference

Author:
Otso Hannula, J. Tuomas Harviainen
Title:
Efficiently Inefficient: Service Design Games As Innovation Tools
References:

Argyris, C. & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
ATLAS. (2014). Aalto University.


Bell, W. (1997). Foundations of futures studies: History, purposes, and knowledge. Volume 1. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.


Bødker, S., 2000. Scenarios in user-centred design—setting the stage for reflection and action. Interact. Comput. 13, 61–75. doi: 10.1016/S0953-5438(00)00024-2


Boess, S. (2007). When is role playing really experiential: Case studies. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction (pp. 279 - 282). New York, NY: ACM.


Brandt, E. (2006). Designing exploratory design games. In PDC ’06 Proceedings of the ninth conference on Participatory design: Expanding boundaries in design - Volume 1 (p. 57). ACM.


Brandt, E. & Messeter, J. (2004). Facilitating collaboration through design games. In Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Participatory Design: Artful Integration: Interweaving Media, Materials and Practices - Volume 1, PDC 04 (pp. 121–131). New York, NY: ACM.


Brandt, E., Messeter, J., Binder, T., (2008). Formatting design dialogues – games and participation. CoDesign 4, 51–64. doi: 10.1080/15710880801905724


CoCo Tool Kit. (2012). Espoo: Laurea University of Applied Sciences.


Crookall, D. (2010). Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline. Simulation & Gaming, 41(6), 898-920.


Crookall. D., Oxford, R., & Saunders, D. (1987). Towards a reconceptualization of simulation: from representation to reality. Simulation/Games for Learning, 17(4), 147-171.


Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. Kirschner (Ed.) Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.


Duke, R. D. (1974). Gaming: The future’s language. New York, NY: Halsted Press.


Ehn, P & Sjøgren, D. (1991). From system descriptions to scripts for action. In Greenbaum, J & Kyng, M. (Eds.) Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp. 241–268). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


Hannula, O. (2014). Game Structure in Knowledge Co-creation (Master’s Thesis). Aalto University, Espoo.


Hannula, O., Irrmann, O., & Smeds, R. (2014). Modeling Knowledge Co-Creation Games as Activity Systems. Proceedings of the 45th Conference of the International Simulation and Gaming Association. Dornbirn, Austria.


Harviainen, J. T., Lainema, T. & Saarinen, E. (2014). Player-reported impediments to game-based learning. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association, 1(2), 55-83.


Harviainen, J. T. & Vesa, M. (2015). Massively multiplayer online games as information systems: Implications for organizational learning. Proceedings of the ISAGA 2015 Conference, July 15-21, 2015, Kyoto, Japan.


Hämäläinen, R. & Oksanen, K. (2012). Challenge of supporting vocational learning: Empowering collaboration in a scripted 3D game – How does teachers’ real-time orchestration make a difference? Computers & Education, 59(2), 281–293.


Huizinga, J. (1939). Homo Ludens: Versuch einer Bestimmung des Spielelements der Kultur. Amsterdam: Pantheon akademische Verlagsanstalt.


Hummel, H., van Houcke, J., Nadolski, R., van der Hiele, T., Kurvers, H. & Löhr, A. (2011). Scripted collaboration in serious gaming for complex learning: Effects of multiple perspectives when acquiring water management skills. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 1029–1041.


Johansson, M. & Linde, P. (2005). Playful collaboration exploration. New research practice in participatory design. Journal of Research Practice, 1(1), Article M5.


Klabbers, J. H. G. (2003). Gaming and simulation: Principles of a science of design. Simulation & Gaming, 34(4), 569-591.


Klabbers, J. H. G. (2009). The Magic Circle: Principles of Gaming and Simulation, third and revised edition. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.


Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335–353.


Lainema, T. (2009). Perspective making: Constructivism as a meaning-making structure for simulation gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 40(1), 48-67.


Mattelmäki, T., 2005. Applying probes – from inspirational notes to collaborative insights. CoDesign 1, 83–102. doi: 10.1080/15719880500135821


Myers, D. (2010). Play redux: The form of computer games. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.


Ojasalo, K. & Ojasalo, J. (2015). Adapting business model thinking to service logic: An empirical study of developing a service design tool. In Gummerus, J. & von Koskull, C. (Eds.) The Nordic school: Service marketing and management for the future (pp. 309-333). Helsinki: Hanken School of Economics.


Polaine, A. (2012). Play, interactivity and service design: Towards a unified design language. In Miettinen, S. & Valtonen, A. (Eds.) Service design with theory: Discussions on change, value and methods (pp. 159-168). [Rovaniemi]: Lapland University Press.


Rourke, L. (2000). Operationalizing social interaction in computer conferencing. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Distance Education, Quebec City, Canada.


Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


Sanders, E. B.-N. (2006). Scaffolds for Building Everyday Creativity. In Frascara, J. (Ed.) Design for Effective Communications: Creating Contexts for Clarity and Meaning. (pp. 65-77). New York, NY: Allworth Press.


Savolainen, R. (2012), Conceptualizing information need in context. Information Research, 17(4), paper 534.


Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. Revised and updated with 100 new pages. New York: Currency Doubleday.


Star, S. L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In Huhns, M. (Ed.) Distributed Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 2), (pp. 37–54). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.


Stenros, J. (2014). “In Defence of a Magic Circle: The Social, Mental and Cultural Boundaries of Play”. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association, 1(2), 147-185.


Stenros, J. (2015). Playfulness, play, and games: A constructionist ludology approach. Diss. University of Tampere.


Suits, B. (1978). The grasshopper: Games, life and utopia. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.


Thavikulwat, P. (2004). The architecture of computerized business gaming simulations. Simulation & Gaming, 35(2), 242-269.


Tsoukas, H. (2009). A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations. Organization Science, 20(6), 941-957.


Tsuchiya, T. & Tsuchiya, S. (1999). The unique contribution of gaming/simulation: Towards establishment of the discipline. In D. Saunders & J. Severn (Eds.) The international simulation & gaming research yearbook: Simulations & games for strategy and policy planning (pp. 46-57). London: Kogan Page.


Vaajakallio, K. (2012). Design games as a tool, a mindset and a structure. Diss. Aalto University.


Vaajakallio, K., & Mattelmäki, T. (2014). Design games in codesign: As a tool, a mindset and a structure. CoDesign, 10(1), 63–77.


van den Hoogen, J, Lo, J. & Meijer, S. (2014). The debriefing of research games: A structured approach for the validation of gaming simulation outcomes. In W. C. Kriz (Ed.) The shift from teaching to learning: Individual, collective and organizational learning through gaming simulation (pp. 88-99). Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann.

Service Design Geographies. Proceedings of the ServDes.2016 Conference

Author:
Otso Hannula, J. Tuomas Harviainen
Title:
Efficiently Inefficient: Service Design Games As Innovation Tools
Note: the following are taken directly from CrossRef
Citations:
No citations available at the moment


Responsible for this page: Peter Berkesand
Last updated: 2017-02-21