Facilitating Service Interactions with Design Games - Hatami, Mattelmäki

transcript

FACILITATING SERVICE INTERACTIONS WITH DESIGN GAMES

Z A G R O S H ATA M I A N D T U U L I M AT T E L M Ä K I

QUESTIONS

Have you participated in a coaching service?

QUESTIONS

What was your role in this service?

QUESTIONS

What was your role in this service?

How did you influence the service as you received/provided it?

ARGUMENTS

Service provider-user interactions in a coaching serviceaim at co-designing the offering in-use

ARGUMENTS

Design games can facilitate such service interactions

ARGUMENTS

Design games can facilitate such service interactions(contributing to a better co-creation of value for the user)

ARGUMENTS

Design games can facilitate such service interactions(contributing to a better co-creation of value for the user)

Facilitation of co-design in-usediffers from that of co-design (before use)

(based on two case examples)

IMPORTANCE OF USE

value creation and service interactions(Vargo & Lusch, 2008; Vargo, Lusch, Akaka, & He, 2010)

(Grönroos & Gummerus, 2014; Grönroos & Voima, 2013)

IMPORTANCE OF USE

incompletion of design until use(Kimbell, 2012)

IMPORTANCE OF USE

incompletion of design until use(Kimbell, 2012)

“design after design,” “action platforms,” and “infrastructuring”

(Redström, 2008; Manzini, 2011; Ehn, 2008)

SERVICE LOGIC

provider sphere

usebefore use

customer sphere

joint sphere�rm’s production processes: (co-)design, development, manufacturing(value facilitation; creation of potential value-in-use)

direct interactionsco-production, co-design

(value co-creation)

indirect interactions(independent value creation)

SERVICE LOGIC

provider sphere

usebefore use

customer sphere

joint spheredesign/co-design (before use) events

(value facilitation; creation of potential value-in-use)

co-design in-use

(value co-creation)

independent design in-use(independent value creation)

DESIGN GAMES

facilitation of cross-disciplinary collaborations by improving idea generation & communication

(Brandt & Messeter, 2004; Johansson, 2005)

DESIGN GAMES

facilitation of cross-disciplinary collaborations by improving idea generation & communication

(Brandt & Messeter, 2004; Johansson, 2005)

setting the stage for sharing current and past experiences (Vaajakallio & Mattelmäki, 2014)

DESIGN GAMES

Can design games facilitate service interactions and the value creation of the user?

DESIGN GAMES

Can design games facilitate service interactions and the value creation of the user?

How does their use in use context differ?

TWO EXPLORATIONS

an 8-week project involving 2 teams of master’s studentsand an organization helping youth

lead to the co-design of two (design) games

TWO EXPLORATIONS

an 8-week project involving 2 teams of master’s studentsand an organization helping youth

lead to the co-design of two (design) games

the design aim was to enhance the service interactionsbetween the youth and the coach helping them

GAME ONE

“breaking the ice” with “Oletko Kartalla?” or “Are you on track?”

GAME TWO

A systematic check-up with“Qué pasa?” or “What’s up?”

THE TRIALS IN-USE

the games were tried in-use with participating coaches & youth

THE TRIALS IN-USE

the games were tried in-use with participating coaches & youth

two themes emerged from the follow-up interviews and comments by the youth

MAGIC CIRCLE, PLAY & GAME RULES

A “magic circle” is a “physical and ideal playground with a special ordering of time, roles and rules”

(Vaajakallio & Mattelmäki, 2014, p. 69)

game rules such as turn taking can have a levelling effect for participants giving each player equal opportunity to

take part in playing the game (Brandt, 2006)

the ideal playground created by the game presents the youth with a fun and safe environment where they could

practice and learn new social interaction skills without the fear of negative consequences

“I think one of the biggest reasons why they don’t talk is that especially when [they] talk about themselves, […]

they might [be] afraid that if they give something out of them, something personal, someone might attack to them.

That would be a very big hit, so I think the game creates certain security that it happens. There are these limits in

this game, so I can tell something about myself. It happens in this game and there are rules in this game, […] but I

think it’s a good thing.”Coach 2

the comments from youth confirmed the creation of a “magic circle” and fun atmosphere by the game

“Playing was quite nice and relaxed. It was fun that it was easy to discuss with others with the help of questions

and answers. In the beginning, I was a bit nervous” Youth 1

“I think the game is good for situations with many newcomers. It might work as a kind of an icebreaker

between us. Why not on other occasions as well – those topics are not necessarily discussed very often, so the

game is a nice way to get to know more about each other.”

Youth 4

the “leveling effect” of game rules broke hierarchies between coaches and youth allowing the youth to interact

with their coaches more freely

“what we think what was new [in the game interactions] was usually when we are in a group, […] youngsters talk

to us when we ask something, but it’s very rare that anyone would ask something from us… like someone would ask us […] how are you? What do you like? or

what is your favourite? … so-and-so. It’s very rare, so even though we think that they might be interested to know

more about us, […] usually never so that they would ask […] so we’re not so in different levels [during playing the

game] that brings us closer also.”Coach 2

HOLISTIC EXPLORATION & CO-DESIGN IN-USE

the game facilitated reflections & systematic examination of important issues

in the youth’s life

HOLISTIC EXPLORATION & CO-DESIGN IN-USE

despite knowing the youth for some time, playing the game allowed the coach and the youth

to examine several areas in relation to one anotherand create new links and realizations

“We just know the youth and then we talk with him and the game gives us a more systematic tool to discuss about

it in a way we just don’t discuss about it during our meetings because we just focus on some topics. […]

When you like get more systematic insight from those topics, so you can make the new links and then you

realize that okay maybe this is what we have to do for the next time.”

Coach 3

KEY DIFFERENCES INFACILITATION

the participants in these service interactions werethe actual service users who were there

to improve their own conditions

the participants in these service interactions werethe actual service users who were there

to improve their own conditions

no design professional was present

these participants did not need to imagine the lives and use scenarios of other users out there

the games aimed at helping them see the world within, re-examine their lives, and gain awareness

of their own patterns of behaviour

the role of professional coaches in co-design in-use interactions was crucial

given their professional knowledge and familiarity with the youth

FACILITATING SERVICE INTERACTIONS WITH DESIGN GAMES

Z A G R O S H ATA M I A N D T U U L I M AT T E L M Ä K I