MASTER THESIS PROJECT THESIS WITHIN: Informatics NUMBER OF CREDITS: 30
PROGRAMME OF STUDY: Information Architecture and Innovation
AUTHOR: Mathias Duell JÖNKÖPING May 2020
Developing
a
serious game for
service
innovation
Master Thesis in Informatics
Title:
Developing a serious game for Service Innovation – a workshop-based approach
Authors:
Mathias Duell
Tutor:
Daniela Mihailescu and Andrea Resmini
Date:
2020-05-19
Key terms: Service Innovation, Serious games, service dominant logic, Resource Integration,
game design
Abstract
Many organisations need to increase their use and knowledge of service innovation in order to
answer up to the increased demand for sustainable services and offerings that cater to the
needs of their users. They need to become better at understanding that the best starting point
for organisational development is outside the organisation where the value of their products
and services are Co created with other actors and stakeholders. This paper explores the
possibility of creating a serious game that introduces service innovation using the design
science research and workshops as a collaboration method. The most important Service
Innovation elements to include in the game are evaluated and the game ideas generated are
examined through the lens of two different game design frameworks.
One of the most difficult tasks people can perform, however much others
may despise it, is the invention of good games—Carl Gustav Jung
Table of Contents
... 1
1.
Introduction ... 1
1.1
Problem ... 1
1.2
Purpose ... 2
1.3
Research questions ... 2
1.4
Delimitations ... 2
1.5
Definitions ... 3
2.
Theoretical framework ... 4
2.1
Overview of Service Innovation ... 4
2.1.1
Resource Integration ... 4
2.1.2
Moment of truth ... 4
2.1.3
Service design ... 5
2.2
Overview of serious games and games design... 5
2.2.1
Serious Games ... 6
2.2.2
Design of Serious games ... 6
2.2.3
The Fullerton framework ... 6
2.2.4
The “Enhanced” Fullerton framework ... 7
2.2.5
The MDA framework ... 7
2.3
Design Science Research theory ... 8
3.
Methods ... 10
3.1
Research settings ... 10
3.2
Research approach ... 10
3.3
Methods of data collection ... 10
3.4
Design Science Research methods ... 10
3.4.1
Workshops ... 11
3.5
The Pre-workshop ... 11
3.6
Preparations for the workshops ... 11
3.7
Ideation workshops ... 13
3.8
Prototyping workshops ... 15
3.9
Data analysis ... 15
3.10
Credibility and generalisability... 16
3.11
Ethics ... 16
4.
Results ... 16
4.1
Pre-workshop workshop ... 17
4.2
Results from individual work before the workshops ... 18
4.3
Results from ideation workshops ... 18
4.4
Results from the prototyping workshops ... 20
4.4.1
User Fun! ... 20
4.4.2
Resource Integration ... 21
4.4.3
Age of Service Innovation ... 22
5.7
Prototyping workshops ... 24
5.8
Analysis of workshop results ... 25
5.8.1
User Fun! ... 25
5.8.2
Resource Integration ... 25
5.8.3
Age of Service Innovation ... 26
6.
Conclusions ... 27
6.6
Research question 1 ... 27
6.7
Research question 2 ... 27
7.
Discussion ... 28
7.1
Results discussion ... 28
7.2
Methods discussion ... 28
7.3
Implications for research ... 28
7.4
Implications for practice ... 28
7.5
Future research ... 29
8.
Reference list ... 30
9.
Appendix ... 32
Appendix 1: Material used for inviting and prepare for individual work ... 32
Appendix 2: Results from individual pre-workshop work... 40
Appendix 3: Results from ideation workshop #1 ... 45
Figures:
Figure 1: ‘Moment of truth’ – model for examining the value-in-use moment ... 5
Figure 2: The "Enhanced" Fullerton framework (Resmini and Lindenfalk 2020) ... 7
Figure 3: The MDA framework (Gilbert 2016) ... 8
Figure 4: Soft design science research model (Baskervill 2009) ... 8
Figure 5: Game Design Iteration method (Fullerton 2008) ... 9
Figure 6: Screenshot from Youtube video ... 12
Figure 7: Workshop model ... 13
Figure 8 Timeline of workshops ... 13
Figure 9: Example from indivdual ideation work prior to workshop ... 18
Figure 10: Workshop result "User Fun!" ... 21
Figure 11: Workshop result "Resource Integration" ... 22
Figure 12: Workshop result "Age of Service Innovation" ... 23
Figure 13: The Double Diamond (British design council 2019) ... 26
Tables:
Table 1: Total list of results from Ideation workshops ... 19
1. Introduction
Large parts of the models for economic activity in the world today need to become more sustainable. Production, consumption and transportation need to become sustainable and dependent upon renewable resources as the current model is depleting our natural resources and causing overwhelming problems of pollution. One of the keys to sustainability is the development of new services and Service Innovation. (UN 2020) Services are of vital importance to the economy and are rapidly increasing as a share of market. Both the aspect of services as a business model and also products that are defined by the service they offer to their user.
Service Innovation is a vast resource available for organisational development as it provides valuable insights into customers, customer behaviour and possible partners. Organisational development is often done from the perspective of the organisation. The focus is on organisational strengths and internal resources that can be combined in different ways. The perspective of actors outside the organisation are seldom addressed. Service Innovation is a discipline that provides the perspective of actors and systems outside that of the organisation, an “outside-in” perspective. Service Innovation is a perspective on innovation that focuses on the value created at the moment a product or service is being used. Service Innovation can be utilised in order to meet the increased need of innovation in a rapidly changing world as it focuses the value that is created. Each and every organisation has a mission in that they are trying to produce value for someone. From a Service Innovation perspective, value creation is the starting point for any organisational development. Hence, the foundational question that Service Innovation is based on is: how can the organisation become better at creating value together with other stakeholders?
When combining value-in-use and service-dominant logic with activities that explore the user experience and user needs, valuable information is created that can develop the user experience using co-creation and service design tools, this is called Service Innovation. The aim of this work is to develop a game do demonstrate the value of Service Innovation.
1.1 Problem
“Innovation is necessary for firms to survive and grow” (Sundbo et.al., 2011 p.12) and “It is necessary to focus on the user in the innovation process because the users are those that have to pay for thus accept the innovation” (Sundbo et.al., 2011 p.12). Organisations need to become more innovative and there are several factors that hinder them from achieving this. Service Innovation is about focusing on the user and the context that the user is in. This is not easy to do and many organisations are having problems implementing these kinds of innovation processes. (Sundbo et.al., 2011) Hence, one way for an organisation to become more innovative and focus on the “outside-in” perspective is using Service Innovation and focusing on the user, their experience and how it can be developed or enhanced.
The service economy is growing fast and is quickly becoming a larger and more important part of the total economy. As services become more important and customers demand on fast solutions keep on increasing the need for organisations to better understand and utilize Service Innovation increases. (Hidalgo 2013) The book Organisational change: development and transformation (Waddell et.al., 2017) highlights that most focus in organisational change is on economic, political and social factors and that they rarely, if ever, focus on the value that they create for their users and customers. Having an “outside-in” perspective in developing services and innovation often produces positive change that is not costly to implement. (Munro 2015)
1.2 Purpose
As the world is in dire need of more and better services, that are better at both serving the needs of the user but also the larger context that each user is a part of, the world needs Service Innovation in order to develop and design these services. This thesis will investigate and explore the development of a serious game in order to provide insights of Service Innovation to people that want (and need) to understand Service Innovation as a means of co-creating value with customers and as a base for organisational development. Users of the game include, but are not limited to, people working with innovation and business development within organizations. Users could also be management teams that need and want to get a better understanding of Service Innovation in order to evaluate it as a strategic possibility in their organisation. The game will be played as an introduction to the field of Service Innovation with intention to awaken interest into the topic and basic understanding of the potential use and benefit. The method for developing this game will be workshops of co-creation, where the participants will focus on exploration, creation and testing of game elements. The hope is that it will be an effective method of generating a large number of high quality ideas and that, at least, one of those ideas can be developed further into a game that will be both entertaining to play as well as pedagogical.
Designing a game is hard and designing a good game is even harder, therefore, game design will be investigated using previous research with the addition of design science research and workshops as a practical method of quickly achieving results that can be tested in an iterative manner.
1.3 Research questions
In order to achieve the stated research purpose and address the research problem, the following questions will be answered:
1) How can a serious game that introduces Service Innovation be co-created using a workshop-based approach?
2) What elements are the most relevant to include in a serious game so that it introduces Service
Innovation?
1.4 Delimitations
The focus of this research will be to design and develop a serious game using workshops as a practical method. Elaborate discourse on various methods of Service Innovation and tools of service design will not be included. Neither will this thesis go deeply into game elements and game mechanics but rather discuss only elements, concepts and tools. One could also argue that research on Service Innovation that is a discipline emphasising the involvement of users should also involve users and even if this observation is correct and preferable, final users of the game have not been included in this part of the research.
1.5 Definitions
Service Innovation – Innovation using the view of Service dominant logic focusing on the value that is created in the use of the value proposition that is being put forward.
Service dominant logic – The view that all exchanges are based on the service that they create. Humans apply themselves and the resources to benefit others and reciprocally benefit from others whether this is based on tangible products and/or intangible services.
Serious games – games that have a purpose beyond that of pure entertainment which often is one of education and/or information.
Value in use – view the value as co-created in the use of a product or service. Resources are integrated by actors in order to produce some form of service i.e. value.
Value in exchange – view that value is created by companies and the exchanged to customers who then consume the value (opposite from value in use).
Value propositions – the combination of resources by organisations that can be used by different actors to produce value, offered in the marketplace.
Design science – the science of the artificial. The scientific way of exploring the systematic form of design that is used to produce artefacts.
Resource Integration – the combination and use of resources in order to generate value by actors. The act that generates the value that is referred to in “value-in-use”.
Minimum viable product (MVP) - is a prototype with just enough features in order to provide feedback on further development. Something that can be tested in the market in one way or another so that knowledge is gained on how to move forward.
2. Theoretical framework
There is substantial knowledge and information available on both the topics of Service Innovation and game design. This thesis explores these two disciplines and their possible relation to each other through the use of design science research and workshops as a qualitative method to produce knowledge and artefacts that aid the construction of a game. The theoretical frameworks used in this thesis span over two different areas. The first one relating to Service Innovation and the theories that it is based upon. The second relates to serious games and game design.
2.1 Overview of Service Innovation
Service Innovation is based on service dominant logic. Using service dominant logic, production of goods and services is refocused to view goods and services as something that assist customers in their value creation process. Value is also viewed as co-created rather than produced, which also implies that customers are resources rather than targets. Another aspect is that customers needs to viewed in their value creating networks and contexts rather than as isolated entities. The last characteristic is that organisational resources should be considered in terms of knowledge and skills and not only tangibles. (Toivonen and Kijima 2018)
For efforts in Service Innovation to become successful and produce favourable results they need to be cross-disciplinary, involve (eco-)systems thinking and include stakeholders. (Jonas 2017) This means that actors with different knowledge and perspective need to be included, which helps the effort in making sure that as many aspects as possible of the Service Innovation are accounted for and examined. Including (eco-) systems thinking ensures that as many aspects and factors as possible are included that affect the value generation and Co-creation process when innovating services. Including stakeholders helps us even further to ensure that as many factors that affects the performance and outcomes of our services as possible have been accounted for. These stakeholders are the actors that integrate the services in order to produce value.
2.1.1
Resource Integration
A resource is something that actors can draw on for support and they can be either operant or operand, meaning that they can be either dynamic and intangible (such as knowledge or skills) or tangible and static (such as a tool or a car). Resource Integration is a way of realizing value co-creation. (Åkesson 2018) The combination of resources that creates the value in use is the central part of Resource Integration it can also be viewed as the central part of Service Innovation as can be seen in the next part on the moment of truth.
2.1.2
Moment of truth
Moment of truth is a model that was developed by the author to help people understand and apply Service Innovation. The model was developed quite separately from the ideas with the same name that was coined by Richard Normann (the name was co-created without knowledge of Normanns). The central theme of this model is the examination of the value-in-use process/moment that occurs when a customer creates value in the use of their products and/or services. This model is the first part of a process that guides a Service Innovation effort using design sprints and was initially used in a series of workshops for small and medium size businesses in the Gothenburg region. When analysing the Moment of truth, which is the moment that the user or customer uses the product or service in order to create value in one way or another (Resource Integration), the different things that affect this value creation in different ways can be divided
even further in order to make sense of them. ‘What’ refers to the artefacts that are in use and that are affecting the experience. This can also be referred to as the ‘operand’ resources, resources that need to be acted upon in order to create value. ‘How’ refers to the necessary knowledge or skills that are involved in creating the value. This can also be referred to as ‘operant’ resources, resources that tend to be more intangible and dynamic. (Åkesson 2018) ‘Who’ refers to who else is contributing to the experience. Are there any other actors present in the value creation? ‘Why’ refers to the end goal of the user or customer: What are they trying to achieve? What is their main goal? In the last part of ‘other circumstances’, all the other things that might affect the experience are gathered, many of which might be outside your control or influence such as the weather.
Figure 1: ‘Moment of truth’ – model for examining the value-in-use moment
2.1.3
Service design
Service design is an area of practise that has evolved over many years and is closely linked to user experience, user needs and expectations in the context of the user. Service design as a practise has developed many tools to take this perspective off the user and to empathise with them. (Polaine 2013, Stickdorn 2018) Many of those tools, such as Customer Journey, Persona and Empathy Maps are also applicable in Service Innovation even if they need to be complemented and used carefully in order to fully handle the complexity of Service Innovation. (Particio et.al., 2018)
2.2 Overview of serious games and games design
In the centre of any good game design is a good game idea that makes the game fun and engaging to play. These have been developed by creative people with the aim of producing a game that is entertaining and sometimes also educational or informative (as in the case of serious games). Design and development are of the essence in creating these games.
There are two main ways of constructing games. The first is to make a game dynamic and then add game elements to the mechanics which is the European or German way of doing things. The second way can mainly be found in America where there is a notion that the theme of a game is the game itself. (Woods 2012) This research attempts to apply the first method as it tends to create games that are more fun to play for the players.
2.2.1
Serious Games
A serious game is a game designed for the primary purpose other than that of entertainment. “Serious games have primarily been used as a tool that gives players a novel way to interact with games in order to learn skills and knowledge, promote physical activities, support social-emotional development, and treat different types of psychological and physical disorders amongst others.” (Ma, et al. 2011 p.3) And “If utilised alongside or combined with conventional training and educational approaches it could provide a more powerful means of knowledge transfer in almost every application domain.” (Ma, et al. 2011 p.3).
Games have been found to have a profound effect on society at large in ways of thinking and attitudes according to Harteveld (2011) and Beck and Wade (2004) to name a few. Games are learning environments, you learn in a game, you learn how to play the game and how the game works. Your learning makes you better at playing the game and increases your chances of ‘winning’ the game. The more interesting question for this research in learning from games is: can learning be induce from a game that is applicable and useful outside of the game environment? This question is more interesting mainly because it would help us understand if there is value that could be generated outside of the game.
2.2.2
Design of Serious games
Design of serious games differ in one important aspect from design of games in general, namely the fact that you need to involve a subject matter expert or specialist in order to ensure that the game communicates facts and principles that are in line with the current knowledge of the field, the game needs to be complemented with domain specific knowledge (Dörner 2016). Games are seldom developed from scratch but rather tend to evolve from past experiences of game development team members, from other games.
Games are often developed in teams and by collaboration. Team members have different roles and responsibilities and work together in order to produce a game (Dörner 2016).
Research so far in the field of collaborative serious game design appear to revolve around the activity as a learning experience and not as an activity exploring the concept as a method of producing serious games.
2.2.3
The Fullerton framework
In the book Game design workshop by Tracy Fullerton (2008), it is described that a framework for developing games could include the following elements: Players, all games have been designed with the intention of being played by a player. The Objectives includes the aims and goals of the game. Games have Procedures that make up the actions (and their outcomes) that the players can take depending on a set of Rules and Boundaries. The Resources that the players can use during play and the Conflict that is trying to
stop the players from achieving their in-game objectives. This gives us a structured approach in order to examine the different parts that are necessary to be present in a game.
2.2.4
The “Enhanced” Fullerton framework
Fullerton's game design framework has been extended and adapted by Resmini (2012; 2019) and Resmini and Lindenfalk (2020) with the specific goal of providing a conceptual model that could be used to describe games as complex systems. This extended framework primarily adds a third set of spatial characteristics that work together with the formal and dramatic elements identified in Fullerton's.
This spatial set contains such elements as proximity, separation, continuity, enclosure, sequence, nesting and mono-bi-threedimensionality, derived from spatial schemata and primitives described in architectural and embodiment studies (Norberg-Schulz, 1971; Resmini & Rosati, 2011). Their primary goal is that of allowing a thorough understanding of the spatial and place-making elements of games as they relate to human embodiment and perception (Dourish, 2004; Cresswell, 2004)
Figure 2: The "Enhanced" Fullerton framework (Resmini and Lindenfalk 2020)
2.2.5
The MDA framework
The Mechanics-Dynamics-Aesthetics (MDA) framework developed by Robin Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc and Robert Zubeck, is a framework that helps us to analyse and understand games. MDA treats the game system as an artefact that is between the game designer and the player. Mechanics is the part that enables ‘play’ i.e. what actions can a player take? The dynamics relate to what happens when the player performs actions within the game and what is affecting the actions that the player takes. The Aesthetics correspond to the emotions that the game is aiming at conjuring in the player. (Gilbert 2016) The MDA framework will also be used during the design of the workshops in order to design the different parts of the game.
Figure 3: The MDA framework (Gilbert 2016)
When using the MDA framework to develop a game it can actually be used ‘backwards’, i.e. starting with the emotions and thoughts that you want to evoke in the player and then work backwards through dynamics and mechanics in order to design. (Gilbert 2016)
2.3 Design Science Research theory
The methodology of design a serious game in this thesis uses Design Science Research (DSR) methods. DSR is the study of constructed artefacts that are made for a purpose and how those are designed. There
are several methodologies used in Design science research and the one chosen for this work is based on the “soft design science research model” by Baskervill et. al. 2009. This model identifies two worlds that are present in conducting research. The “hard” real world is where the specific problem is and where the research starts. The problem is then expressed before it is moved into a more abstract world of “design thinking”. A general problem is formed in the third step and the requirements are then worked out from there. This is done by searching for general components that can solve the problem and imperative logic. The results are then compared to the specific problem in order to find out if the general solution addresses the problem and how it then can be moved into a specific solution.
Design of both games and serious games are often iterative in nature (Dörner 2016, Fullerton 2008). Which indicates that the DSR model will also be used iteratively where the results from one iteration is feed back into the creative process in order to create the next iteration.
3. Methods
This chapter will describe the methods used in this thesis.
3.1 Research settings
The research for this thesis has been conducted within the organization of Rise, Research Institutes of Sweden. Rise is an organisation that has developed by merging many of the smaller research Institutes that were active in Sweden. This has generated an organization with both deep and broad knowledge in many areas. Rise is fully owned by the Swedish government with the vision of becoming a leading international innovation partner. Linked to the vision is the mission of accelerating innovation and both public and private sector. (Ri.se 2020) In this knowledge-rich surrounding one of the main challenges, most of the time, is to find the right person to talk to when looking for a specific piece of information or knowledge.
It is established that multidisciplinary teams are necessary with members with both subject matter expertise and game design knowledge in the development process of serious games (Dörner 2016). Therefore the people that were invited to take part in this study where either knowledgeable in the field of Service Innovation, game design and / or generally creative people used to look at things from a different perspective.
3.2 Research approach
The research has been performed in a spirit of curiosity, co-creation and inclusion in order to create a creative atmosphere in the workshops. People with a diverse background, age, experience, gender, interest and education have been invited to participate. The tool of choice has been workshops, almost exclusively conducted online. There has also been elaboration in the different iterations on how the workshops has been prepared and performed.
3.3 Methods of data collection
Data has been collected by several different means. Initially, there was an individual workshop part with strong emphasis on the fact that any kind of input was accepted, whether it would be written, spoken, drawn, or filmed. In the later workshops, when work was being done simultaneously by multiple participants, that work was gathered in the application that was used, mainly Microsoft PowerPoint in the ideation workshops but also the web application Mural in the prototyping workshops.
The thesis uses Design Science Research as a workshop-based approach in the iterative game design efforts.
3.4.1
Workshops
Conducting workshops as a qualitative research methodology is quite unexplored in the academic field, although it is a commonly used method for practitioners in design and related fields. Workshops contribute to create a positive atmosphere among participants and a general feeling of being on a joint mission if performed well. Creativity can be stimulated using creativity techniques in seminars and workshops (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi 2009). Workshopping is a participatory tool of research aimed to co-create data and artefacts. This means workshopping is an especially useful tool in research of the complex and when you want to produce results quickly, which is the case of this research. (Ørngreen et.al. 2017) This way, it becomes a method for analysing one area (Service Innovation) in order to create what does not yet exist (a game on Service Innovation).
Design workshops are collaborative and requires thinking through doing, coordination and empathy as the ideas are explored together. (Vyas et al., 2009) Most of the work in the workshops will be in the ‘Design Thinking’ realm of the Soft design science research model, while most of the work in the ‘real world’ will take place in preparation for the workshops and also in the analysis and synthesis of the data and artefacts generated in the workshops.
3.5 The Pre-workshop
The Pre-workshop was a short workshop of 1 hour to test the premises of the workshop format as a tool to create a game. The setting was informal and people attending an “Innovation Co-week” happening at Rise where invited irrespective of their knowledge in Service Innovation and/or game design. There were 7 participants in the workshop. A short presentation was held in order to level the playing field. Basic knowledge of Service Innovation and game design was described. After the initial presentation, the participants were asked to think about how they would design a game that could introduce the practice of Service Innovation. The questions was kept broad in an effort to not limit any input. After 10 minutes participants were asked to discuss their ideas in small groups and if possible, build and expand on each other’s ideas. After another 10 minutes they were asked to share and describe their ideas in the large group of the workshop. As they started sharing it was evident that they had managed to produce a lot of interesting ideas in a short amount of time and the results are elaborated upon in the results section.
3.6 Preparations for the workshops
The practical methods in this thesis has been based on workshops. People with different views and perspectives on both the area of Service Innovation as well as game design has been invited to co-create in a workshopping format. Considering the present situation with the ongoing Corona pandemic these workshops were conducted using digital tools that will allow us to co-create at different physical locations.
A set of materials outlining the research and the specific problem that the research is addressing was assembled and distributed to the participants of the workshops. The material outlining Service Innovation, game design and the process for the workshops could be found in an attached PowerPoint. A video was
also produced with the basis of the PowerPoint including a narration going through the different elements, methods and principles of the research. The video was uploaded on YouTube and a link was included. The YouTube video is unlisted which means that it can only be accessed if you have the link (https://youtu.be/IxjtShei8Ek).This invitation and material can be found in appendix 1.
Figure 6: Screenshot from Youtube video
This part correlates closely with the first and second part of the soft design research method. The specific problem was framed and expressed it in a manner so that it could be useful as a foundation in the design process. Service innovation was introduced with the main concepts of service-dominant-logic and value in use. The ‘Enhanced Fullerton framework’ was introduced to help the participants structure their thoughts and ideas on games.
The participants were then given a few days to get acquainted with the material and do their own reflections and individual initial ideation. After this time the input from the participants was meant to be gathered, assembled and distributed again to the participants in order to prepare for a final workshop that was conducted synchronously in the videoconferencing tool Zoom. The aim was to get input that was both based on individual perspectives as well as a possibility to build on each other results. This input was then to be used in the design science research step three and four, the problem was generalised and the requirements regarding the general problems where determined so that the workshops could be used in steps 4a and 4b in order to search for general components of the solution.
After the Pre-workshop workshop there was an analysis of the data in order to determine if and how this format could be useful in a larger context to design a game. Next, the pre-ideation workshop was be prepared based upon the findings of this analysis. The ideation workshop was the part where the participants received the background information on both Service Innovation and game design as a package and asked to brainstorm and ideate on their own before the actual workshop. The input was then gathered and arranged in order to prepare for the prototyping workshop which was another simultaneous online workshop using Zoom and Mural to work on and expand the findings from the pre-ideation workshop into testable parts of a game. The aim was to prototype, test and evaluate different possible game elements.
3.7 Ideation workshops
The two ideation workshops were carried out on the 29/4 2020. The first one between 9.00 and 12.00 was attended by 6 participants: 2 researcher, 2 game designers and 2 specialists in Service Innovation. The
Figure 8 Timeline of workshops Figure 7: Workshop model
second one between 13.00 and 16.00 was attended by 6 participants: 1 researcher in Service Innovation, 1 specialist in Service Innovation, 2 game designer, 1 UX specialist and 1 outside observer. The workshops used Zoom as a videoconferencing tool and collaboration was done in Microsoft Powerpoint.
The two ideation workshops took place at the same date and the participants could choose which occurrence to attend. As the invitation was sent out at fairly short notice (1-2 weeks), 40 people were invited in order to ensure that a sufficient number of participants would be able to attend each workshop. The tactic worked out and all workshops were attended in good numbers.
As input was received from quite few people in the individual work that was to take place before the workshops, it was decided to have an individual ideation session early in the workshop.
There were two ideation workshops conducted on the same day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon most of the participants attended only one of those sessions even if one or two exceptions were present. The difference between the sessions were mainly that in the morning session the ideas that had been generated during the individual work were presented before the workshop.
In the ideation workshops there was a check-in activity after a brief introduction to the topic. When the participants had checked in, they were given a background to the project and the work that needed to be done. In the background presentation emphasis was placed upon Service Innovation and some tools that are commonly used in Service Innovation such as: Customer Journey, Empathy map and Value proposition canvas. The idea was to prime the participants with Service Innovation tools and methods so that those would be included in their ideas. They were also given a “Game Design Canvas” (Figure 9.) developed for the project, to be used in order to articulate and categorize their ideas.
After the background presentation came the individual ideation. This part was kept individual as to keep ideas from each participant without the influence of anyone else. These ideas were then presented to the group and the individual participants could reflect and choose which ideas they wanted to work on further. The enhancement of the ideas we're done in groups of 3 participants and in 2 iterations. The workshop was concluded with a brief reflection and feedback session. All participants enjoyed the
workshop and most participants generally agreed on the constructive feedback: that they wanted a warm up creativity exercise to burst their creativity.
3.8 Prototyping workshops
The two prototyping workshops were carried out on the 6/5 2020. The first one between 9.00 and 12.00 was attended by 9 participants: 1 researcher, 3 game designers, 1 UX specialist, 1 innovation leader and 3 specialists in Service Innovation. The second one between 13.00 and 16.00 was attended by 7 participants: 1 researcher, 3 specialists in Service Innovation, 1 UX specialist and 3 game designer. The workshops used Zoom as a videoconferencing tool and Mural.co as a collaboration tool.
Before the prototyping workshops commenced the results and data from the ideation workshops were analysed and categorized in an Excel file. Each idea where presented in the aforementioned game design canvas and the ideas that have been developed further had more elaborate PowerPoints to further explain the ideas of gameplay, game mechanics and game elements. The four ideas that have been developed further were then verbally and graphically described in the online workshop collaboration tool, Mural.
Partly due to the short time between invitation and the actual workshop many participants would only a attend one of the two sets of workshops, which means that many ideas were developed further by people that had come up with the idea themselves. The introduction to the prototyping workshops were quite similar to the ideation workshops. After the introduction, check in and background, a creativity exercise was introduced, which was appreciated. The four ideas that have been developed further during the ideation workshops where then presented and participants could choose which ones they wanted to elaborate further upon. The work was done in groups of two or three and in two iterations.
Zoom was used as a video conferencing tool in conjunction with Mural as a collaboration tool. The participants were asked to create something that was testable as an element or mechanic of a game. A sort of “minimum viable product” (MVP) relating to games. One way to develop a good game is to use a “build, measure, learn” approach which is iterative. This way learning is produced obn what has been developed and how that can be improved (Rosenfield 2017).
3.9 Data analysis
The data generated during the workshops has been analysed mainly by sorting the different input into categories, both of what kind of game, gameplay, game mechanics or game element; but also, evaluation of feasibility, entertainment and pedagogical value. The 3rd aspect that was examined was, of course, how the different game elements and mechanics relate to Service Innovation and this is where the 5th and 6th step of the design science research model were entered. The general problems requirements were compared specific problem expressed and search for a specific solution i.e. game elements that can be used to introduce Service Innovation.
3.10
Credibility and generalisability
Many of the participants in the workshops have long and extensive experience, both of Service Innovation and game design or game development, which should ensure the credibility of the research and its results. The findings should be General enough so that they could be applied in other areas or subject matters where you might want to develop a serious game.
3.11
Ethics
Ethical considerations in this research revolve around the fact that quite a few people were invited to take part in the workshops and their privacy needed to be respected. Even if participants could see who else was invited, they could not see who attended (apart from the participants in the workshops that they attended themselves) and afterwards it was not possible for outsiders to see who contributed what, in the research. All participation in the research was completely voluntary. Most of the participants knew each other already before the workshops or had at least heard of each other beforehand, they are all employed in the same organization, which is RISE the Research Institute of Sweden.
The second part that was taken into ethical consideration was the possibility for participant to leave or exit the workshops at their own discretion. They were informed that they could leave at any time and that their contributions would be omitted if they wished so. Of course, it would be hard to filter out or disregard any influence by a participant upon the thinking and ideas of another one, so even if a participant were to leave the workshop it would be hard, if not impossible to totally erase all traces up their presence. In any way, those traces would not be linked to their identity in any other way than in the memory of the other participants.
A third factor that needed to be handled was that the workshops were recorded for later reference and analysis. Before recording, using the integrated recording function in Zoom, the participants were asked if they agreed to do the procedure. When using the integrated record function in Zoom, the participants can clearly see that recoding is taking place. All participants agreed and no one chose to leave the workshop. One interesting aspect of this that could be reflected further upon is if the participants would have accepted the recording just as easily if it would have been a physical workshop where everyone would have meet up at the same place.
All the research conducted during the making of this thesis has been in a positive spirit in order to create something that is good, beneficial and useful too many parts of the society.
4. Results
The workshops generated large number of ideas, some more original and interesting than others. The number of the ideas had a high level of completeness and we're almost games in themselves, others were more of the nature of smaller elements or mechanics that could be used in the larger game system.
The results from the workshops have given us a lot of material to work with. The ideation workshops generated more than 20 unique and different ideas. Most of those could be developed into games on their own right and all the ideas contain elements that could be used in combination with other ideas in order to develop games of even higher quality. The four ideas that were explored in a second round were singled
out by voting by the participants and were then developed further to provide a starting ground for the prototyping workshops.
4.1 Pre-workshop workshop
The Pre-workshop workshop was given positive feedback from the participants and there was a lot of energy in the room during the workshop. Participants found the topic interesting and many ideas and opinions. The data produced by the short Pre-workshop was encouraging as quite a few interesting ideas surfaced. As this workshop was conducted solely in the quest of assessing the workshop method as a collaborative tool to design game elements, the results from this workshop will not be analysed as game elements.
The results from the pre-workshop workshop was encouraging considering that there were few participants that had special knowledge in the field of Service Innovation or game design. Participants were highly motivated (as they tend to be at the innovation co-week event) and come up with a lot of interesting ideas. The workshop format was found to be a promising and engaging tool for developing games and game mechanics.
4.2 Results from individual work before the workshops
The results from the individual work done before the workshops were quite disappointing. Not in the number of ideas (17) but that few people handed in any ideas at all. Few of the participants respond to the Call to action by actually doing any work. Only four people handed anything in. On the upside it can seen that the work that was done by the few that delivered any input were of high standard and quite imaginative. One example of input from this work can be found in the figure below.
All in all, 17 different ideas for games were received from the individual work before the workshops. All these ideas were of high quality and quite imaginative, even if the level of completeness of idea was varying quite a lot. Some of the ideas were complete games while some of the ideas where game elements that needed to be put in a broader context. This input can be found in Appendix 2.
4.3 Results from ideation workshops
From the ideation session that took place in the morning eight ideas were spawned, while the afternoon session generated sixteen unique ideas. This is interesting as both sessions were attended by the same number of participants.
From the in total 24 ideas generated 4 were singled out by voting by the individual participants and developed further (red in table on the next page), 2 in each workshop. The ideas generated can be found in Table 1 (below) with the ideas developed further in red. The full documentation on each idea can be found in appendix 3.
Table 1: Total list of results from Ideation workshops N a me o f Id e a T y p e o f id e a S h o rt d e sc ri p ti o n Com ple ten ess of ide a Fea sib ility wi thi n give n tim e fr am e Ent ert ainm ent va lue Ped ago gica l va lue Con tin uity Ch a ll e n g e P o ss ib il ity Ser vice inn ova tio n elem ent s Res our ce egr Int atio n Valu e in us e Cro ss d isc ipl ina ry tea ms (Ec o-) Sys tem s Thi nkin g Inc lud ing keh sta old ers P e rs o n a G o D ig ita l, A R U n d e rs ta n d "th e u se rs " e v e ry d a y a cti v iti e s a n d n e e d b y f o ll o w in g th e ir d a y a cti v iti e s a n d mo v e me n t in th e ir c ity 3 0 2 3 1 U se r e mp a th y x x x S e rv ic e F e u d D ig ita l, A p p P itc h a s e rv ic e i é a s a n d l e t th e o th e r p a ly e rs r a te th e m. A n a p p d e li v e rs c u sto me r n e e d s th a t th e p la y e rs n e e d to a d re ss . 3 2 2 1 2 U se r n e e d s x P o tt e ri n g I mp a ct D ig ita l, w e b P la y e rs a re g iv e n l o se n o d e s th a t co u ld b e c o mp o n e n ts o f a n i mp a ct ma p , th e y n e e d to c o n n e ct th e d o ts i n a w a y th a t ma k e s se n se ( th e mo st to th e m) . O v e r ti me l e a d in g to a c o n n e te d g ri d th a t lo o k s so me w h a t li k e a n i mp a ct ma p 1 1 2 3 2 Imp a ct ma p p in g x x x x T a ma g u ch i U se r D ig ita l, A p p Cr e a te s e rv ic e s to f u ll fi ll th e ir v ir tu a l u se r' s n e e d s so th a t it "g ro w s" a n d "s ta y s a li v e ". T h e p la y e r d o e s so b y g e n e ra ti n g r e so u rc e s th a t ca n a ls o b e c o n v e rte d i n to h ig h e r th e ir r e so u rc e s 4 1 3 4 3 R e so u rc e i n te g ra ti o n x R o le p la y in g u se r R o le p la y R o le p la y a u se r a n d f ig u re o u t w h a t ca rd s th e o th e r p la y e r p ic k e d b a se d o n th e ir ro le p la y 4 4 4 3 3 U se r e x p e ri e n ce x F ro m se rv ic e p ro d u ct to s e rv ic e s y ste m D ig ita l, w e b A n a ly se a n d u n d e rs ta n d c o mp le x ity . F in d o u t w h a t ru le s, o b sta cl e s a n d p o ss ib il iti e s th a t y o u r se rv ic e h a v e i n r e la ti o n sh ip to th e s e rv ic e e co s y ste ms i t fi ts i n to ( o r n o t) 2 2 3 5 2 N e e d to b e co mb in e d w ith g a mi n g e le me n ts w ith h ig h e r e n te rta in me n t v a lu e Imp o rta n t p u zz le p ie ce to a d d to o th e r id e a s Co mp le x ity , se rv ic e s y ste m x x x x V in sp e le t B o a rd g a me It in v o lv e s p ro d u ci n g s e rv ic e s th ro u g h v a ri o u s ste p s. 2 3 4 4 3 S e rv iti sa ti o n x W h a t th e f * u ck d o y o u w a n t? R o le p la y G a in a b ro a d e r u n d e rs ta n d in g o f h o w a n d w h a t cr e a te s v a lu e . 4 4 2 3 2 N e e d to b e mo re f u n to p la y . M a y b e a d d U se r re se a rc h x x x M e th o d c a rd Ca rd g a me S ma ll e r e le me n t id e a th a t ca n b e a d d e d to o th e r g a me i d e a s. W h a t se rv ic e in n o v a ti o n to u se 0 2 2 4 3 S e rv ic e d e si g n me th o d s x T e mp la te P e n a n d p a p e r W o rk b ri e fl y a t a te mp la te f o r a s e rv ic e in n o v a ti o n c o n ce p t. L e t so me o n e e ls e ta k e o v e r y o u r te mp la te w ith o u t k n o w in g w h a t y o u w ro te i n i t 4 4 3 2 1 Ca n u se th e te mp la te to d e sc ri b e th e "c u sto me r" / M u lti d is ci p li n a ry te a ms x U se r fu n ! B o a rd g a me T o d e v e lo p s e rv ic e s / p ro d u cts b y i n v e sti n g i n d if fe re n t se rv ic e i n n o v a ti o n ch o ic e s. E a ch i n v e stme n t co sts d if fe re n t a mo u n ts o f mo n e y , k n o w le d g e a n d a rti fa cts a n d i n o rd e r to g e t h o ld o f th e se r e so u rc e s, p la y e rs n e e d to "tr a d e " w ith e a ch o th e r a n d ta k e a d v a n ta g e o f e a ch o th e r' s ch a ra cte ri sti cs . 3 4 5 5 4 U se r n e e d s, mu lti d is ci p li n a ry te a ms x x x R e a d in g a d v e n tu re R e a d in g a d v e n tu re W ri te a s to ry a b o u t se rv ic e in n o v a ti o n w h e re d if fe re n t ch o ic e s ma k e y o u r e a d d if fe re n t p a rts o f th e b o o k e g I c h o o se to mo v e o n th e p a th , if y o u c h o o se th is g o to p a g e 1 3 .I f y o u w a n t to s ta y a n d th in k a b it g o to p a g e 9 . 2 3 4 3 3 N e e d to b e su p p le me n te d w ith o th e r id e a s Ca n b e u se d to co n tr o l o th e r g a me s! n /a M o v in g g a me D ig ita l, A R A g a me w h e re y o u h a v e to mo v e w h il e th e i d e a d e v e lo p s. 2 3 3 2 1 Ca n b e u se d i n l o th e r g a me s! n /a M e ta g a me D ig ita l M a k e a g a me a me ta o n w h a t o n e c re a te s in th e ir s e rv ic e i n n o v a ti o n . o n e l iv e s o u t h is c re a ti o n . so me th in g s ims s imi la r g a me w h e re th e c re a ti o n i s si mu la te d ? 1 1 2 3 3 H a rd P ro to ty p in g a n d te sti n g ( Ite ra ti n g ) x R o le p la y a d v e n tu re s R o le p la y W o rk o u t a r o le p la y a ro u n d s e rv ic e in n o v a ti o n . W o u ld h a v e b e f u n i f it co u ld b e ju st li k e a c la ss ic r o le p la y in g g a me w ith d ic e w h e re r a n d o mn e ss g iv e s a c e rta in i mp a ct. 2 3 4 3 4 H u ma n f a cto rs x x Co -i n cl u si o n A p p Cr e a ti n g a mo re i n cl u si v e w o rk e n v ir o n me n t 1 2 3 0 2 U se r e mp a th y P o ti o n s h o p o f se rv ic e Ca rd g a me S o lv e "c u sto me r si tu a ti o n s" 2 5 2 3 2 U se r e mp a th y x x A g e o f se rv ic e in n o v a ti o n S tr a te g y g a me Co n q u e r th e ma p 2 4 4 4 4 U se r e mp a th y x x x Cr a w l Ca rd b a se d b u il d in g Co mp le te th e s ta ck 2 4 4 4 4 U se r e mp a th y x x Cu sto me r jo u rn e y ma p P e rv a si v e mo b il e g a me S o lv e a s e ri e s o f g e n e ra te d q u e sts c o n si sti n g o f w h a t is i n a s e n se c u sto me r jo u rn e y s, f o r in sta n ce a g e n e ra te d "p e rs o n a " ma y n e e d to g o to a k in d e rg a rte n sc h o o l fi rs t, th e n to a o ff ic e , fo ll o w e d b y a l u n ch r e sta u ra n t a n d s o o n .. . 2 1 3 4 3 U se r e mp a th y x x S e rv ic e i n n o v a ti o n p u rs u it K n o w le d g e g a me a l a T ri v ia l p u rs u it G a in a s ma n y p o in ts a s p o ss ib le b y a n sw e ri n g th e q u e sti o n s co rr e ctl y 4 4 2 4 2 E v e ry th in g x x x x x U X s imu la ti o n S imu la ti o n c a rd & b o a rd g a me Co n d iti o n s fo r su cc e e d in g a re g e n e ra te d th ro u g h a s e t o f ca rd s d ra w n f ro m a d e ck th a t g e n e ra te s a p e rs o n a f o r w h ic h a s e rv ic e s sh o u ld b e d e si g n e d , in s e v e ra l p h a se s th e p la y e r( s) g o th ro u g h a s imp li fi e d c u sto me r jo u rn e y b o a rd , v a lu e p ro p o si ti o n b o a rd , se rv ic e b lu e p ri n t a n d f in a ll y s o me s te p s d u ri n g i te ra ti v e imp le me n ta ti o n 4 4 4 4 4 S e rv ic e d e si g n si mu la ti o n : U se r n e e d s a n d e mp a th y x D ra w D ra w in g g a me (f o ld -a -ma n ) G e t n e w i d e a s th ro u g h a w h is p e ri n g c ir cl e o f d ra w in g s a n d te x t. M e a n t to s ta rt a p ro ce ss o f w h a ts e rv ic e s ca n p ro v id e . 4 4 4 2 2 Id e a ti o n x
4.4 Results from the prototyping workshops
In the prototyping workshops the participants were asked to push the game design so far that playable game elements would possible to test. They were given ideas that had already been partly developed by other people or groups. All ideas that were worked upon in the prototyping workshops were developed further and reached a higher maturity. They looked more like games that could be played. Few of the groups however managed to reach a stage where they could play the game. Out of the three games displayed below only the one called “User Fun” had elements that could be played.
4.4.1
User Fun!
User Fun is a game where the goal is that the players reach the insight that you need to cooperate with many different actors in order to produce a service that meats the user needs in the best way. The mission in the game is to produce services by trading with the other players through both money and knowledge in the character or role that you have in the game. The players can win individually but also lose, to the game, collectively.
A round in the game can be played like this: all players start with five customer cards on hand and draws cards for the unknown factors card pile that is specified on each customer card. The cards are then placed on the table. At a turn the player starts to generate the service by producing insights, ideas, development or implementation through either negotiating with other players or by paying with resources. The player can produce as much as they want and finishes their turn either by launching a new product for users or by passing the turn over to the next player.
The visual results from the collaboration can be found in Figure 10. This also includes the three “gameboards” (to the right side and along the bottom) that was used during the trial play.
Figure 10: Workshop result "User Fun!"
4.4.2
Resource Integration
“Resource Integration” was called “Role playing user” in its first iteration and was then an idea or for a role playing game with the aim of the developing the right service for the user . In order to achieve this the players needed to find out the users characteristics needs and the purpose of the service. This was done by solving different missions and tasks that the players were given by the game leader. In the later iteration the idea developed into a form of collaborative “Ticket to ride” (a popular board game where you build railway lines) style game. The aim of the game is to connect links between providers and users and in each level the player is faced with restraints norms and structures that hinder these links.
Figure 11: Workshop result "Resource Integration"
4.4.3
Age of Service Innovation
Age of Service Innovation is a competitive strategy game where you conquer the map. Multiple players take turns developing products and services using the skills, competencies and productivity that they have access to. They then expand into nearby fields which then generates new value. The aim is to own the biggest part of the map which should be seen as a customer map including customer need, customer characteristics and customer goals that the players need to understand in order to takeover that part of the map. Two scenarios were developed: the first one focusing on Resource Integration and the second one focusing on use of methods of business development. First these were thought of as two different game plays, but later they were seen as different phases of the same game.
5. Analysis
5.6 Ideation workshops
One interesting difference between the two different sessions of the ideation workshops, is the huge difference in number of ideas generated. The two groups were quite similar in age, gender, background, education and experience. Most of the priming of the participants was also quite similar, with the main difference that the second group was not primed with ideas that had been generated previously. This is one reason that could account for this difference. Also, the second session were attended by some participants that had already taken part in the first session. Other than that, the main difference between the sessions was the time of day which of course also, could be the reason for the difference in creativity.
Service Innovation Concept Number of ideas
Resource Integration 16
Cross disciplinary teams 8
(Eco-) Systems Thinking 8
Include stakeholders 6
Value in use 4
Table 2: Service Innovation concepts in ideas
The number of game ideas does not have a one-to-one relationship with Service Innovation concepts as many ideas contained several Service Innovation concepts. The ideas generated in the ideation workshops indicate that Resource Integration, cross disciplinary teams, system thinking, including stakeholders and value in use are the most important service innovation concepts.
5.7 Prototyping workshops
When participants of the workshops were given material that had been developed by previous participants in different constellations a threshold effect was noticed, it usually took one session of at least 20 to 30 minutes for the participants to understand the idea well enough so that they could move it along further. They also tended to be reluctant to add or change elements of an idea that they did not fully understand. A question that arose quite often was that if they could talk to the original ideator in order to ask questions of understanding. This behaviour implies that they assumed that the original ideator usually had gotten further along with the idea than they usually had.
User Fun and Resource Integration contain elements that correspond to both the mechanics and dynamics part found in the MDA framework. While the Age of Service Innovation could only be seen to contain finished elements in the mechanics part. This would indicate that Resource Integration and User Fun got further in their development and were closer to proper playable games. It was also noticed that the game User Fun inspired competition and produced feelings that are often found in competitive gameplay. This indicates that a form of aesthetics could be found in the game User Fun, which in turn indicates that the game User Fun was complete when looking through the lens of the MDA framework.
All three games contain more or less the same number of formal elements that can be found in the “Enhanced Fullerton framework”. In the category of dramatic and special elements however it can be seen
indicate that even if aids of service innovation is less developed according to the MDA framework, it could be more complex and complete game when it is fully developed.
5.8 Analysis of workshop results
The results that were generated in the workshops provided game ideas that were applicable to and relevant for the introduction of Service Innovation to people who had previously little or no knowledge in the subject. The Service Innovation concepts that were introduced are relevant as they were inputted by Service Innovation specialists who are used two introducing service innovation to people with little or no experience this is also backed up by the literature review. The development was done iteratively as stipulated by Fullerton (2008) and by including both game designers and subject matter experts and specialists as stipulated by Dörner (2016). A more specific analysis of each game idea will follow in the following sections.
5.8.1
User Fun!
The game idea User Fun! was the idea that is closest to a “minimum viable product”. Before the workshop was over the participants had played and tested some of the game elements and mechanics. During the gameplay it soon became evident that the idea was one mostly of software development, demonstrating how software development is dependent upon different roles, their skills and their interaction and cooperation. This game dynamic of cooperation could be used to demonstrate some other aspect of Service Innovation such as system thinking or Resource Integration, which is what is was expected to do before the later iteration, which would greatly increase the value of this game in introducing Service Innovation. Even if this game might be fun to play it would provide little value in introducing Service Innovation in its present format.
5.8.2
Resource Integration
The game idea that from the beginning was named “Role Playing User” but later changed name to “Resource Integration”, was the one that developed the most during the different iterations. It not only changed name, it also got completely reworked game dynamics. The idea was never play tested so the game mechanics are not evaluated. The idea revolves around a very central aspect of Service Innovation as the name implies, Resource Integration. One could also argue that systems thinking is in place due to the reference to norms and structures and how they affect services and how they are part of generating value together with the actor. The idea also refers to the double diamond of design thinking which is a foundational element service design which in turn provides many of the tools that are used by practitioners of Service Innovation.
The double diamond is the name of the design process model that uses four phases of divergence and convergence in order to push a design forward. The first divergent phase revolve some around researching and expanding the knowledge of the underlying problem. The second phase, which is convergent, focuses on narrowing down and producing insights on what needs to be solved. The third face is again divergent and aims at producing many ideas for how the problem could be solved. The 3rd and final face is about prototyping and evaluating ideas in order to narrow down into ideas and solutions that work. (British Design Council 2019) The double diamond is well known and has become an industry standard among practitioners in the field.
Figure 13: The Double Diamond (British design council 2019)
5.8.3
Age of Service Innovation
The game idea with, by far, coolest name, objectively, is “Age of Service Innovation”. The idea includes many important and interesting aspects of Service Innovation such as system thinking, Resource Integration and value-in-use. The ideas are also integrated in an interesting manner that can be likened too many successful games on the market such as Carcassonne or Catan. Unfortunately this idea never got so far that it could be tested, but if the different game mechanics where to workout and provide an interesting gameplay experience it would most likely also produce positive learning experience in the area of Service Innovation.
6. Conclusions
6.6 Research question 1
1) How can a serious game that introduces Service Innovation be co-created using a workshop-based approach?
The research question aimed at exploring the workshop method in a design science research approach to co-create the serious game focusing on the important principles of Service Innovation. The activities performed in order to answer this question included research on design science and workshops and practical work in preparing, designing and facilitating the workshops. The results indicate that with some preparation, workshops can be perform in order to co-create game elements and game mechanics that would be useful parts in a serious game on the topic of Service Innovation.
Through the use of Design Science Research and the specific method of workshops, three game ideas have been identified that potentially could be used to introduce the topic of Service Innovation.
6.7 Research question 2
1) What elements are the most relevant to include in a serious game so that it introduces Service
Innovation?
The second research question aims at identifying what elements and principles of Service Innovation that are the most relevant to introduce in a serious game. The activities performed in order to answer this question was the workshops, especially by the experts and specialists of Service Innovation who where included in order to ensure that the game ideas profiled and included genuine Service Innovation concpets and tools.
The results from the workshops indicate that the most important principles to Service Innovation are ‘Resource Integration’ and its closely related sibling concept of ‘value in use’, the use of ‘cross disciplinary teams’ , zooming out to include ‘(eco-)system thinking’ and to ‘include stakeholders’. This is also backed up by the findings of the literature review. Any effort of Service Innovation should include most, if not all of these elements.
7. Discussion
7.1 Results discussion
The results are interesting as they indicate at the large number of game ideas can be explored and developed in a short amount of time in a collaborative manner by workshop participants. Game ideas on service innovation elements and principles are arrived at and agreed upon but different participants in different constellations as well as supported by findings in literature.
It is also interesting to note that some game ideas indicate that they revolve around and introduce one Service Innovation concept at an early stage, but in later iterations turned out not to address those service innovation concepts at all. This could of course, be attributed to the fact that no ideas were not handled by the same participants from the initial idea to the final product.
7.2 Methods discussion
The different methods used for this research project all have different pros and cons and have been used in different parts depending upon their functionality and the intended outcome of the research. The literature review searching for the answer to the second research question was quite effective as there is quite a lot of literature on the topic of Service Innovation. However, literature on the design of the workshops as a research method in general and in game design specifically is very hard to find.
The feedback on the workshops was very positive and quite a few of the participants reached out afterwards to thank for the experience.
It was noticed that sometimes when people would try to expand on other people’s work they would take the results in a different direction. Most likely a direction that they might have had from the beginning if they would have developed their own idea from start.
7.3 Implications for research
Design science research results indicate that workshops are practical methods for generating qualitative results in the area of service innovation and serious games. These results could be interpreted as valid in other areas of a similar nature, when principles and elements of a subject matter need to be evaluated in order to develop artefacts in another subject matter.
7.4 Implications for practice
Obstacles and internal inertia were noticed that made it hard and time consuming for participants to work with and further develop the ideas of other people in previous sessions it would probably be a good idea to have people staying with their own ideas. At least when working in short time frames.
Some parts of this research indicate that priming of the participants with ideas generated in previous sessions or by individual work could be the cause of generating fewer ideas in later ideation sessions. This is also a topic that should be researched further.
7.5 Future research
Since this study was dedicated to explore the design and development of a game in a workshop-based approach and only preliminary game elements and mechanics were derived as a result, it would be interesting to pursue the research further and try more workshops and workshops of a different nature in order to evaluate the game ideas and their effectiveness in introducing Service Innovation.
Another line of further research could be the use of a virtual space such as the tabletop simulator. This virtual area can be used both with virtual reality equipment such as Oculus or with normal computer input and output devices such as display, mouse and keyboard. (tabletopsimulator.com) This virtual space would allow us too easily try different configurations of game elements and game mechanics as it is all digital. One drawback could be the fact that most people, at this point in time, are not used to playing board games in a virtual environment.
