The Gapminder Card Game, a paper version of the Gapminder bubble chart. The game challenges player's understanding of national performance of social indicators. Indicators such as population, income, life expectancy, infant mortality etc. Position countries both relative to one another on absolute values.
See www.gapminder.org
They call it a game but is it a game as such?
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Monday, October 24, 2016
Meeting games
Meetings can go many ways:
In the most general sense a meeting occurs when two or more people gather for a period of time. They have a beginning, middle and end.
Meetings are instances or occasions where discourse occurs under a variety of modes, often involving multiple styles within the same session.
The style may be didactic - one person giving instruction or oratory; dialogical - 'who talks up' pushing in to dialogue; distinctively punctuated silence as in Quaker meetings; cacophony - where everyone talks; turn-taking - democratic; factional - two or three dominate; and may other possibilities.
The performative styles can be represented by distinctive structure and social arrangements, distinguishing the relationships between speaker(s) and audience; who is speaking to whom, the orientation of attention, co-involvement, etc. For example: 1:m (one speaker to many); n:m (a group speaking to another group such as a board or a panel with an audience); m:m (introductions and social occasions), m:1 (a group speaking to an individual).
Case: The problem with meetings:
A meeting between Project Company and their clients. Invitees from the client organisation were told that it was a Project Consultation Workshop for User Input to Technical Development. The word consultation suggested that open discussions would occur.
An open invitation was sent to 100+ of client employees. Attendance at open corporate meetings in this organisation is generally low. The eventual meeting involved ~12 people. Of the attendees 6 were from Project Company. Considering the small group of people attending it is reasonable to expect that a genuine consultation would occur, for input to be gained from all involved.
Notes:
One of the biggest challenges was the unfocused invitation to the consultation...
The 10'+10' "discussion+response" sessions took a typical 90:10 format. Employees became frustrated waiting for a chance to discuss and respond in a meaningful manner. However the chair of the meeting appeared not to notice or was not prepared to release control, presumably because of the previously established time limits and the expectation of completing all agenda items.
In the most general sense a meeting occurs when two or more people gather for a period of time. They have a beginning, middle and end.
Meetings are instances or occasions where discourse occurs under a variety of modes, often involving multiple styles within the same session.
The style may be didactic - one person giving instruction or oratory; dialogical - 'who talks up' pushing in to dialogue; distinctively punctuated silence as in Quaker meetings; cacophony - where everyone talks; turn-taking - democratic; factional - two or three dominate; and may other possibilities.
The performative styles can be represented by distinctive structure and social arrangements, distinguishing the relationships between speaker(s) and audience; who is speaking to whom, the orientation of attention, co-involvement, etc. For example: 1:m (one speaker to many); n:m (a group speaking to another group such as a board or a panel with an audience); m:m (introductions and social occasions), m:1 (a group speaking to an individual).
Case: The problem with meetings:
A meeting between Project Company and their clients. Invitees from the client organisation were told that it was a Project Consultation Workshop for User Input to Technical Development. The word consultation suggested that open discussions would occur.
An open invitation was sent to 100+ of client employees. Attendance at open corporate meetings in this organisation is generally low. The eventual meeting involved ~12 people. Of the attendees 6 were from Project Company. Considering the small group of people attending it is reasonable to expect that a genuine consultation would occur, for input to be gained from all involved.
The initial agenda allocated 2 hours 30' with a 15' break midway. Time use proposed was:
- 30' introduction and context presentation followed by...
- 10' table discussion and 10' response on topic of "what will the measure of success for the project be?"
- 10' table discussion and 10' response on topic of "what is the minimum specification? - i.e. in realising a building for the project what are the elements that should definitely be delivered?"
- 10' table discussion and 10' response on topic of "what should we definitely not do in realising the project?"
- 15' Break
- 22.5' general discussion "what are the practical considerations?"
- 22.5' general discussion "what is the schedule of accommodation?"
Notes:
One of the biggest challenges was the unfocused invitation to the consultation...
The 10'+10' "discussion+response" sessions took a typical 90:10 format. Employees became frustrated waiting for a chance to discuss and respond in a meaningful manner. However the chair of the meeting appeared not to notice or was not prepared to release control, presumably because of the previously established time limits and the expectation of completing all agenda items.
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
LSP Facilitation notes
Experience - explain - repeat.
 |
| A tower of green and orange blocks. |
There is no content, LSP has no content
When you put something `in', what we have is the standard application.
The value does not come from the bricks, no matter how wonderful they are, it is in what the players arrive at themselves, through the facilitation.
Designing, since there is no content, takes what we put in and from that designing descriptions.
The crucial contexts: you, the team, and everything else, that isn't about you or the team we call `business'.
The most compelling argument for LSP is for leaning in meetings. To go from 20:80 to 100 percent meetings where everyone contributes evenly.
LSP sessions are designed to improve meeting outcomes; to generate new insights, to build confidence of our people, and to generate commitment around our decisions.
(the bottle, glass, bowl demonstration to put us at our ease for the next four days)
 |
| Trust us - combining models; to make a shared model (1/2) |
 |
| Trust us - combining models; to make a shared model (2/2) |
- gave us the binder and set out the ground rules
- respect the tables: one table for lecturing and one table for `play'.
- to be present.
- distinguished between building with a purpose and just fiddling around with the pieces.
- stated it is `hard fun', or adequately difficult (a term used by Seymour Papert).
- LSP draws on:
-- science (for explanation of the value of the method, its background and technical explanations),
-- craft (the practices and skills involved in posing questions, building, storytelling, reflecting)
-- art (the creative action involved in a particular response, a creative situation, to be involved, not a set of rules or a procedure)
- Robert used flip charts and printed boards instead of slides.
- at a leaning in meeting you get everything they know about a topic, plus it should (will) be much much more fun than a traditional meeting.
 |
| Angry person |
Thursday, June 16, 2016
Facilitation for Education
Facilitation for Education
@ Manchester Metropolitan University
Manchester, 16th June 2016
Delivered by Chrissi and Stephen.
Alison James and Chrissi Nerantzi's Play in Higher Education Community on G+ (link)
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
LSP Explorer Workshop with Andreas Haertel
 |
| My Explorer's Evolution: from concrete things to abstract concepts to... |
 |
| The company's activity wall (conveniently) on the way to the kitchen. |
 |
| Zalando's blended office environment. |
Friday, February 12, 2016
Exploring and understanding the business of games, play, and fun
Gameful - 'full of games'
The intent of this site is to gather and discuss research addressing the theoretical foundations of games, play and fun. Our objective being to develop both theoretical and practical understandings of games in business and the business of games. We think that theory is necessary in order to establish a deep understanding of the business of games for aspiring designers, entrepreneurs, managers, and industry specialists. We also want to apply game thinking, game theories and game features to new business contexts. That is, to use the ideas surrounding games, play and fun for both the design of and interpretation of engaging digital innovations.
The approach taken is to read, summarise and assimilate theory and literature; acknowledging and utilising the work of contemporary practitioners and researchers in the literature and highlight the core canon of this burgeoning field. We will review the philosophy and theories of games and play, critique the claims of gamification, and employ principles from game design. We expect to draw on concepts and ideas from many areas including: cultural theory, the sociology of play, design and game thinking, economics and behavioural economics, game theory and decision science, video and computer game design.
The goal is to become familiar with the language of games and game design in order to develop for ourselves, new game-like features in new service and product designs. We anticipate creating/generating/building ideas to prototype level using storyboards, mock-ups, paper prototyping or a digital platform of our own choice. Along the way we will utilise, evaluate and contribute to current frameworks and tools; even develop or synthesise new approaches for game and gameful development, with an emphasis on the digital domain.
The intent of this site is to gather and discuss research addressing the theoretical foundations of games, play and fun. Our objective being to develop both theoretical and practical understandings of games in business and the business of games. We think that theory is necessary in order to establish a deep understanding of the business of games for aspiring designers, entrepreneurs, managers, and industry specialists. We also want to apply game thinking, game theories and game features to new business contexts. That is, to use the ideas surrounding games, play and fun for both the design of and interpretation of engaging digital innovations.
The approach taken is to read, summarise and assimilate theory and literature; acknowledging and utilising the work of contemporary practitioners and researchers in the literature and highlight the core canon of this burgeoning field. We will review the philosophy and theories of games and play, critique the claims of gamification, and employ principles from game design. We expect to draw on concepts and ideas from many areas including: cultural theory, the sociology of play, design and game thinking, economics and behavioural economics, game theory and decision science, video and computer game design.
The goal is to become familiar with the language of games and game design in order to develop for ourselves, new game-like features in new service and product designs. We anticipate creating/generating/building ideas to prototype level using storyboards, mock-ups, paper prototyping or a digital platform of our own choice. Along the way we will utilise, evaluate and contribute to current frameworks and tools; even develop or synthesise new approaches for game and gameful development, with an emphasis on the digital domain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)