Laura Larmi
Mixing Methods for Collaborative Development
0DVWHU¶V7KHVLV Espoo, May 16, 2013
Supervisor: Professor Riitta Smeds Instructor: Päivi Pöyry-Lassila, Lic.Sc.
Aalto University School of Science
Degree Programme in Information Networks
$%675$&72)7+(0$67(5¶67+(6,6
Author: Laura Larmi
Title: Mixing Methods for Collaborative Development
Number of pages: 85 Date: 16.5.2013 Language: English Professorship: Business processes and
services in digital networks Code: TU-124 Supervisor: Professor Riitta Smeds, D.Sc.(Tech)
Instructor: Päivi Pöyry-Lassila, Lic.Sc.(Tech) Abstract:
,QQRYDWLRQDQGFUHDWLRQRIQHZNQRZOHGJHDUHLQFUHDVLQJO\HVVHQWLDOLQWRGD\¶Vbusiness environment, but require knowledge integration within a variety of expertise, backgrounds and competence. Many fields of research and practice have recognized this need, and have responded by introducing new methods for collaborative development. However, the methods aimed at supporting co-creation have mostly been studied and developed in their specific contexts of use, and thus not enough is known on how they are purposefully applied and utilized in different contexts and configurations.
This thesis studies co-development methodology from the viewpoint of collaborative knowledge creation. The objective is to advance understanding on co-development methods as support for knowledge co-creation, as well as to support versatile and purposeful
exploitation of different methods in practice. The thesis aims at exploring the variety of roles that co-development methodology may have in knowledge co-creation processes.
As theoretical foundation, this thesis adopts the perspectives of collaborative knowledge creation that stem from both learning and organization sciences. In particular, this thesis examines three methods that are originally developed and utilized in different contexts: 6LP/DESURFHVVVLPXODWLRQ future recall and design game.
The empirical case study examines a co-development workshop in which these three methods were combined into a new, mixed method. The empirical case data is examined in video analysis that observes the effects of the mixed method in the interactions in the co-development workshop.
The thesis provides a framework that clarifies the roles of methodology discovered in the theoretical and empirical study, as well as a checklist for the methodological choices of mixed co-development methods. Thus the thesis produces understanding on how to purposefully plan and apply mixed methods for knowledge co-creation. As a theoretical contribution, the thesis aims at increasing understanding on how knowledge co-creation processes are affected and supported with different tools and methods.
Keywords: co-development methods, knowledge creation, process simulation, design game, future recall
Aalto-yliopisto
Perustieteiden korkeakoulu
Informaatioverkostojen koulutusohjelma
DIPLOMITYÖN TIIVISTELMÄ
Tekijä: Laura Larmi
Työn nimi: Menetelmien yhdisteleminen yhteiskehittelyssä
Sivumäärä: 85 Päiväys: 16.5.2013 Julkaisukieli: englanti Professuuri: Liiketoiminta- ja palveluprosessit
tietoverkoissa Professuurikoodi: TU-124
Työn valvoja: Professori, TkT Riitta Smeds Työn ohjaaja: TkL Päivi Pöyry-Lassila Tiivistelmä:
Uuden tiedon luominen on keskeinen osa nykypäivän liiketoimintaa, mutta usein edellyttää yhteistyötä, jossa tuodaan yhteen erilaisia kokemuksia, näkemyksiä ja tietoa. Tähän tarpeeseen on monella alalla vastattu kehittämällä ja hyödyntämällä erilaisia menetelmiä, joiden avulla yhteiskehittämistä voidaan tukea. Jotta yhteiskehittelyn menetelmien laajaa kirjoa voitaisiin hyödyntää kattavasti, tarvitaan tutkimustietoa niiden soveltamisesta ja hyödyntämisestä erilaisissa konteksteissa.
Tämä tutkimus perehtyy yhteiskehittelyn menetelmiin yhteisöllisen tiedonluonnin näkökulmasta. Tavoitteena on luoda ymmärrystä siitä, miten yhteiskehittelyn menetelmät voivat tukea tiedonluonnin prosesseja, sekä tukea erilaisien menetelmien monipuolista ja tuloksellista hyödyntämistä käytännössä.
Tutkimuksen teoreettinen pohja yhdistelee yhteisöllisen tiedonluonnin teorioita sekä organisaatiotieteiden että oppimistieteiden kirjallisuudesta. Erityisesti paneudutaan kolmeen yhteiskehittelyn menetelmään, jotka on kehitetty yhteiskehittämisen tukemiseen täysin erilaisissa konteksteissa: SLP/DESURVHVVLVLPXORLQWLPHQHWHOPlWXOHYDLVuudenmuistelu sekä design-peli.
Työn empiirinen osa tarkastelee työpajaa, jossa elementtejä kolmesta edellä mainitusta menetelmästä yhdistellään täysin uudeksi menetelmäksi. Työpajan videoanalyysin avulla pyritään löytämään keinoja, joilla yhteiskehittelyn menetelmät vaikuttavat
vuorovaikutukseen ja tiedonluonnin prosesseihin.
Kirjallisuuskatsauksen sekä empiirisen analyysin tuloksena luodaan viitekehys, joka havainnollistaa yhteiskehittelyn menetelmien tunnistettuja vaikutuksia tiedonluonnin prosessiin. Tulosten perusteella muodostetaan kokonaiskuva menetelmien keskeisistä vaikutuksista sekä näihin liittyvistä valinnoista. Nämä kootaan tarkastuslistaan, joka pyrkii helpottamaan menetelmien soveltamista mielekkäästi eri tarkoituksiin. Tutkimus myös täydentää tiedonluonnin kirjallisuutta selvittämällä, miten tiedonluontia voidaan tukea yhteiskehittelyn menetelmin.
Asiasanat: yhteiskehittelyn menetelmät, tiedonluonti, prosessisimulointi, design-peli, tulevaisuudenmuistelu
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
$IWHUWKLVORQJEXWUHZDUGLQJSURMHFWRIZULWLQJP\0DVWHU¶VWKHVLV,ZRXOGOLNHWR express my gratitude to those who have helped and supported me along the research process.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my instructor Päivi Pöyry-Lassila for the invaluable comments, insights and support she has given me throughout the research process. I also want to thank the supervisor of this thesis, professor Riitta Smeds for guiding and supporting my research, as well as for all the experiences and knowledge I have been able to gather during my years in SimLab.
I would like to express my gratitude to all the researchers of VISCI Tools and ATLAS research projects for the fruitful and insightful collaboration. In particular, I would like to thank Svante Suominen for listening in my moments of need, and for all the invaluable words of encouragement.
I am deeply grateful to researcher Liina Hongell for the amazing expertise and support she has offered me during my video analysis process. Last but not least, I want to thank Anna Salmi, Otso Hannula and Heidi Tulensalo, who have kindly offered their help during the research process.
Espoo, May 16, 2013 Laura Larmi
!"#$%&'(&)'*!%*!+&
!!
!"#$%&'(#!%"))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*!
,! -*!.'/0)!-'*11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ,!
*)*! Background and motivation)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) *!
*)+! Research problem and objectives)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ,!
*)-! Research approach and scope))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) .!
*),! Structure of the study)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) /!
!!
!#01%$1#!(23452(67$%'"&)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))8
!2! 3*'4$%/5%&)'6).%"!-'*11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 7!
+)*! Knowledge creation as social process))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 9!
+)+! Knowledge transformation)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) *+!
+)-! Trialogical approach to knowledge creation))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) *-!
+),! Prerequisites for knowledge co-creation))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) *.!
8! +-9$"#:&;.')%++&+-90$"!-'* 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ,<!
-)*! Background and objectives))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) */!
-)+! SimLab™ process simulation in practice)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) *8!
=! (0!0.%&.%)"$$111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 2>!
,)*! Background and objectives))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) +:!
,)+! Future recall in practice))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) +*!
,)-! Future recall in different contexts))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) +-!
?! /%+-5*&5"9%+ 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 2?!
.)*! Background and objectives))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) +.!
.)+! Design games in practice)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) +/!
.)-! Design games in different contexts))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) +9!
@! !A%'.%!-)"$&+B*!A%+-+1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 8,!
;)*! Answers to theoretical research questions)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) -*!
;)+! Framework for methods in knowledge co-creation))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) -/!
!!!!
1<=!$!(234$1>12$(0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-9!
<! !A%&)"+%1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 8C!
/)*! Context)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) -9!
/)+! Workshop preparation))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ,:!
/)-! Mixed methodology in practice)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ,+!
7! /"!"&)'$$%)!-'*&"*/&"*"$B+-+11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 =<!
8)*! Idea card game)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ,/!
8)+! Timeline exercise)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) .:!
C! (-*/-*5+ 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ?2!
9)*! Mixed method as material for building new))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) .+!
9)+! Mixed method in structuring the process)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) .,!
9)-! Mixed method in creating the mindset)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ./!
!?!
&!>('>>!%" )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))));*!
,>! )'*)$0+-'*+ 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 @,!
*:)*! Answers to empirical research questions)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ;*!
*:)+! Answer to research problem))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ;/!
*:)-! Conclusions))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ;9!
,,! -9;$-)"!-'*+&'(&!A%&+!0/B11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 <,!
**)*! Practical implications)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) /*!
**)+! Theoretical implications)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) /-!
,2! %D"$0"!-'* 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 <@!
*+)*! Validity, reliability and objectivity))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) /;!
*+)+! Limitations of the study)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) /8!
,8! (0!0.%&.%+%".)A 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 <C!
$1@1$1"(1> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))8*
!LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. The structure of the thesis ... 7
FIGURE 2. The knowledge creation spiral by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)... 9
FIGURE 3. Expansive learning cycle by Engeström (1999) ... 10
FIGURE 4. Four components of social learning theory (Wenger 2009) ... 11
FIGURE 5. Framework for managing knowledge across boundaries by Carlile (2004) ... 13
FIGURE 6. Illustration of the elements of trialogical learning, simplified from Paavola and Hakkarainen (2009) ... 14
FIGURE 7. SimlaESURFHVVVLPXODWLRQSURMHFW6meds et al. 2006) ... 18
FIGURE 8. Different levels of knowledge and experience accessed by different techniques, by Sleeswijk Visser et al. (2005) ... 26
FIGURE 9. Design game as a tool, a mindset and a structure, modified from Vaajakallio (2012) ... 28
FIGURE 10. Tentative framework for roles of methodology in knowledge co-creation ... 37
FIGURE 11. The process of VISCI Tools research project ... 40
FIGURE 12. Structure of the case workshop ... 42
FIGURE 13. Game board (challenges blurred) ... 43
FIGURE 14. Examples of idea cards ... 44
FIGURE 15. Idea descriptions were written on the cards, and the cards were placed on the game board ... 45
FIGURE 16. Idea card game overview ... 45
FIGURE 17. Empty timeline ... 46
FIGURE 18. Idea cards were placed on the timeline ... 46
FIGURE 19. Screen capture from idea card game video ... 47
FIGURE 20. Screen capture from timeline exercise video ... 50
FIGURE 21. Effects of the mixed method in the case workshop, based on video analysis ... 64
FIGURE 22. Framework for roles of methodology in knowledge co-creation, based on the findings from the theoretical study and the empirical video analysis ... 65
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. Theoretical background for the dimensions of knowledge co-creation. ... 31
TABLE 2. Simplified comparison of the methods. ... 36
TABLE 3. Content log for idea card game of one group. ... 48
TABLE 4. Content log for timeline video. ... 51
TABLE 5. Example 1 of an intense episode of linking ideas in idea card game. ... 56
TABLE 6. Example 2 of an intense episode of linking ideas in timeline exercise. ... 56
TABLE 7. Example 3 of an intense episode of linking ideas in timeline exercise. ... 57
TABLE 8. Methodological choices of the case workshop. ... 62
-&
-*!.'/0)!-'*&
,&
-*!.'/0)!-'*&
This thesis studies co-development methodology from the viewpoint of collaborative knowledge creation in business process development. More specifically, this thesis compares three methods that are originally developed and utilized in different contexts, as well as studies a case in which the methods were mixed.
There are two core objectives of the thesis. The first is to advance theoretical understanding on co-development methods as support for knowledge co-creation. The second objective is to support versatile and purposeful exploitation of different methods in practice, especially in business process development.
,1,& #")35.'0*/&"*/&9'!-D"!-'*&
Innovation and constant development are cornerstones in the modern business environment of dynamic markets, quickly changing customer demands and rapid development of technology (Baregheh et al. 2009). Innovativeness of firms has been found to be essential in terms of economic performance, for example growth and high profits (van der Panne et al. 2003). However, the ability to renew and create knowledge is dependent on successful collaboration across knowledge boundaries (Carlile 2002) and integration of previous knowledge within the organization (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995; Alves et al. 2007). Consequently organizations are increasingly dependent on their ability to manage collaboration and knowledge integration within a variety of expertise, backgrounds and competence.
This need has been recognized in a variety of fields, and inspired the development and utilization of collaborative development methods that aim to facilitate
knowledge integration and creation. Co-development methods have been exploited in different fields from product development to social services (e.g. Sleeswijk Visser et al. 2005; Kokko 2006). The variety of methods is also organized in different ways from user workshops (e.g. Sanders 2001; Brandt 2006) to different kinds of network meetings (e.g. Arnkil et al. 2000; Smeds et al. 2006). The methods and specified
objectives vary, but the core idea is the same: bringing diverse knowledge and perspectives together in order to create new solutions and development ideas in a collaborative manner. (Smeds et al. 2010; Sanders 2001)
However, these methods have been mostly studied and developed in their specific contexts, and thus there is only little knowledge on how they could be applied and utilized in different contexts. Even though the core objectives are for the most part similar, the methods support collaboration and knowledge creation in various ways. Therefore, combining and applying the variety of methods in diverse contexts and purposes could offer potential value in many cases.
This study examines three methods, which all aim for collaborative development within interdisciplinary, inter-organizational, or otherwise diverse participants. One of the methods is established for process development in the context of networked business, second is developed to fulfill the customer-oriented needs of social services, as the third is a methodological framework for engaging users in a design process. These three were chosen because they facilitate collaborative knowledge creation for different purposes and in different ways. Thus, the methods complement each other in creating an understanding of different viewpoints on co-development methodology. In the case studied, the methods were combined in order to benefit from qualities of all the three methods, such as provoking envisioning, structuring visualization or supporting narrative-based communication.
The first of the three methods studied is SimLab™ process simulation method, which aims for collaborative business process development. It is built around a knowledge co-creation event called process simulation event. All actors related to the process are invited to share their experiences and understanding, and to collaborative create new knowledge about the process. The simulation upholds a facilitated
discussion about the process, supported with a process model that outlines the discussion and acts as a mediating object within the participants. The core objectives of SimLab™ process simulation are to share and externalize tacit knowledge, as well as create mutual understanding about the roles and activities in the process among participants. (Smeds et al. 2005) SimLab™ process simulation method is relatively adaptive, as it frames the process and guidelines, but leaves room for customization
according to case objectives. It may easily be modified to meet different purposes, and complemented with elements from other co-development methods as well. The second of the three methods is future recall, which is originally developed for the needs of social services (Kokko 2006). However, due to its efficiency it has also been exploited in for example shaping work communities and executing new projects or operational units (Hyvönen 2011). Originally, the method was developed in order to emphasize customer-orientation and collaboration in the Finnish social services (Seikkula & Arnkil 2005). As a solution, the researchers wanted to create a tool for comprehensive and multidisciplinary treatment, in which the customer is highly empowered. This generated a set of tools called network dialogs, in which the most essential purpose is to bring people together and ensure that every participant gets their say and is equally listened to (Seikkula & Arnkil 2005). Future recall was developed as a part of this set of network dialog methods (Arnkil et al. 2000). In particular, future recall emphasizes positive thinking, solution-driven approach and concrete planning of next steps (Kokko 2006).
Lastly, the third of the methods studied is design games. Design game is a
methodological framework for organizing participatory design (Brandt 2006) and co-design (Vaajakallio 2012). Participatory co-design and co-co-design are both concepts used to describe design processes that aim for involving people that are potentially
affected by the design but that are not usually a part of the design process
(Mattelmäki & Sleeswijk Visser 2011). As the designer is designing for future use, participatory design methodology emphasizes discovering the tacit knowledge and latent needs of the users (Sleeswijk Visser et al. 2005). Design games offer a
framework for engaging users and other stakeholders in a design process, particularly by exploiting game-like elements, such as tangible game props, rules of activity and imaginative orientation (Vaajakallio 2012).
This thesis studies ‘mixed methodology’, i.e. methodology that combines elements from two or more different co-development methods. This is because characteristics of various co-development methods, such as SimLab™ process simulation, future recall and design games, potentially offer worthwhile expansions to co-development. However, there is still little research on how mixed methodology supports
knowledge co-creation, and especially how to apply mixed methodology in a purposeful and successful manner. In this thesis, this combination of design game, future recall, and SimLab™ process simulation, is studied in the context of a SimLab™ process simulation project. The aim is to explore the characteristics and benefits of the combined methodology in terms of knowledge co-creation, and thereby to support effective exploitation of diverse co-development methods.
,12& .%+%".)A&;.'#$%9&"*/&'#E%)!-D%+&
The research problem for the study is: How does mixed co-development
methodology facilitate knowledge co-creation processes? This problem is divided into supporting sub-questions, which are defined separately first for the literature review and then for the empirical study.
The research problem is first studied through a literature review, after which the research questions are refined for the empirical study. The literature review discusses theoretical backgrounds of knowledge co-creation and the three studied methods: future recall, design games and SimLab™ process simulation. The theoretical background of collaborative knowledge creation adopts the perspectives from both learning and organization sciences in order to understand how knowledge co-creation takes place in human interaction.
The research questions for the literature review are:
• RQ1: How does knowledge co-creation take place?
• RQ2: What are the central elements and prerequisites for successful
knowledge co-creation?
• RQ3: What kinds of knowledge creation processes co-development methods
aim to facilitate? In which practical ways?
These three research questions are examined through the literature review, after which the answers are discussed in the theoretical synthesis (6.1). Based on the theoretical findings, the refined research questions for the empirical study are defined and presented in the end of the literature review (6.3).
The objective of the study is to be able to describe and understand mixed methodology in knowledge creation workshops. The specified theoretical and practical objectives are the following:
(1) The theoretical objective is to broaden the understanding on how the use of collaborative development methods affects knowledge creation and
collaboration. More specifically, this study aims at identifying how the knowledge creation process is affected by methodological choices.
(2)The practical objective of the study is to support successful and meaningful exploitation of collaborative development methods. Thus the thesis aims for increasing the understanding on how to purposefully apply and combine co-development methods for different purposes and contexts.
This thesis aims primarily at supporting forthcoming process co-development projects in utilization of elements from diverse co-development methodology,
particularly SimLab™ process simulation, future recall, and design games. However, the thesis also aims at offering valuable understanding for anyone interested in co-development methodology. Thereby this thesis contributes to a variety of fields of research and practice, such as change management, conflict mediation, as well as product and service development.
,18& .%+%".)A&";;.'")A&"*/&+)';%&
The research approach of the thesis is qualitative. Qualitative research aims for understanding social or human problems and their meanings for individuals or communities. It realizes the complexity and uniqueness of situations related to human issues, and thus offers a possibility to examine the topic in depth and with open-ended question setting. The analysis of qualitative data is based on researcher’s interpretations of it, and consequently is affected by the researcher’s individual understandings. (Creswell 2009)
The research method is case study, as the aim is to understand a phenomenon within specific settings through a single case (Eisenhardt 1989). In particular, case study serves this thesis’ objectives best, because it involves actual events in real-life context (Yin 2009). This is important as there is only little previous research on the
topic, and the aim is to describe and gain understanding on the phenomena rather than to produce generalized conclusions.
The particular case is a part of the VISCI Tools research project that aimed for development of technologies and management processes that support collaborative innovation. More specifically, the case data is from a co-development workshop that was organized with a pilot company. This workshop is particularly interesting because the methodology combined elements from future recall, design games and SimLab™ process simulation. The objective of the co-development workshop was to create a mutual understanding about the desired innovation practices within the organization, as well as the concrete steps in implementing them in the future. The case is described more closely in chapter 7.
The case data consists mostly of video recordings from the co-development
workshop. Video data provides an opportunity to capture activity as it occurs in real life, as well as recording a variety of aspects, such as speech, gestures and the use of artifacts (Heath et al. 2010). Also other documentation, such as project plans, is used. The video data analysis takes place in an iterative process, in which the data is reviewed and analyzed many times. The analysis process roughly follows the three phases by Heath et al. (2010):
(1) The preliminary review, i.e. creating an outlook on the corpus of the data. The objective is to create a log or a generic description that helps in identifying specific phenomena or events.
(2) The substantive review, i.e. conducting preliminary findings. This phase aims for classifying the interesting events or phenomena more closely, and also includes selection of the episodes to be analyzed more closely.
(3) Analytic review, i.e. defining, analyzing and classifying the specified events or phenomena in detail.
The research problem is approached with abductive inference logic. This means that literature and empirical data are analyzed in an iterative process, in which they are constantly compared and combined. (Dubois & Gadde 2002) This is especially
typical in case studies, as the understanding deepens as the research proceeds (Eisenhardt 1989).
,1=& +!.0)!0.%&'(&!A%&+!0/B&
This thesis consists of four parts: introduction (I), theoretical background (II), empirical research (III) and discussion (IV).
Figure 1 - The structure of the thesis.
The first part of the thesis describes the motivations and background of the thesis, as well as the research problem, methods, scope and the structure of the study.
The second part is the literature review that discusses the theoretical backgrounds for knowledge co-creation and the three studied methods: SimLab™ process simulation method, future recall, and design games. The synthesis is constructed by comparing the three methods from the viewpoint of knowledge co-creation. At the end of part II, the research questions are refined for the empirical study.
The third part describes the case, data collection and analysis process in more detail, as well as the findings of the study. The fourth part comprises conclusions, both practical and theoretical implications, evaluation of the study and ideas for future research.
--&
!A%'.%!-)"$&#")35.'0*/&
This literature review discusses the theoretical background for supporting knowledge co-creation by means of SimLab™ process simulation, future recall and design games.
First, the review describes the knowledge co-creation theories that are used as a basis for the study. Since the research focus is on collaborative development interventions, the theories are selected and discussed from the viewpoint of collaborative and intentional creation of new knowledge. Second, the literature review discusses the theoretical backgrounds and practical characteristics of the three methods. Thirdly, in the synthesis, the methods are re-examined by comparing them to each other and the theoretical foundations of knowledge co-creation.
2&
3*'4$%/5%&)'6).%"!-'*&
In the past couple of decades, empirical research on collaborative learning and knowledge creation has challenged the traditional assumption that learning takes place as knowledge acquisition within individual minds (Sfard 1998). The topic has been studied comprehensively in diverse contexts, and the results have generated a pervasive consensus that knowledge creation is embedded in social interaction and dialogue (Tsoukas 2009). This conception emphasizes learning and knowledge creation to occur through participation in communities and transforming knowledge among participants (Sfard 1998).
However, there is no consensus and only little research on the actual, micro level realization of the knowledge creation process (Tsoukas 2009). Furthermore, Paavola et al. (2004) argue that instead of dialogue alone, knowledge creation takes place in trialogue, i.e. collaborative development of shared objects of activity. This chapter discusses knowledge co-creation theories from the viewpoint of intentional and collaborative development.
First, the following chapter discusses the role of dialogue in knowledge co-creation, focusing on the social knowledge creation processes (2.1) and knowledge
transformation (2.2). Second, the trialogical nature of knowledge creation is addressed (2.3). Finally, the chapter aims at sorting out the characteristics and prerequisites of knowledge creation (2.4) that are most relevant from the viewpoint of co-development methods.
21,& 3*'4$%/5%&).%"!-'*&"+&+')-"$&;.')%++&
Knowledge creation has been studied in the fields of both learning and organization sciences. The two discourses examine knowledge creation from different viewpoints, but both have come to realize knowledge creation as a social process. In the
following, some central theories are discussed from both fields of research. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) found organizational knowledge creation to be
significantly dependent on the ability to share and transform knowledge. Especially they emphasize the role of tacit knowledge, which comprehends for example
personal experiences, values and emotions, and consequently is not easily expressed. The conversion and mobilization of tacit knowledge was found to be the key for creating new knowledge. The conversions of tacit and explicit knowledge require a shared context of interaction, a ‘ba’. ‘Ba’ is not necessarily a physical place, but a locationality that includes time and space (Nonaka et al. 2000). These conversions between tacit and explicit knowledge are represented in knowledge creation spiral (Figure 2). (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995)
Figure 2 - The knowledge creation spiral by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). Engeström (1987; 1999) studied knowledge creation within work groups, and developed the model of expansive learning (Figure 3). In particular, and in contrast
to Nonaka and Takeuchi’s model, Engeström emphasizes the process of knowledge creation is to be self-triggered, as it builds on questioning and criticizing current practices. Questioning and analyzing constitute the process of collective
reconstruction that refers to converting assignments, baselines and instructions into the team’s mutual understanding of the subject. (Engeström 2009) New solutions are created based on current practices and issues, and thus the process involves constant reflection on the current (Engeström 1999).
Figure 3 - Expansive learning cycle by Engeström (1999).
Also Lave and Wenger (1991) describe learning and knowledge creation to be embedded in social dialogue. They suggest leaning to be situated as an integral and inseparable part of social practices in which people participate. Thus, learning does not appear as acquiring knowledge, but as learning how to behave within a
community (Brown & Duguid 1991). Lave and Wenger (1991) emphasize that the most effective learning takes place in interaction or peripheral participation with new or distant practices, as it gives an opportunity to reflect the new practices to the familiar ones.
Practices are related to communities in which they take place, i.e. communities of practice (Lave & Wenger 1991). A community of practice is a system of activities, in which people participate and share understandings about the community’s actions, purpose and influence. Communities of practice are thus informal and usually invisible, even to those participating in them. Nevertheless, they are formed around and maintained by a shared topic of interest. (Wenger 1998)
Wenger (1998) divides the concept of social learning into four components: practice, community, identity and meaning (Figure 4). Learning about practice refers to learning about the shared resources, frameworks and perspectives that uphold the community activity. Learning about the community takes place in social
configurations that determine what we see as competence or worth pursuing. Identity, on the other hand, is developed through the personal history of becoming and thus constructed in relation to communities. Lastly, the ability to experience what is meaningful is individually and collectively developed in the context of communities. (Wenger 1998; 2009)
Figure 4 - Four components of social learning theory (Wenger 2009).
Bereiter (2002), in contrast, clearly separates knowledge building from learning. He suggests that organizational knowledge is based on artifacts, both material and conceptual. Like material artifacts, conceptual ones can usually be for example described, compared, valued, modified, discussed and improved. Consequently, new knowledge is built by producing, modifying and examining these artifacts.
Accordingly, the objective of knowledge building is not individual mental improvement, but object and concept improvement. Therefore its objective is to create general knowledge instead of individual. However, learning may occur incidentally for the people involved. (Bereiter 2002)
To summarize, knowledge co-creation may be considered as a social process, in which new knowledge is created from the basis of a variety of existing knowledge. However, there is no consensus on the realization of this process. The theories describe for example different triggers and motives for knowledge creation, diverse
roles of artifacts and practices, as well as different opinions on the associations with learning.
212& 3*'4$%/5%&!."*+('.9"!-'*&
Observing the actual realization of the knowledge creation process, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) demonstrate the knowledge conversions to take place in complex interactions. Furthermore, they draw attention to the variety of tools and means that many of these interactions required. They recognized a variety of activities that support knowledge conversions, such as observing, imitating, doing together, experiencing, and learning by doing. In addition, they identified also tools that were used for knowledge conversions, such as metaphors, analogies, concepts, models, hypotheses, documents, manuals and stories. (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995)
More specifically, these tools and means are needed in order to share and integrate knowledge across knowledge boundaries (Carlile 2002). These boundaries appear though for example different terminologies, tools, and levels of experience, but also as different incentives and objectives. As these differences increase, also more effort is required to understand and combine overall expertise across the boundaries. Novelty of circumstances, due to for example new requirements, also increases the difficulties in integrating knowledge. Furthermore, dependence on each other’s knowledge increases the significance of knowledge integration. (Carlile 2004) Star (1989) suggests that knowledge integration across these boundaries takes place in the development of boundary objects that mediate understanding. Carlile (2002) studied the use of these objects in product development, and divides the approaches into three: syntactic, semantic and pragmatic (Figure 5). The syntactic approach aims for ensuring precise knowledge transfer through shared syntax. Instead, the semantic approach recognizes the cultural and interpretational aspect, as well as differences in language and terminology. Thus, crossing semantic boundaries requires knowledge translation, which refers to translating existing knowledge by means of standardized forms and methods that follow mutually understood structure and language. (Carlile 2002; 2004)
Figure 5 - Framework for managing knowledge across boundaries by Carlile (2004). The pragmatic approach, however, emphasizes the motivation to share and adapt new knowledge. People see the consequences and dependencies differently, and therefore coequal collaboration may be difficult. At a pragmatic boundary, there is a need for knowledge transformation, i.e. negotiation and adaptation of existing knowledge. Thus the boundary objects used in pragmatic boundaries should also support transformation of knowledge, instead of only representing information. In order to support the negotiation and adaptation of knowledge, the objects used in knowledge transformation are usually complex, such as prototypes, drawings, process maps and simulations. (Carlile 2002; 2004)
218& !.-"$'5-)"$&";;.'")A&!'&3*'4$%/5%&).%"!-'*&
Paavola et al. (2004) contribute to the knowledge creation theory by presenting a concept of innovative knowledge community. This concept is based on three theories that represent innovative learning in knowledge communities: the knowledge
building theory (Bereiter 2002), the knowledge creation spiral (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995) and the expansive learning theory (Engeström 1987; 1999). Based on these three theories, Paavola and Hakkarainen (2005) sorted out the common
characteristics of innovative knowledge communities: (1) they intentionally pursue something new, (2) they acknowledge innovative processes to take place in
communities, and (3) they acknowledge innovative processes to occur through systematical development of shared objects. The definition of innovative knowledge
communities is based on these findings. Consequently, Paavola et al. (2004) describe the concept of innovative knowledge communities as communities that create new knowledge through intentional and collaborative development of shared objects, such as artifacts, practices and ideas. (Paavola & Hakkarainen 2005; Paavola et al. 2004) Similarly to the model of communities of practice (Lave & Wenger 1991),
innovative knowledge communities are driven by individual initiative that is embedded in communities’ activities (Paavola et al. 2004). However, the most significant difference is that knowledge creation in communities of practice is usually unrecognized (Wenger 1998). In contrast, innovative knowledge communities actively and intentionally pursue creation of new knowledge and development of shared objects of activity (Paavola & Hakkarainen 2005).
Paavola and Hakkarainen (2005) also adapted the theories of innovative knowledge communities into learning theory. Thus, the concept was expanded into a knowledge creation metaphor for learning, also called trialogical learning. The ‘trialogue’ (Figure 6) is a metaphor that refers to the three elements present in collaborative learning in innovative knowledge communities: individual subjects and initiative, a community, and the use of objects. (Paavola & Hakkarainen 2008; 2009; 2005)
Figure 6 - Illustration of the elements of trialogical learning, simplified from Paavola and Hakkarainen (2009).
As in Figure 6, the trialogue consists of individuals, a learning community, and the use of objects. The knowledge creation takes place around shared objects of
development, such as knowledge artifacts, practices and the externalized ideas and presentations of the community. The core idea of trialogical learning is that
communities develop these shared objects of activity with the assistance of mediating tools. Thus the shared objects are in a double role, as they mediate understanding, but also are the objects of the creation process. (Paavola & Hakkarainen 2008; 2005)
21=& ;.%.%F0-+-!%+&('.&3*'4$%/5%&)'6).%"!-'*&
As it appears, there is no consensus on how the process of knowledge creation takes place. The theories presented describe knowledge co-creation process and its
prerequisites in diverse ways. However, there are some core elements and prerequisites that stand out. Based on the theoretical review I suggest that the commonly essential elements of collaborative knowledge creation may be summarized in three:
Firstly, new knowledge is created by applying and exploiting a variety of existing knowledge. More specifically this refers to a combination of
previous experiences, existing knowledge and individual understanding (e.g. Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995; Lave & Wenger 1991, Paavola et al. 2004). Knowledge co-creation processes bring this various knowledge together in order to create new knowledge.
Secondly, the theories suggest that knowledge creation is embedded in social processes of interaction, such as knowledge transformation (Carlile 2004), participation in communities (Lave & Wenger 1991), as well as questioning and developing joint practices (Engeström 1999). Therefore it may be argued that knowledge creation takes place as a social and collaborative process. Thirdly, knowledge co-creation is mediated by tangible and conceptual objects. According to the theories discussed, artifacts mediate knowledge creation in two ways: by facilitating knowledge translation and
transformation (Carlile 2002), and by mediating the creation process (Paavola et al. 2004; Bereiter 2002).
I propose that these three aspects of knowledge co-creation are the also the core elements that are to be supported with co-development methods. Consequently, they may be used as a basis for mixing methodologies to support knowledge co-creation. However, as noted, the theories discussed in the literature review describe
knowledge co-creation processes in diverse ways. The most apparent contradiction within the theories seems to be the different ways of observing and making sense of the knowledge creation phenomenon in the first place. Thus, regarding the
realization of knowledge creation processes, I recognize two viewpoints: (1)The social interaction embedded in knowledge creation process. This
viewpoint studies knowledge creation from the viewpoint of social interactions, such as collaboration across knowledge boundaries (Carlile 2004), social interaction within and between communities (Lave & Wenger 1991), and knowledge transformation within organizations (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995). What is common to these theories is that they emphasize knowledge creation to take place in crossing boundaries of knowledge, expertise and practice.
(2) The creation process embedded in social interaction. This viewpoint studies knowledge creation as a process through which joint practices (Engeström 1999), shared objects of activity (Paavola & Hakkarainen 2005) or material of conceptual artifacts (Bereiter 2002) are developed. These theories emphasize that knowledge creation takes place around shared objects of development.
These two viewpoints are not entirely conflicting, but they do imply that both a collaborative approach and a creative process are essential requirements for
knowledge creation. Consequently, I suggest that both these viewpoints are essential when supporting knowledge co-creation by means of methodology, and thus those provide the very basis for organizing and applying co-development methods.
8&
+-9$"#:&;.')%++&+-90$"!-'*&
SimLab™ process simulation is a method for process co-development. It aims at creating a shared understanding about a networked process and jointly developing it further. The method is based on modeling and simulating the networked process, and thus developing a mutual understanding about the roles and activities in it (Smeds et al. 2005). Visualizations and facilitated discussion are central elements in the
method, as they enable externalization of tacit knowledge and assisting collaborative development of the process. In practice, SimLab™ process simulation is a carefully prepared workshop, organized as a part of a SimLab™ process simulation project. The project follows seven step process, which all support the development of the networked process. (Smeds et al. 2006)
In this chapter, the context and objectives of the method is first described (3.1). Thereafter the more specific principles and implementation (3.2) of the SimLab™ process simulation method are discussed.
81,& #")35.'0*/&"*/&'#E%)!-D%+&
The theoretical root of the SimLab™ process simulation method lies in innovation management research. Van de Ven (1986) suggested that in order to create new knowledge and innovations collaboratively, all the critical actors must be identified and brought together. They must comprise an autonomous unit, which is able to make decisions and take actions as they prefer. In these so called hologram
structures, Van de Ven (1986) emphasizes requisite variety. That refers to the variety in the participants’ knowledge that altogether covers all that is required to solve the shared problem. This is the core objective of SimLab™ process simulation, and thus it aims for gathering together a competent group of people that also meet the
requisite variety of knowledge related to the process (Smeds & Alvesalo 2003). Another theoretical anchor of SimLab™ process simulation method is the concept of ‘ba’ (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995), a shared context of interaction. The method aims to create a context that enables collaborative development and supports knowledge conversions. (Smeds & Alvesalo 2003) These knowledge conversions and the joint
development are supported with a visualized process map that is used as a boundary object (Star 1989) for mediating knowledge transformation (Smeds et al. 2006). The process model, in addition with the discussion, supports creation of shared
understanding of the process, as well as the shared goals for future development. Furthermore, shared understanding of common goals also increases commitment and empowerment that support the implementation of the new process developed.
(Smeds et al. 2001)
To summarize, in SimLab™ process simulations knowledge co-creation takes place through a collaborative process in which a networked process is jointly developed. A visualized process model or other visualizations are used as mediators for knowledge transformation, and as the shared objects of development. Consequently the
simulation may be considered as knowledge co-creation process of an innovative knowledge community. (Smeds & Pöyry-Lassila 2011)
812& +-9$"#:&;.')%++&+-90$"!-'*&-*&;.")!-)%&
SimLab™ process simulation method is applied in a carefully planned SimLab™ process simulation project that comprises seven phases. The project culminates in a simulation day, in which all the actors related to the process are invited to discuss and develop the process. (Smeds et al. 2006) The SimLab™ process simulation project is described in Figure 7.
Figure 7 - SimLab™ process simulation project (Smeds et al. 2006)
SimLab™ process simulation project starts with a kick off, in which the development objectives, specified cases, schedules, and resources are discussed. Thereafter, the process modeling begins in a modeling session, in which a small group of central actors clarify the preliminary process outline. The model is complemented with interviews, in which the key actors of the process are asked about the roles and activities in the process. Before the simulation day, the process model is validated with the central actors and the objectives of the day are specified. The project
culminates in a simulation day, in which the networked process is jointly developed. After the simulation day, the created knowledge, such as the development ideas for the process, is analyzed, reported for the case companies, and exploited in academic research. Depending on the specifics of the project, the results or effects may also be validated with follow-up research. (Smeds et al. 2006)
The simulation day usually comprises two parts: the process simulation in the morning and group work session in the afternoon. In practice, the simulation is a facilitated discussion mediated by the visualized process model. (Smeds et al. 2006) The process that is modeled and used as a boundary object in the simulation day varies according to the development objectives. The developed process may be a current formal process, a representation of a case process as it happened, or for example an optimized future process (Smeds et al. 2003).
The simulation discussions are facilitated by the researchers who have realized the SimLab™ process simulation project (Smeds et al. 2006). Compatibly with the idea of process consultation (Schein 1987), the researchers aim for helping the case organization to recognize, understand, and develop the process itself. Thereby the researchers facilitate the participants’ own process of developing the process instead of giving ready solutions (Schein 1987). They intend to facilitate the interaction between the participants via the help of the boundary object, and thereby support collaborative knowledge creation within the participants (Smeds et al. 2006). In an optimal situation, the facilitator should be an external party that has no own interests regarding the case (Huxham & Cropper 1994). In SimLab™ process
simulations, the researchers are external and do not have personal interests related to the case. However, along with the project they create a wide conception of the process. Consequently they have good perceptions about the overall condition and the most critical issues, but no personal interest in pushing own solutions (Smeds & Alvesalo 2003). In addition, one of the facilitators’ important tasks is to enable equal involvement and ensure that no participant is too dominate or ignored (Huxham & Cropper 1994). Therefore all discussions throughout the day are led by facilitators that lead the discussion by giving turns and asking questions (Smeds et al. 2006).
=&
(0!0.%&.%)"$$&
Future recall is a method originally created for social services. It is one of the network dialog methods developed in Finnish National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health (STAKES), by the team of Network Research and Methods of Development. The future recall method is developed for collaborative and positive solving of the challenges related to a shared problem. As a result, the method aims at a concrete action plan, to which every actor involved is ready and willing to commit. (Kokko 2006)
This chapter clarifies the core objectives (4.1) and practical characteristics (4.2) of the method, as well as discusses its adaptation in different contexts (4.3).
=1,& #")35.'0*/&"*/&'#E%)!-D%+&
Future recall is one of dialogical activity practices called network dialog methods, which emphasize the mutual collaboration within all participants involved. The main objectives of network dialogs are being able to successfully exploit multidisciplinary expertise, and to plan the treatment individually according to each customer’s own personal assets. (Seikkula & Arnkil 2005)
Social services are constantly developing towards increasing specialization, which causes both services and expertise to be divided into specialized sectors. However, people in difficult conditions often need help from more than one of these sectors, such as healthcare, employment, or youth services. Thus, the customer has to build a network of multidisciplinary social service professionals. In addition, the customer’s social network, such as family, relatives and friends, is of course critically important regarding the treatment, but is often left out from the process. Network dialogs aim for bringing these professional and social networks together. (Kokko 2006)
However, collaboration within the network does not alone guarantee collaborative solutions. In many cases, professionals have ended up discussing the subject on such a generic level that the individual customer’s problem is left secondary. Furthermore, the professionals often discuss and solve the customer’s issues among each other and the customer’s role is to follow their instructions and decisions. This procedure
rarely results in treatment plans that the customers are willing or able to follow. (Seikkula & Arnkil 2005) Therefore, the network dialog methods are based on customer-orientation and empowerment. In a network dialog, the customer is acknowledged as an important actor in planning and executing their treatment, and thus the focus of the meeting is emphasized to be the specific customer and their issues. (Kokko 2006)
Future recall, as all network dialogue methods, emphasize reciprocal interaction, in which each participant gets their say and is mutually listened to. The main objective of a network dialog is to develop mutual understanding among the participants. In practice this stands for understanding the current condition and its influences, creating shared objectives and collaboratively finding best solutions. By doing this, both social service professionals and the customer’s social network are more capable of helping the customer in a comprehensive way. (Kokko 2006)
In addition to the common objectives of all network dialogs, future recall has its own distinctive characteristics. The method particularly emphasizes positivity and
solution-orientation, as its focus is the desired future instead of current or past problems. As another important factor, the method aims for collaboratively creating a concrete collaboration plan that all participants commit to. That is to facilitate and encourage the actual achievement of the desired future conditions. Both the
collaboratively created action plan and the positive approach also aim for increasing hope and trust in better future. (Arnkil et al. 2000)
=12& (0!0.%&.%)"$$&-*&;.")!-)%&
Future recall follows a specified discussion pattern that is implemented in the same way in every case. Therefore no preparation projects or further exploration of the case are needed for implementing the method. The participants are usually the
customers (e.g. a family or a person, with their relatives or friends they have invited), the social service workers that are involved in their treatment, and two external facilitators. (Arnkil et al. 2000)
The core idea of future recall is to imagine a desired future, usually beyond six to twelve months from present. Then the participants recall the journey from the future
to present: what happened and what was my role in the change? All comments are written down. Lastly the notes are gathered together and the participants create a shared action plan based on them. (Kokko 2006)
The facilitators, usually two, are an essential element in future recall. They are always external consultants, i.e. they are not familiar with or related to the subject. The external facilitators have been noticed to increase clarity and sense of security. Also they do not have any prejudices of the participants, the specific situation, possible solutions or former communication issues within participants. This means they have the best possibility to succeed in raising trust as well as leading the conversation in a positive and solution-oriented way. (Seikkula & Arnkil 2005) The facilitators ask questions, give turns and make notes. Every participant is given their turn to have their say, but they only are allowed to speak in their own turn. This is to ensure listening and reflection. Stating a comment certainly disrupts the speaker, but it also causes the commentator to disrupt his or her own inner reflection.
Abstaining commenting therefore enables the participants to completely focus on careful listening and solid reflection. (Arnkil et al. 2000)
Future recall meetings have a certain structure they usually follow. First, there is a brief introduction to the method and agreement on the rules of the meeting, e.g. no commenting (Seikkula & Arnkil 2005). Then the facilitator begins to lead the
discussion with the predetermined question pattern, and each answer is written down in notes. (Arnkil et al. 2000)
The first questions are designated for the customer and their family. The questions pursue for empathizing the desired future beyond a specific time and the journey towards it:
(1)A year has passed, and all is well. How are things for you?
(2)What kind of support you had during this past year of improvement? What did you do in order to achieve improvement?
(3)What worried you a year back (i.e. true present), and what caused the worry to decrease?
The facilitators briefly sum up the answers, and gather the mentioned elements of the joint future. At the same time they make sure everyone was understood properly. (Arnkil et al. 2000) Then they turn to the social service professionals related to the case, and ask them:
(1) As you heard, the past year went along well. How did you support the improvement?
(2) Did you have worries a year back? If so, what caused the worry to decrease? Again, the answers are taken down in notes and summarized at the end of the discussion. After the summary of the joint future is refined to comport with the mutual understanding, it is utilized in creating the shared action plan. The participants are assisted to plan an agreement for the future, in which they compromise about forthcoming co-operation, next steps, responsibilities and coordination. (Arnkil et al. 2000)
=18& (0!0.%&.%)"$$&-*&/-((%.%*!&)'*!%G!+&
Future recall is especially developed for conditions where there is an obvious need for help and the customers are in a state of indecision. Consequently, it does not serve well for acute crisis or significantly critical contradictions between the participants, because it requires the ability to imagine and plan a shared future together. (Kokko 2006)
Future recall has mostly been studied in its original context. In the study of Granlund and Nevala (2006), the participants valued especially positivity, hope, leisurely proceeding, non-problem based approach, not debating past issues but searching for new opportunities, and the external facilitators. In quantitative studies of Kokko (2006) and Granlund and Nevala (2006), feedback demonstrates that the method succeeds well in supporting both sharing own thoughts and listening to others’, as well as clarifying roles and responsibilities. The results of Kokko (2006) also demonstrated that overall 74% (n=845) found the meeting either beneficial or very beneficial.
One of the characteristics of future recall is the creation of a concrete action plan everyone is willing to commit to. In order to study the realization of these plans,
Kokko (2006) performed follow up interviews in 18 cases, with altogether 30 interviewees. In 15 of the 18 cases, the action plan created in the future recall meeting was fulfilled either completely or very well. Granlund and Nevala (2006) also performed follow-up in terms of reflective meetings in eight cases. In this follow up, they found that in all interviewed cases the concerns had either decreased or entirely vanished. According to the results of both studies, it seems that future recall serves well the creation of a shared plan and supports implementing it, at least in its original context of social services.
Based on these two studies, future recall seems to meet its objectives well. However, the context of social services is particularly special. Therefore different contexts make new requirements for adapting the method and also new kind of emphases on the objectives. Even though the method is originally developed for social services, it may also bring solutions in business environment. According to Hyvönen (2011), future recall serves work environment well, because it allows empowerment of all workers, takes their perspectives into account right from the start, and also helps all participants in conceiving the big picture.
Hyvönen (2011) studied future recall in work environment for resolving
communication issues within a work community. According to the feedback results, the method was found especially beneficial because its structure ensured evenhanded discussion. In addition, it was found useful in provoking new thinking and
discovering new perspectives. However, some of the participants felt that not
everyone was truthful, and also that some attendees had an inappropriate attitude that disturbed open discussion. These results demonstrate the sensitivity of the method related to its context and attendees. (Hyvönen 2011) Consequently, it may be said that the adaptation into different contexts requires careful consideration of the specific context and participants.
?&
/%+-5*&5"9%+&
Design game is a methodological framework for participatory design (Brandt 2006). The objective of participatory design is to engage users and other stakeholders in the design process, especially in the early phases of ideation (Sanders 2001). In
particular, design games exploit game-like elements, such as tangible game props, rules of activity and imaginative orientation (Vaajakallio 2012).
This chapter discusses the background and objectives of participatory design and design games (5.1), the design game framework in more detail (5.2) and the implications in different contexts (5.3).
?1,& #")35.'0*/&"*/&'#E%)!-D%+&
The importance of multidisciplinary collaboration is also present in the field of design, even though usually described in different terms. What designer designs, is going to be used by people in a context. Therefore designers need to understand these people and the context in which they interact with the end product. In addition, there are company capabilities and objectives, as well as design team characteristics that are to be taken into account. (Sleeswijk Visser et al. 2005) To respond to these needs, the participatory approach for design emphasizes the end user as a part of the design process (Sanders 2001).
Participatory design aims in exploiting the creativity and knowledge of ordinary people (Sanders 2001). The objective is comprehensive involvement and
empowerment of users, as they are involved not only in testing, but they are considered as important actors in making decisions about the design (Greenbaum 1993). Especially in the early phases of design processes, participatory design offers tools for exploring and understanding future use contexts (Sleeswijk Visser et al. 2005).
However, some researchers conceptualize design games not as participatory design but as co-design (e.g. Vaajakallio 2012). There is no consensus on the relation of these concepts, but in general the concepts refer to the very same phenomena. Much similarly to participatory design, co-design aims in exploration, envisioning and
solution creation by engaging and empowering people that are potentially affected by design, but not usually participate in design process. (Mattelmäki & Sleeswijk Visser 2011)
Understanding the users and use contexts becomes complex, as all relevant
information is not easy to articulate. Sleeswijk Visser et al. (2005) argue that explicit and observable knowledge tells only past and current experiences. However, they state that the designer is designing for future use, and thus needs information about users’ tacit knowledge and latent needs, such as dreams, feelings, fears and ideas. Figure 8 represents their description about the relations between methodology and types of knowledge expressed.
Figure 8 - Different levels of knowledge and experience accessed by different techniques, by Sleeswijk Visser et al. (2005).
As latent needs and tacit knowledge are difficult to express, new methodology and tools are required (Sanders 2001). According to Sleeswijk Visser et al. (2005), for example generative techniques provoke articulating tacit knowledge and latent needs through use of artifacts and narratives. Especially, they emphasize the rich
knowledge that is embedded in stories. However, Vaajakallio (2012) suggests that in order to comprehensively understand the potential users, all four kinds of knowledge are important, and consequently a combination of multiple methods serves this objective best.
In order to exploit the knowledge and experiences of users, co-design methodology aims in providing a dialogue between designers and users. This dialogue does not necessarily have to be direct contact. It may also, partly or completely, be indirect
dialogue mediated by for example narratives or role-playing. These kinds of play-like methods are usually supported with tangible and visual artifacts that support imagination. (Vaajakallio 2012)
According to Vaajakallio (2012), visualizations and tangible objects are in a central role in co-design for two reasons. First, artifacts support communication, as they may be used for example as mediators for negotiation, representations of alternatives or providers for shared language. Second, artifacts inspire creativity, as they for
example trigger ideas and evoke feelings. As the purpose of the artifacts varies, they may take multiple forms, such as visualizations, prototypes, or in some cases even any aesthetic objects. (Vaajakallio 2012) Also verbal artifacts, such as question setting, instructions and facilitation practices, are important as they give frame to activity (Bødker 2009).
Design games are organized in a variety of ways, and for a variety of purposes. Instead of a predetermined method description, design game offers a framework for organizing participatory design in practice. Game props and rules create a common ground and shared language, and thus a basis for constructive dialogue. As
participatory design involves a variety of participants, the game props also have the important role of boundary objects. (Brandt 2006)
?12& /%+-5*&5"9%+&-*&;.")!-)%&
The methodology of design games utilizes game-like elements, such as playfulness, props, rules and competitive settings. They can be applied in many ways, for different purposes and in various design fields. The two essential elements that design games do have in common are use of rules and tangible game props. (Brandt 2006) These two act as tangible and verbal artifacts (Bødker 2009) that frame and facilitate the design game. The materials are usually designed to indicate either existing practices or future ideas (Brandt et al. 2008).
The characteristics of design games described above, as well as the core objectives, are typical for also other co-design methodology (Vaajakallio 2012). Furthermore, Brandt et al. (2008) state that all collaborative design involves some elements of game and play. Vaajakallio (2012) suggests that calling a specific activity a ‘design
game’ does not ground on only methodological characteristics, but also the
motivation to emphasize game related qualities, such as rules and playfulness. Thus, purposeful emphasis of play-qualities is a central element in her definition of design games.
According to Vaajakallio (2012), the role of design games in co-design is three-dimensional: a tool, a mindset and a structure. First, design games are a tool for the designer in actualizing co-design objectives. Second, design games create a play-like and open mindset for the participants. Third, design games offer an applicable structure for the designer of the game. These roles are represented in more detail in Figure 9.
Figure 9 – Design game as a tool, a mindset and a structure, modified from Vaajakallio (2012).
As the definition for design games is highly adaptive, also the role of the designer or researcher varies. They may have role of an observer, a facilitator, an active
participant, or a combination of these. Brandt et al. (2008) suggest that the core advantage of design games is the ability to engage diverse participants in mutual learning, and thereby most learning occurs when also designers are present and active in the game. Furthermore, as the designer inevitably has a central role in the design process, there is no reason not to involve them in the design game. At the
