I’m sure I don’t need to say that design is a big broad word with lots of potential interpretations. So I’ll begin by saying that when I think of design for group interaction and experience I am always thinking of design for emergence. Certainly you can design an experience in a very controlled manner such as you might see in a theme park or in a movie, but for the kinds of things we are talking about here, true engagement comes from people who are involved in the process and to some degree participating in the design of it.

I do think you can do a lot to set and maintain an emotional tone. The setting matters a lot: for example a campfire will generate a very different dynamic than a board room. Music or food change the emotional dynamics, sometimes in profound ways. Even something as simple-sounding as a high ceiling can make a difference.

Certainly in the conceptual dimension you can make a difference by who you invite — or who you choose not to invite, or by the rules of engagement you lay down in the beginning of an event. I happen to believe informality tends to help.

A general observation is that the things that are most important in designing for emotional and conceptual emergence must be thought through in advance of the meeting. They are the subtle but important decisions on things like the invite list, the venue, the dress code, the time of day, the food or lack thereof, the duration of the event, and so on. Once the meeting is underway there are things you can do but they are, as a rule, far less effective. Look forward to seeing th set of posts you envision!

Cheers,

Dave

Good stuff… Steve

I fully agree that the art of the “knowledge game designer” is in stringing games together to achieve a bigger result. In fact I see knowledge games as a set of components that can be mixed and matched ad-hoc to address a particular need, kind of like the mountain climber’s set of tools and skills: only a few are needed at any one point in the process of climbing a mountain, but — since mountain climbing is full of unanticipated challenges, having the right tool or skill at the right moment can make all the difference in the world. The analogy to a journey is one that I agree with a thousand percent.

Regarding your three dimensions, tactical, emotional and conceptual, I’m encouraged that we came to similar conclusions independently — it makes me feel that we are aligned and on the right track. In fact to quote you, I think we’re in the stage of “sketching the outline of something, then slowly layering in the detail.” I’m excited that our “thumbnail sketches” overlay rather well on each other.

For me, the reason for coming up with “dimensions” to knowledge games is because I am searching for a set of principles that can guide people in the knowledge game design. I’ve been reviewing a lot of literature and interviewing a lot of people, and there seems to be a gap between theories of creative work and the actual practices of creative workers. I’m trying to find these guiding principles by combining a “bottom-up” review of things that work for people in the field with some of the theories you find in group dynamics — but I’ve been especially excited to find a wealth of literature on game design. Although much of the stuff I have found is oriented toward video games, much of the thinking is applicable to our field.

Look forward to further conversations on what i see as a very lush and fertile area for exploration!