Gamifying the Circular Sharing and Civic Economy

Sailing on the choppy waves of the financial crisis, various thinkers and designers are proposing a change of system which can give rise to new business models. We are witnessing the emergence of the circular economy, the sharing economy and the civic economy. What are the real-life consequences of these new business models, which are still far from common? For example, the sharing economy as well as the circular economy are based on trust. What is the effect on business norms and ethics of this central role of trust?

Pervasive games

We have researched, tested and/or commented upon new business models by designing and implementing gamified interventions during the Redesigning Business Symposium on November 20th, 2014. These interventions were focused on allowing the public to experience that evening what these new business models mean, here and now.

We analysed various business models and distilled from this analysis a number of ‘game rules’ which we will introduce during the symposium. We will allow visitors to experience the consequences of the ‘game rules’ of current and future business models by participating in a pervasive game (a combination of reality and game). This way we wished to provide insight into the various business models, making it possible to compare them, and thus inviting an interesting discussion. A side effect of such a distilling of game rules is that there is an inherently political view transmitted by these games.

This method of using games neatly corresponds to the basic rules of Gamification in education by incorporating the slogan '"Play, Don't tell"'. With careful design, players will experience and be confronted by the consequences of their own actions. While this short experience will not be able to explain the more delicate questions surrounding these complex topics, it will aid the participant in the overall experience of listening to the keynote speakers and presentations, linking their game experience to the more difficult topics.

Overall experience

Visitors of the Symposium get handed different stickers at the entrance. The sticker defines in which fictitious company the visitor belongs. Players participate individually, but score points for their companies, working together with strangers for a common goal. You've got to build products (Lego figures) using four different economical strategies at the four different stands with a time limit of one minute. Succeeding means scoring for the whole company. Different games have different mechanics resembling

References to the sub-projects

This project is divided between four different sub-projects, of which three resemble the new economies and one resembles the old economy:

A Proposal for gamifying the old economy

From economic principles to game rules

Assumptions

We live in a world of limited resources, but not of limited needs. This principle is called scarcity, and is one of the basic principles of the classic –or "old" economy. Scarcity describes the relation between supply and demand in an economy with limited resources.

Translation of assumptions to design principles

The old economy uses the cradle to grave principle, and therefore uses their resources without re-using them. According to that principle, where resources are used only one time, you have to use your resources thoughtfully in order to make the most out of it.

Game proposal

In the Gamification Masterclass of the Redesigning Business Week, we tried to translate this principle of scarcity into a pervasive game. Each team has a limited pool of resources, with which they have to build different products to gain points. You can choose to build an easy product, but by doing so you have to use a lot of resources. The other option is to build the difficult product, for which you need less resources, but in which you are less likely to succeed because of the given time limit of 60 seconds. The resources are limited for each team, so choose wisely, because if you fail to make your product within the time limit your resources will be spent as well.

Storytelling

You could translate this principle to the idea of designing for the dump. The easy products are simple to produce but have a lot of waste material once finished, while the difficult products –for instance, products made from durable resources– have a lower amount of waste. Also, the idea of eliminating the used resources from the game as waste, gives this game a definite end, which relates to the linear process of the "old" economy.

A Proposal for gamifying the circular economy

From economic principles to game rules

Assumptions

The circular economy is a economy-design based on reduce, re-use, recycle. Energy must come from renewable sources. One of the problems with the circular economy is to retrieve the necessary high quality resources from the waste. Development should therefore focus on pre-sorting instead of post-sorting strategies.

Translation of assumptions to design principles

The design should reflect the necessity within the circular economy to rethink design such that high valued resources can be easily accessed for retrieval. Furthermore, the use of lesser materials will generally result in a lower price. This can be done by literally letting the players search through a pile of resources for the right resource, but still enabling the player to succeed their goal with lesser resources (albeit at a lower price).

Game proposal

The circular economy game is a game where players can make a product out of waste. Players have to filter the waste in order to make a perfect one colored product. If they can't find the right colored resources, they can opt to use another color, but this results in less profit.

Storytelling

The bowl represents the waste pile, where players will have to search between the litter (i.e. other colored blocks). Furthermore, the need for high-end recycled products is reflected by searching for just one type of resource within several resources of lesser quality (i.e. other colored blocks).

http://33.media.tumblr.com/c770e47946481728f1e006cfb4aea5cd/tumblr_nfata0LumK1u0pdywo2_500.jpg

A Proposal for gamifying the civic economy

From economic principles to game rules

Assumptions

The civic economy is a economy-design based on co-operation and local production, local entrepreneurs and local resources.

Translation of assumptions to design principles

Co-operation between local entrepreneurship means there is a need to have an extra party accounting for resources (as opposed to the other economies save the sharing economy). Ideally, this person should be located in proximity (since this is about 'local' entrepreneurs working together), but distinct from the other game stands.

Game proposal

The civic economy game is a game where you can make a product with local ingredients, but you only have yellow or black ingredients. You have to negotiate with the other local company to trade your leftovers. Together you'll be able to finalize your products. In practice that means that you start working on a product at one stand, which only has resource A –grain, for example. But you also need resource B to make your product –coal, for example. You have to go to the other stand with resource A (a product you have too much of) and trade it there for resource B (which are leftovers for the other stand, too). You can start making your product at both stands as starting point, but eventually you'll need the leftover resource of the other stand to finish your product.

Storytelling

Trading the product symbolizes trading left overs which other local companies can use represents extra products and waste in companies normally would dispose of, but, in this specific type of economy, can be re-used by companies in these community-like co-operations.

A Proposal for gamifying the sharing economy

From economic principles to game rules

Assumptions

These essential principles, in my opinion, are 'trust' and 'shared benefit'. Creating together gives a result that is in fact larger than the sum of its components. However, both contributing businesses will have to trust that the other considers this shared benefit just as important. Otherwise, the system will simply fail.

Translation of assumptions to design principles

The above assumption already gives a game concept in terms of victory and failure. In this game proposal, playing together is essential for having even a chance of winning. Not being able to play together – or trust each other, for that matter – means failure for both participants. Playing together, however, should also have an additional incentive besides winning to underline the urgency of the sharing economy.

Translating these conditions to the concept of the entire pervasive game at the symposium – visualising each of the economies named earlier with four small building games using LEGO-bricks – I've come up with the following proposal.

Prototype version of the mini game, showing both separated resources and a product building-plan

Game proposal

As the player approaches the table with this game, he or she is instructed to find another player as this game can only be played in pairs. While most of the other mini games have one source of resources, this one has two different resources: one for each player. Both players have a bowl with one type of resources. Yet, in order to make the shape shown on a picture by the game master within 60 seconds, they will have to share their resources AND deliberate how they are going to build the shape together in a successful way. Winning means that each competing team gets one point, meaning that playing with a player from a different team gets a better joint result than playing with a member from the same team. I'm hoping this will present the players with the concept of sharing to get a better joint benefit.

Storytelling

Imagine that both players are in fact businessmen and the teams are different companies, making a product out of different resources. However, the companies do not own all the resources. In this case, consequently, the product can only be made by working together and 'sharing' your resources. Joint benefit is the key here. Of course, both businessmen working together 'can' be from the same company, but that will not gain the team more benefit than usual. Working together with another company, however, means benefits for both cooperating companies: 1+1=3!

Expert opinion during the preparation of the project

Frederic Sanders from DRIFT was invited to give feedback on the first demo of the games. He is an expert in the field of 'entrepreneurship in transitions' and a perfect person to see if the translation of economic principles to design principles was effective.

In a quick recap he stated that this kind of game will be perfect to help people experience the core aspects of these new economies. Not as a stand-alone game yet as a meaningful add-on to lectures. The main strength is that these games could - separately or as a series - help to internalise this new information.

The main idea: play the game and subconsciously experience the core economic principle. After that listen to the lecture and during that lecture connect the new knowledge to the prior experience.

Lessons to be learned

The educational lesson

As mentioned by Frederic Sanders during his visit (see [[Gamifying the Circular, Sharing and Civic Economy#Expert opinion during the preparation of the project|]]), while these games cannot convey the complexity of these economic systems, they certainly can function as handy reminders for visitors of a conference such as the Beyond Social of the basic differences for the different economies. As especially is the case with multi-disciplinary conferences, where visitors from different domains shed their light on these co-operative fields of study, there may well be visitors who only have a vague idea of what 'the sharing economy' or 'the civic economy' means. These games then function as a quick-start for understanding the more difficult information shared by keynote speakers.

The pervasive lesson

In game design theory, one often refers to the so-called 'Magic Circle'. The magic circle is distinct place and time where other social rules (i.e. the game rules) hold instead of a number of standard social rules. As an example: when we play chess, we play this on a 8x8 white and black board (place) trying to place our own piece in proximity of the 'King' pawn of the opponent while abiding by certain rules (i.e. not just taking away the Queen and placing my Queen there, since this is against these new social rules) while the game lasts (time). A pervasive game tries to blur these social, spatial and temporal boundaries and make them more penetrable / porous, blurring the distinction between game world and real world. The following events on the conference were characteristic these more penetrable boundaries between game and real world:

1. Players were asked after the game to explain what they experienced and how this was related to one of the new types of economies. This made them actively reflect on the game mechanisms and thereby the distilled economic rules for the different types of economies. If the storytelling was effective, most of the participants were able to distill which type of
2. While the game was played, especially when players were standing at the sharing economy, they were forced to search for another player to co-operate. Often, bystanders were asked to join the game in progress, making the bystanders at least aware of the games played at the conference and their relevance to the conference. The line between bystander and participant was thereby blurred, which effectively increased the number of participants.
3. Even when players didn't participate, they probably talked with players who had a sticker containing their fictive company, thereby also being sideways confronted with the matter discussed by the game.

The pervasive game therewith fueled the discussion on economic systems and by its very permeable nature was able to attract new players.

A critical note

It should be noted that the design choices explicated above portray a distinct political view on the different types of economies and necessarily do so. By distilling the 'essential economic rules', we must prevent making a caricature of the economical theory we wish to portray. Naturally, there is a thin line between a too complex model to be able to fit in an economic game and too simple as to make it a caricature. But even if we succeed in staying on the thin line between this too complex model and the caricature, we still decide which elements we find defining for each type of economy and thereby incorporate in our game design. The choice of such elements will betray a distinct view, be it Marxist, ecologist, (neo)-capitalist or Keynesian economies. To portray the old economy from a Cradle to Grave principle not only distinguishes it from the Cradle-to-Cradle principle of the circular economy, but also neglects the need of the classical economy to have efficient production measures to be competitive, thereby also paying close attention to expensive and limited resources. Such need is clearly expressed in some branches such as the automotive industry, where the 2014 Mazda commercial has one of Mazda's lead designers explain that they were proud to have made their car weigh another half a kilo less by using innovative design. Therefore, pervasive games aren't just a perfect translation of the economic principles. They are both a model and a medium for a view on the different economies.