Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T04:36:58.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EXTENDED TAXONOMY OF DESIGN AND INNOVATION GAMES TO IDENTIFY PERSPECTIVES OF DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Apoorv Naresh Bhatt ,
Shakuntala Acharya  and
Amaresh Chakrabarti
Apoorv Naresh Bhatt*
Affiliation:
Indian Institute of Science Bangalore
Shakuntala Acharya
Affiliation:
Indian Institute of Science Bangalore
Amaresh Chakrabarti
Affiliation:
Indian Institute of Science Bangalore
*
Bhatt, Apoorv Naresh, Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, Center for Product Design and Manufacturing, India, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Learning innovation and design process is a necessity of the coming decade and games are a potential tool to do so. This paper proposes an extended taxonomy for categorising innovation and design games. The intent is to understand the essential, the similar and the different categories not only for development, but also for evaluation of innovation and design games, and in turn, help educators identify appropriate games for their learning objectives and curricula.

Keywords

InnovationDesign processDesign educationTaxonomyEducational games
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 1547 - 1556
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Battistella, P., Wangenheim, C. G. (2015), ENgAGED: Games development process for Computing Education, Brazilian Institute for Digital Convergence, Department of Informatics and Statistics, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil.Google Scholar
Becker, J.J. and Wits, W. (2014), “An Experience-Based Approach to Teaching Product Design”, Engineering and Product Design Education, Design Education and Human Technology Relations, University of Twente, The Netherlands, 04-05.09.2014, pp. 688–693.Google Scholar
Berglund, A., Lindh Karlsson, M. and Ritzén, S. (2011), “Innopoly: Design steps towards Proficiency in Innovative Practices”, Engineering and Product Design Education, London, UK, 08.-09.09, 2011.Google Scholar
Bhatt, A.N., Bhaumik, R., Moothedath Chandran, K. and Chakrabarti, A. (2019), “IISC DBox: A Game for Children to Learn Design Thinking”, International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Anaheim, 18–21.08.2019, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vol 3, pp. V003T04A010. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2019-98066Google Scholar
Bloom, B.S. (1956), Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Cognitive domain, Longman.Google Scholar
Bogers, M. and Sproedt, H. (2012), “Playful collaboration (or not): using a game to grasp the social dynamics of open innovation in innovation and business education”, Journal of teaching in international business, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 75–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/08975930.2012.718702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, T. and Wyatt, J. (2010), “Design thinking for social innovation”, Development Outreach, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp.29–43. https://doi.org/10.1596/1020-797x_12_1_29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakrabarti, A. (2019), “Types of Designers and How to Develop Them”, Product Life Cycle Modelling, Simulation and Synthesis, Bengaluru, India, pp. 242–247.Google Scholar
Sobrino, Cortes, Bertrand, A., Di Domenico, M., Jean, E., , C. and Maranzana, N. (2017), “Educational games for design and innovation: Proposition of a new taxonomy to identify perspectives of development”, Engineering Design, Vol 9: Design Education, Vancouver, Canada, 21-25.08. 2017, pp. 209–215.Google Scholar
Crawley, E., Malmqvist, J., Ostlund, S., Brodeur, D. and Edstrom, K. (2007), Rethinking engineering education, The CDIO Approach, Springer, US.Google Scholar
Crooltall, D., Oxford, R. and Saunders, D. (1987), “Towards a reconceptualisation of simulation: From representation to reality”, Simulation/Games for learning, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp.147–171.Google Scholar
Cross, N. and Roy, R. (1989), Engineering design methods, Vol. 4. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Deshpande, A.A. and Huang, S.H. (2011), “Simulation games in engineering education: A state-of-the-art review”, Computer applications in engineering education, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp.399–410. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.20323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Game, Design Thinking Board. (2019). Available at: http://www.designincubationcentre.com/priming/spin-offs/design-thinking-in-schools/Google Scholar
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. and Nacke, L. (2011), September. “From game design elements to gamefulness: defining” gamification”, MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments, pp. 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaz, V. (2017), Serious Game & innovation: Find the possible innovations of a product by playing. Available at: https://www.grenoble-em.com/actualite-serious-game-innovation-trouver-les-innovations-possibles-dun-produit-en-jouantGoogle Scholar
Djaouti, D., Alvarez, J. and Jessel, J.P. (2011), “Classifying serious games: the G/P/S model”, In Handbook of research on improving learning and motivation through educational games: Multidisciplinary approaches, pp. 118–136. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60960-495-0.ch006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmerich, K. and Bockholt, M. (2016), “Serious games evaluation: processes, models, and concepts”, Entertainment Computing and Serious Games, pp. 265–283. Springer, Cham.10.1007/978-3-319-46152-6_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eppinger, S. and Ulrich, K. (2015), Product design and development, McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar
Foo, D., Choo, P.K., Camburn, B., and Wood, K.L. (2017), “Design Innovation (DI): Design Method Cards”, SUTD-MIT International Design Centre (IDC), SGMark (Good Mark) Design Award, SUTD, Singapore, idc.sutd.edu.sg, 2018Google Scholar
Gagné, R.M. (1972), “Domains of learning”, Interchange, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp.1–8.10.1007/BF02145939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galanakis, K. (2006), “Innovation process. Make sense using systems thinking”, Technovation, Vol. 26 No. 11, pp.1222–1232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2005.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hölttä, V. and Eisto, T. (2011), “Social Media Enabled Design Communication Structure in a Buyer-Supplier Relationship”, Engineering Design, Vol. 7: Human Behaviour in Design, Lyngby/Copenhagen, Denmark, 15.-19.08. 2011, pp. 32–43.Google Scholar
Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J. & Çetinkaya, M. (2013), “Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp.121–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judmaier, P., Huber, M., Pohl, M., Rester, M. and Leopold, D. (2008), “Sustainable Living-A Multiplayer educational game based on Ecodesign”, Engineering & Product Design Education, Barcelona, Spain, 04.-05.09. 2008, pp. 734–739.Google Scholar
Juuti, T. (2008), “Design Management of Products with Variability and Commonality-Contribution to the Design Science by Elaborating the Fit Needed between Product Structure, Design Process, Design Goals, and Design Organisation for Improved R&D Efficiency”, Tampere University of Technology.Google Scholar
Juuti, T.S. and Lehtonen, T.A. (2012), “Product development education-conceptual modelling, knowledge integration and metacognition”, Engineering & Product Design Education, Antwerp, Belguim, 06-07.9. 2012.Google Scholar
Kapp, K.M. (2013), The gamification of learning and instruction fieldbook, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kerga, E., Akaberi, A., Tasich, M., Rossi, M. and Terzi, S. (2012), “Lean product development: Serious game and evaluation of the learning outcomes”, Advances in Production Management Systems, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 590–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40352-1_74Google Scholar
Khandu, (2016). Available at: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1251477973/khandu-building-little-thinkersGoogle Scholar
Kirkpatrick, D. and Kirkpatrick, J. (2006), Evaluating training programs: The four levels, Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
Laamarti, Fedwa, Eid, Mohamad, and Saddik, Abdulmotaleb El. (2014), “An overview of serious games.” International Journal of Computer Games Technology.10.1155/2014/358152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Libe, C., Grenouillat, A., Lagoutte, J., Jean, C. and Maranzana, N. (2020), “Creativity and Innovation for Children: Presentation and First Experiment of New (Serious) Game”, Engineering and Product Design Education, VIA University in Herning, Denmark. 10-11.9. 2020. https://doi.org/10.35199/epde.2020.40Google Scholar
Liedtka, J. (2015), “Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction”, Journal of product innovation management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp.925–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, Y., Vallet, F., Cluzel, F. and Yannou, B. (2019), July. “Analysing the Relevance of Serious Game Elements for Effectively Teaching Innovation Processes”, Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, Cambridge University Press, pp. 439–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.47Google Scholar
Meuris, D., Herzog, M., Köster, M. and Sadek, T. (2013), “Playful conceptual design of industrial product service systems: An Experiment”, Engineering Design, Vol. 4: Product, Service and Systems Design, Seoul, Korea, 19-22.08. 2013.Google Scholar
Michael, D.R. and Chen, S.L. (2005), “Serious games: Games that educate, train, and inform”, Muska & Lipman/Premier-Trade, pp-17Google Scholar
Mitgutsch, K. and Alvarado, N. (2012), May. “Purposeful by design? A serious game design assessment framework”, The foundations of digital games, pp. 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1145/2282338.2282364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molenda, M. (2003). “In search of the elusive ADDIE model”, Performance improvement, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp.34–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4930420508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mora, S., Gianni, F. and Divitini, M. (2017), June. “Tiles: a card-based ideation toolkit for the internet of things”, designing interactive systems, pp. 587–598.Google Scholar
Ochoa, A. (1969). “Simulation and gaming: Simile or synonym?”, Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp.104–107.10.1080/01619566909537690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Outram, G., Stevens, C. and Culley, S. (2007), “Extended group design activities for the enterprise society”, Engineering and Product Design Education, University of Northumbria, UK, 13.-14.09. 2007, pp. 75–80.Google Scholar
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (1996). Engineering design: a systematic approach. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3581-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plattner, H., Meinel, C. and Weinberg, U. (2009), Design-thinking, Landsberg am Lech: Mi-Fachverlag.Google Scholar
Porter, M.E. (2011), “Competitive advantage of nations: creating and sustaining superior performance”, simon and schuster, pp. 780.Google Scholar
RIPPPLR - A board game for innovation, (2016). Available at: https://challenges.openideo.com/challenge/exploring-open-innovation/research/rippplr-a-board-game-for-innovation.Google Scholar
Roozenburg, N.F. and Eekels, J. (1995), Product design: fundamentals and methods. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Rosa, M., Rodrigues, L. and González, M. (2018), “Business games and creativity stimulus: the behavior of three different teams in the ideation process”, Nord Design, Linköping, Sweden, 14th-17th August 2018.Google Scholar
Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (2002), Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalised causal inference, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1969). “The Sciences of the Artificial”, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Uei, K., Fujiwara, T., Kazawa, A., Nemoto, Y., Kimita, K. and Shimomura, Y. (2014), “Learning Effect Evaluation of an Educational Tool for Product-Service System Design Based on Learner Viewpoints”, Human Interface and the Management of Information, Springer, Cham, pp. 643–652.Google Scholar