Stakeholder Assessments

Iterative Analysis of Stakeholder Values and Needs and How These Directed Our Development Process

Stage 0:

We received an extended introduction to and tour of Dokk1 from Steen Nielsen, during which Steen communicated several less-visited areas of the library where more visitor engagement via a game would be welcome, as well as the message that games involving the UN Sustainable Development Goals would be especially appreciated
We began brainstorming immediately after the tour, choosing our ideal location and planning an elaborate game to fit the location

Stage 1:

We discovered multiple teams in the class had requested the same location for their game prototype demonstrations, so we reconsidered our brilliant idea
We talked with numerous stakeholders, including librarians, other library staff members, regular visitors to the library, tourists, and children (with their parents' permission). We did this to explore our options and to determine who we wanted as the direct stakeholders for our game.
We gave out a written survey to adult visitors of the library to uncover what people liked about Dokk1 and why they came to Dokk1
We gave ourselves a written survey to determine what our individual goals for the game were and to ensure that we were all broadly in agreement about the direction we were going

Stage 2:

Based on stakeholder feedback, we discovered that many people appreciated the beautiful location of Dokk1 and the views of the harbor
Parents also appreciated that their kids had many options to play both inside and outside Dokk1 and that there were often creative art sessions for children to participate in
Furthermore, we learned that people who visit the library for more serious reasons (study, work, quiet reading, contemplation) were not especially interested in playing games or having games played in close proximity to them (one respondent even complained that there were too many children at Dokk1)
When asked if they would like to play a game that involved exploring Dokk1, most children said they would prefer, instead, to stay in one area where they felt comfortable
Additionally, librarians reported being quite busy throughout the day and were not receptive to game ideas that involved many game pieces or to the possibility of games involving library staff. In the terms of one librarian, the games would need to be "Do-It-Yourself"
Based on this information, we decided that our team's game would be designed for children 8 and under as the primary stakeholders, and, consequently, that the children's creative play corner (near a giant tree decorated with birds painted by children) would be the most fitting location for our game prototype demo.
We also decided that we wanted our game to have minimal set-up or maintenance requirements. Once it was put in place, it should be something kids can engage with on their own, with minimal need for supervision or assistance (and any assistance they might need should be of the kind that their parents could provide)
We made a serious effort to include the UN Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGS) in our game planning process. Ultimately, we ended up designing a game that did not include any references to the goals. While the UN SDGS align nicely with our personal values, they did not fit in with our team values for games as neatly. Furthermore, our ideas that included the goals tended to make the games we thought of more serious, more complex, and less playful, than we were aiming for.

Stage 3:

We settled on a game concept borrowed elements from the Virtual Fishtank, Kids Design Glass, and Minecraft
Kids' drawings would be digitalized to create 3-D avatars for the game (similar to the way kids' drawing were transformed into 3-D glass sculptures in the Kids Design Glass program)
The customized avatars would populate and travel around a virtual world (similar to the way the fish move around the Virtual Fishtank and the way players move around the minecraft environment)
While the VIrtual Fishtank was intended to demonstrate the concept of emergent behavior (Kaufman et al.), the movement of creatures in our game would not be tied to behavioral characteristics

Stage 4:

Now that we had a concrete game concept, we interviewed more children to get their feedback on the idea
The comments received were uniformly enthusiastic -- several children mentioned that it sounded similar to the Lego House's Fish Designer game, which our team had not been aware of
We also discussed our idea with library staff, who were encouraging (expressing their belief that the game would be of interest to children and perhaps to passers-by as well) and who helped us identify additional constraints (e.g. in providing us with logistical information about where the game might best be located)

Stage 5:

We presented our idea to our classmates and instructor for further critiques
The game seemed well received, with the team receiving multiple suggestions on features that could be included

Stage 6:

Taking in all the research we'd done and feedback we'd received, we began implementing our ideas

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse