Sunday, December 13, 2009
Accounting Game?!
Just found a post on Purple Pawn about Xero, an accounting support company that tries to make that tedious number work fun. I reference it here because of the slide show (at the first link) that draws a strong correlation between our willingness to do something and its fun factor. Certainly, as more and more services go online, "fun" should be a serious consideration.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Becoming a Board Game Publisher
For a while now I have toyed around with the idea of creating a board game publishing company. I've been reading blogs about board game creation, and studying business strategies in school, and I find myself getting closer and closer to the "do it" point. That is, the point at which I'm either going to be in or I'm going to be out.
Here are some things I still need to research and consider:
-Marketing: Who will be my target audience? What are their demographics? How many games can I expect to sell to them? What is the best way to publicize my company/games?
-Manufacturing/Warehousing: How much can I expect to spend on warehousing fees? Are there other manufacturers I would trust more than the ones I have already contacted? What am I going to do about the artwork?
-Product realization: How do I know when a game is good enough? Which play testers should I use? How should I qualify my research? Does this game fit my vision? How many games should I run and when?
-Business projections: Where can I expect this company to be in 1 year? 2 years? 5? What is the best thing to do with the profits I make?
Of course there is more to research and think about, but as I consider a lesson I've learned from playing games I think the "do it" point never comes when you have all the information. Analysis paralysis is no fun, and even your mother would yell at you to hurry up if you get caught in it.
Here are some things I still need to research and consider:
-Marketing: Who will be my target audience? What are their demographics? How many games can I expect to sell to them? What is the best way to publicize my company/games?
-Manufacturing/Warehousing: How much can I expect to spend on warehousing fees? Are there other manufacturers I would trust more than the ones I have already contacted? What am I going to do about the artwork?
-Product realization: How do I know when a game is good enough? Which play testers should I use? How should I qualify my research? Does this game fit my vision? How many games should I run and when?
-Business projections: Where can I expect this company to be in 1 year? 2 years? 5? What is the best thing to do with the profits I make?
Of course there is more to research and think about, but as I consider a lesson I've learned from playing games I think the "do it" point never comes when you have all the information. Analysis paralysis is no fun, and even your mother would yell at you to hurry up if you get caught in it.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Applying Video Game Mechanics
I recently receive a question regarding the applications of video games such as Madden or Halo in the workplace. While my response was directed toward video games, I think the "three questions" and "three principles" would be a good starting point for evaluating the usefulness of any types of games for management. Here is my response:
"I was thinking a little bit more about your question, and I think the answer is yes. I think games of all varieties could have applications, but the type of application would vary. There are a couple questions you could ask to get determine the level of application best suited for a game.
The first would be, what are the incentives mechanisms in this game and are there any ways I could model those incentives in management. For example, Madden creates incentive for you to keep playing by keeping detailed statistics of your performance, by increasing difficulty incrementally as the season goes on, and by imitating as closely as possible an actual football game environment. These are principles that could help govern an employee competition or help to facilitate their learning and growth.
Second, you should ask, is there any practical benefit that we could use from incorporating this game in our management structure. If you judge that the employees might like to play Halo, you could create a system of rewards based on performance that apply to the game. For example, employees could earn handicap points by meeting company goals, which could then be applied to a monthly Halo tournament that might result in some sort of monetary bonus or glory.
The last question would be, is there any specific skill I would like employees to develop, and does this game encourage training in this skill. Again, to use Halo as an example, employees could learn better communication by competing in teams to accomplish tasks. The Halo system in particular is well suited to facilitate team competition like this and there are various challenges and game types pre-structured within Halo. With this last type of application the point is education, so there should be some sort of debriefing or lesson segment accompanying it to help employees to evaluate what they experienced.
As with any time you draw from games to accomplish tasks in the workplace, you must pay attention to the three cardinal principles: fun (do employees have reason/incentive to participate in this), fairness (does the system guard against bias and ensure fair reward), and follow-through (does this system accomplish the goals I want it to accomplish)."
There may be more principles that can help aid the use of games in the workplace, but I think these three help reveal potential problems that a system might create. Without fun, employees won't participate, without fairness the system will fail, and without follow-through you will not accomplish what you set out to do. To balance these requires time, effort, and creativity, and most of all trial and error and re-design. It may not be until the third or fourth attempt that you finally realize a system that includes the right balance of the three principles.
"I was thinking a little bit more about your question, and I think the answer is yes. I think games of all varieties could have applications, but the type of application would vary. There are a couple questions you could ask to get determine the level of application best suited for a game.
The first would be, what are the incentives mechanisms in this game and are there any ways I could model those incentives in management. For example, Madden creates incentive for you to keep playing by keeping detailed statistics of your performance, by increasing difficulty incrementally as the season goes on, and by imitating as closely as possible an actual football game environment. These are principles that could help govern an employee competition or help to facilitate their learning and growth.
Second, you should ask, is there any practical benefit that we could use from incorporating this game in our management structure. If you judge that the employees might like to play Halo, you could create a system of rewards based on performance that apply to the game. For example, employees could earn handicap points by meeting company goals, which could then be applied to a monthly Halo tournament that might result in some sort of monetary bonus or glory.
The last question would be, is there any specific skill I would like employees to develop, and does this game encourage training in this skill. Again, to use Halo as an example, employees could learn better communication by competing in teams to accomplish tasks. The Halo system in particular is well suited to facilitate team competition like this and there are various challenges and game types pre-structured within Halo. With this last type of application the point is education, so there should be some sort of debriefing or lesson segment accompanying it to help employees to evaluate what they experienced.
As with any time you draw from games to accomplish tasks in the workplace, you must pay attention to the three cardinal principles: fun (do employees have reason/incentive to participate in this), fairness (does the system guard against bias and ensure fair reward), and follow-through (does this system accomplish the goals I want it to accomplish)."
There may be more principles that can help aid the use of games in the workplace, but I think these three help reveal potential problems that a system might create. Without fun, employees won't participate, without fairness the system will fail, and without follow-through you will not accomplish what you set out to do. To balance these requires time, effort, and creativity, and most of all trial and error and re-design. It may not be until the third or fourth attempt that you finally realize a system that includes the right balance of the three principles.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Buy your hours!
Thought I would mention another scheduling method I came up with recently. I was beginning to have problems with my "draft" method because the number of people needing to be scheduled has risen to about 25. With that amount of people, draft scheduling can take hours and since there are fewer shifts available per person, it seems silly to wait around for an hour an a half to pick three shifts.
My solution was this: Shift the burden of time it takes to schedule back onto me and away from the workers by giving them an availability form to fill out. I have used availability forms in the past, but I discontinued their use because it was too difficult to get people to select the hours that needed covering. When you fill out your form independently from everyone else then desirable shifts aren't "eliminated" from the running, so you choose only the shifts you like the most.
My goal on the availability sheet, then, was to provide enough incentive for people to diversify their desired shifts so that all shifts would be covered and I wouldn't have to assign anyone. You may recall from my previous posts that my mantra is: the perception of choice makes a happy worker, and a happy worker is a good worker. Therefore, it is important to me that everyone feel that the shifts they are working are the ones they chose.
To accomplish this, I gave every participant $10 (not really $10, just on paper) that they each HAD to spend on the available shifts for the week. They could spend it all in one place, or they could split it up 10 different ways, but all the money had to be "spent". The amount of money spent on a shift qualified as the priority number for the shift. That is, a person spending $6 on Wednesday had priority over somebody spending $3 of Wednesday. In order for someone to get the hours they wanted they would have to spend enough money in one place to earn priority. I was concerned, however, that many people would just spend $10 on one day, and be unwilling to work other days that were less desirable, but still necessary. To counter this, I added one stipulation: if there were any holes I would assign those people first who had spent the most money on one single shift. I hoped this rule would cause people to split their money up so that they would be choosing more times, and giving me more flexibility.
My plan was not perfect. In fact, there are a lot of things about this method that need to be improved. First among them is the problem that there were still too many options for people so that certain undesirable days still did not receive enough money. There is an easy solution to this. All I need to do is split up all the days into groups. Group 1 would be desirable days. Group 2 would be less desirable, and group 3 would be least desirable. In each group everyone would be expected to spend $10, so everyone would have to pick days they didn't like as much, but at the same time they would still have the option of picking WHICH undesirable ones they would work. I think this is a simple fix with versatile implications, and as a matter of personal interest I wonder how many groups I could divide the shifts into while still giving the appearance of choice.
My solution was this: Shift the burden of time it takes to schedule back onto me and away from the workers by giving them an availability form to fill out. I have used availability forms in the past, but I discontinued their use because it was too difficult to get people to select the hours that needed covering. When you fill out your form independently from everyone else then desirable shifts aren't "eliminated" from the running, so you choose only the shifts you like the most.
My goal on the availability sheet, then, was to provide enough incentive for people to diversify their desired shifts so that all shifts would be covered and I wouldn't have to assign anyone. You may recall from my previous posts that my mantra is: the perception of choice makes a happy worker, and a happy worker is a good worker. Therefore, it is important to me that everyone feel that the shifts they are working are the ones they chose.
To accomplish this, I gave every participant $10 (not really $10, just on paper) that they each HAD to spend on the available shifts for the week. They could spend it all in one place, or they could split it up 10 different ways, but all the money had to be "spent". The amount of money spent on a shift qualified as the priority number for the shift. That is, a person spending $6 on Wednesday had priority over somebody spending $3 of Wednesday. In order for someone to get the hours they wanted they would have to spend enough money in one place to earn priority. I was concerned, however, that many people would just spend $10 on one day, and be unwilling to work other days that were less desirable, but still necessary. To counter this, I added one stipulation: if there were any holes I would assign those people first who had spent the most money on one single shift. I hoped this rule would cause people to split their money up so that they would be choosing more times, and giving me more flexibility.
My plan was not perfect. In fact, there are a lot of things about this method that need to be improved. First among them is the problem that there were still too many options for people so that certain undesirable days still did not receive enough money. There is an easy solution to this. All I need to do is split up all the days into groups. Group 1 would be desirable days. Group 2 would be less desirable, and group 3 would be least desirable. In each group everyone would be expected to spend $10, so everyone would have to pick days they didn't like as much, but at the same time they would still have the option of picking WHICH undesirable ones they would work. I think this is a simple fix with versatile implications, and as a matter of personal interest I wonder how many groups I could divide the shifts into while still giving the appearance of choice.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Participation points
In a class I just finished participation points were an important part of the grade. Although the value of the grade, 10%, is a typical value associated with participation points in most classes, in our course it seemed to be more important. In fact, every day turned into a competition for participation points, which spurred some lively--if not sporadic--discussion. I think there are two reasons for this.
First, our professor explained that the not only would we receive a 10% grade based on participation, but also that our grade would be based upon the ratio of our number of participation points to other students in the class. This means that if one person received 2 participation points and everyone else received 1, then the person with 2 would get the full 10% and everyone else would get 50%. Conversely, of course, if everyone had an equal number of points then everyone would earn full credit.
Second, the points were distributed directly from the professor during class time for nearly any constructive comment that was made. That is, a student contributing 3 separate and unique comments to class discussion would receive 3 participation points.
The above criteria represent the rules of the game, and the combination of both rules created incentive in the class to speak up and to speak up often. Typically I have found that participation points are awarded secretly and arbitrarily by teachers so that students don't have much idea when their contributions are contributing back to their grade or not, but in the case with this course, every comment was tangible and held weight. Not only could you control your sum of points, but proportionally you could estimate your grade compared to others based on your perception of how talkative your neighbors were.
Every so often the highest participation score would be posted on the online system for everyone to see, and, because the highest score was usually much higher than the score you had, it was usually something that caused general despair. There was even a small coalition to convince the student with the most points to shut-up during the last few class times so that the rest of the class could catch up. (I believe at this point the high amount was 23, and most people had between 6-15 or 26-65% respectively.)
If the point of the game was to achieve vocal participation, then it was obviously successful, but at what cost? There was a distinct sense at some points, that the comments made were specifically for participation credit instead for improving the learning atmosphere of the class. Then again, the ability of a comment to be thought provoking and promote further discussion does not always lie with the intention of the student to have it do so, and often the mere energy created by the high volume of comments was enough to improve learning. In this regard, therefore, I believe the game accomplished its goal, and provide an excellent example of the mechanics of the game can integrally affect the outcome of the system.
First, our professor explained that the not only would we receive a 10% grade based on participation, but also that our grade would be based upon the ratio of our number of participation points to other students in the class. This means that if one person received 2 participation points and everyone else received 1, then the person with 2 would get the full 10% and everyone else would get 50%. Conversely, of course, if everyone had an equal number of points then everyone would earn full credit.
Second, the points were distributed directly from the professor during class time for nearly any constructive comment that was made. That is, a student contributing 3 separate and unique comments to class discussion would receive 3 participation points.
The above criteria represent the rules of the game, and the combination of both rules created incentive in the class to speak up and to speak up often. Typically I have found that participation points are awarded secretly and arbitrarily by teachers so that students don't have much idea when their contributions are contributing back to their grade or not, but in the case with this course, every comment was tangible and held weight. Not only could you control your sum of points, but proportionally you could estimate your grade compared to others based on your perception of how talkative your neighbors were.
Every so often the highest participation score would be posted on the online system for everyone to see, and, because the highest score was usually much higher than the score you had, it was usually something that caused general despair. There was even a small coalition to convince the student with the most points to shut-up during the last few class times so that the rest of the class could catch up. (I believe at this point the high amount was 23, and most people had between 6-15 or 26-65% respectively.)
If the point of the game was to achieve vocal participation, then it was obviously successful, but at what cost? There was a distinct sense at some points, that the comments made were specifically for participation credit instead for improving the learning atmosphere of the class. Then again, the ability of a comment to be thought provoking and promote further discussion does not always lie with the intention of the student to have it do so, and often the mere energy created by the high volume of comments was enough to improve learning. In this regard, therefore, I believe the game accomplished its goal, and provide an excellent example of the mechanics of the game can integrally affect the outcome of the system.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Exhaustion
As much as I have wanted to play around and experiment with games and management ideas, the last few weeks have beat me down. They have taken all my energy and offered very little in return. Games design requires more thought than I have available at the moment, and as much as I would like to change and innovate systems, I am forced to merely get by.
Hope does remain, however. This summer I supervised 6 people, last year and the year before I supervised 10-15, but starting this week my supervisory responsibilities have increased to about 100. The number isn't important except that it is 1. a bit overwhelming (at least for now) 2. segmented into three different groups and 3. something I have no experience with.
Instead of designing a game, then, I think it is more important to lay some groundwork. One group is key: the desk supervisors. They are among the most responsible student workers on campus, and pay they seem to pay attention to my advice because I used to do and excel at what they do now. I realize that without even meaning to I have been instilling in them the key principle to using games for management: choice.
The whole point of everything I want to do with games and management is to give people the incentive to choose what the supervisor wants them to choose. All I told the desk workers was this, "As a supervisor your powers are like nuclear weapons. You must always consider the fallout. You have the power to force somebody to work the hours you want, but at what cost?" They have bought into this principle wholeheartedly so far, which has cost them time and energy to try to get their schedules filled, but at the same time it has forced them so start asking the question, "well, if I can't force people to work, how can I get them to choose to work?" And to answer that question they will have to think creatively, and I will have to have solutions for them if they seek help from me.
Best of luck to us all.
Hope does remain, however. This summer I supervised 6 people, last year and the year before I supervised 10-15, but starting this week my supervisory responsibilities have increased to about 100. The number isn't important except that it is 1. a bit overwhelming (at least for now) 2. segmented into three different groups and 3. something I have no experience with.
Instead of designing a game, then, I think it is more important to lay some groundwork. One group is key: the desk supervisors. They are among the most responsible student workers on campus, and pay they seem to pay attention to my advice because I used to do and excel at what they do now. I realize that without even meaning to I have been instilling in them the key principle to using games for management: choice.
The whole point of everything I want to do with games and management is to give people the incentive to choose what the supervisor wants them to choose. All I told the desk workers was this, "As a supervisor your powers are like nuclear weapons. You must always consider the fallout. You have the power to force somebody to work the hours you want, but at what cost?" They have bought into this principle wholeheartedly so far, which has cost them time and energy to try to get their schedules filled, but at the same time it has forced them so start asking the question, "well, if I can't force people to work, how can I get them to choose to work?" And to answer that question they will have to think creatively, and I will have to have solutions for them if they seek help from me.
Best of luck to us all.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Highest low experiment revival?
(The end) The summer is almost officially over. A winner to my highest-low experiment has been announced (She won with 1 pt, meaning she did everything once and one thing twice), and I am feeling very blaise about the whole thing. I'm not too disappointed it didn't work better, I just want to make sure it didn't work for the wrong reasons.
(Enter the opportunity) I left up my scoring chart in the office I was working out of over the summer because I thought, "well who knows, maybe I could get the new fall staff to participate." This happens to be a pretty realistic thought. The fall staffs spend a lot more time together, meet on a more regular basis, and in general care more about work. I talked with their supervisor and explained the concept and had her "intrigued," which is the easy part, but which opens the door for the possibility.
(Question mark) Will the new supervisor be able to come up with the right set of catagories to make the game work? If the game works because the people involved are more work-oriented does that make the game irrelevant? Is it worth the risk? (Risk?)
Cheers!
(Enter the opportunity) I left up my scoring chart in the office I was working out of over the summer because I thought, "well who knows, maybe I could get the new fall staff to participate." This happens to be a pretty realistic thought. The fall staffs spend a lot more time together, meet on a more regular basis, and in general care more about work. I talked with their supervisor and explained the concept and had her "intrigued," which is the easy part, but which opens the door for the possibility.
(Question mark) Will the new supervisor be able to come up with the right set of catagories to make the game work? If the game works because the people involved are more work-oriented does that make the game irrelevant? Is it worth the risk? (Risk?)
Cheers!
Monday, June 29, 2009
When to give up
I think only about 33% of my plans are successful. I have always been a hit or miss kind of guy and that is okay with me. I learn best by failing so I am coming to accept it without letting it discourage me from continuing forward. I think it is good to live by the old adage that a good baseball player fails two-thirds of the time at the plate.
But the question at hand is, when is it appropriate to call it quits on a particular experiment. The relative difference of last month to the month previous has really interrupted my plans for the highest-low game, but I am not convinced it will ever work the way I want it. On the other hand, I know my workers a lot better now, and think that I totally misjudged the incentives. What my workers want more than anything else is TIME OFF, not a parking spot or a gift certificate.
Secondly, I misjudged the complexity of the game (as I have already mentioned in an earlier post) and perhaps the SUBTLETY as well.
Are these brief observations enough to rationalize scrapping the game altogether? (By scrapping I mean, never mention it again because by this point nobody cares and everyone tunes me out anyway). Or is it worth trying to refine it and adapt it for the last month of the summer? Designing management games is not like designing regular board games that can be playtested quickly, refined, and pulled out again after some tweaking, so how can I playtest new hypotheses?
Some game designers are really game engineers. They can visualize beforehand how all the rules will fit together, which saves them a lot of time from playtesting ideas that would never work. I value this method of design, but I have not yet developed the ability to do it that way. As I said before, I learn by failure, and I will test 30 ideas as long as each one is new and exciting and I am convinced that among the 30 there is at least one winning combination.
But the question at hand is, when is it appropriate to call it quits on a particular experiment. The relative difference of last month to the month previous has really interrupted my plans for the highest-low game, but I am not convinced it will ever work the way I want it. On the other hand, I know my workers a lot better now, and think that I totally misjudged the incentives. What my workers want more than anything else is TIME OFF, not a parking spot or a gift certificate.
Secondly, I misjudged the complexity of the game (as I have already mentioned in an earlier post) and perhaps the SUBTLETY as well.
Are these brief observations enough to rationalize scrapping the game altogether? (By scrapping I mean, never mention it again because by this point nobody cares and everyone tunes me out anyway). Or is it worth trying to refine it and adapt it for the last month of the summer? Designing management games is not like designing regular board games that can be playtested quickly, refined, and pulled out again after some tweaking, so how can I playtest new hypotheses?
Some game designers are really game engineers. They can visualize beforehand how all the rules will fit together, which saves them a lot of time from playtesting ideas that would never work. I value this method of design, but I have not yet developed the ability to do it that way. As I said before, I learn by failure, and I will test 30 ideas as long as each one is new and exciting and I am convinced that among the 30 there is at least one winning combination.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Management blogs
Considering that much of what I hope to accomplish on this blog involves the synthesis of board games and management, I think that my readings/links have been a bit one-sided. Now to start evening (or morning?) out the playing field--that is to start balancing the scales--is a link to a management blog I have been frequenting called simply managementblog.org, which I found by googling "management blogs" (go figure). Anyways, the gentleman who writes on the blog leaves tasty bits of his conversations with managers about their problems at work and he has some valuable thoughts and insight.
I will be looking for some more to follow and will post them here as well, or put them in the links section at the right.
As always, any suggestions would be welcomed.
I will be looking for some more to follow and will post them here as well, or put them in the links section at the right.
As always, any suggestions would be welcomed.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Worker Placement #2
As promised, here are some pictures of my "Worker Placement" scheduling game.
This isn't overwhelming is it?
Overall there were spots for 201 workers on 7 pages of 8 1/2" X 11" paper taped to the office table. I wish I could have gotten some action shots of people "playing" (picking their poison), but lack of foresight has prevented this.
Here is a close-up of one piece of paper. Each paper contained 3-4 days worth of scheduling. Half of the challenge for the worker placement game was in the design of the pages. I really wanted to get all four tasks for each set of days on the same page without making it too complicated. Before adopting this design I thought about using Starburts instead of Skittles because I was concerned about Skittles rolling around, but I couldn't figure out a design that would accommodate the awkward square shape of Starbursts (I actually compromised and used Starburst Jellybeans in addition to Skittles).
I consider the worker placement scheduling game a success. I managed to get 201 shifts scheduled in under three hours and I didn't have to force anybody to take any shifts (since they are getting paid salary instead of hourly, it can be difficult to get them to work hourly shifts). Everyone got to pick their own hours AND their own type of tasks. From that standpoint I am very pleased.
There were some things I would change for the future though. First, and most importantly, the time could be reduced. I had each person select two shifts at a time. While for most, selection was fast and easy, some people took close to ten minutes to decide where to put two workers. With 201 shifts total, the game dragged on. Next time I think that by having players select four shifts at a time instead of two that the game would be shortened.
Second, the incredible and unique visual spectacle of 201 Skittles and jellybeans on the table in geometric order overwhelmed some of the workers. Instead of being pleased that they only had 18 shifts to work over the course of a month and that they had the opportunity to pick every one of their shifts, they instead saw a jam-packed month of hard work (and no overtime pay). I have had to combat feelings of despair and negativity. I don't have any ideas yet about how to avoid this side-effect, but it is also possible that the negative attitudes were brought to the table before the game began, which means that a fresh crop of workers could yield different results.
Lastly, since this was my first time scheduling these types of tasks I had no ideas evaluating the tasks relative to each other. In the game a four hour desk shift and a 45 minute bed-stripping session were each one selection, which means that somebody who picked mostly desk shifts would be working predominately more hours than somebody who picked mostly bed-stripping. I don't see the time difference as a very big problem, as long as the relative difficulty of each task is the same, which I am sure is not the case. Next time I would make the more difficult shifts allow the player to place an extra worker--in essence reducing the amount of shifts they would have altogether--so that there would be more incentive to pick harder shifts and relative fairness would increase.
Still, I am pleased. The worker placement mechanic was helpful in achieving my scheduling goals, and I think that worker placement could be expanded to improve other aspects of management as well.
This isn't overwhelming is it?
Overall there were spots for 201 workers on 7 pages of 8 1/2" X 11" paper taped to the office table. I wish I could have gotten some action shots of people "playing" (picking their poison), but lack of foresight has prevented this.
Here is a close-up of one piece of paper. Each paper contained 3-4 days worth of scheduling. Half of the challenge for the worker placement game was in the design of the pages. I really wanted to get all four tasks for each set of days on the same page without making it too complicated. Before adopting this design I thought about using Starburts instead of Skittles because I was concerned about Skittles rolling around, but I couldn't figure out a design that would accommodate the awkward square shape of Starbursts (I actually compromised and used Starburst Jellybeans in addition to Skittles).
I consider the worker placement scheduling game a success. I managed to get 201 shifts scheduled in under three hours and I didn't have to force anybody to take any shifts (since they are getting paid salary instead of hourly, it can be difficult to get them to work hourly shifts). Everyone got to pick their own hours AND their own type of tasks. From that standpoint I am very pleased.
There were some things I would change for the future though. First, and most importantly, the time could be reduced. I had each person select two shifts at a time. While for most, selection was fast and easy, some people took close to ten minutes to decide where to put two workers. With 201 shifts total, the game dragged on. Next time I think that by having players select four shifts at a time instead of two that the game would be shortened.
Second, the incredible and unique visual spectacle of 201 Skittles and jellybeans on the table in geometric order overwhelmed some of the workers. Instead of being pleased that they only had 18 shifts to work over the course of a month and that they had the opportunity to pick every one of their shifts, they instead saw a jam-packed month of hard work (and no overtime pay). I have had to combat feelings of despair and negativity. I don't have any ideas yet about how to avoid this side-effect, but it is also possible that the negative attitudes were brought to the table before the game began, which means that a fresh crop of workers could yield different results.
Lastly, since this was my first time scheduling these types of tasks I had no ideas evaluating the tasks relative to each other. In the game a four hour desk shift and a 45 minute bed-stripping session were each one selection, which means that somebody who picked mostly desk shifts would be working predominately more hours than somebody who picked mostly bed-stripping. I don't see the time difference as a very big problem, as long as the relative difficulty of each task is the same, which I am sure is not the case. Next time I would make the more difficult shifts allow the player to place an extra worker--in essence reducing the amount of shifts they would have altogether--so that there would be more incentive to pick harder shifts and relative fairness would increase.
Still, I am pleased. The worker placement mechanic was helpful in achieving my scheduling goals, and I think that worker placement could be expanded to improve other aspects of management as well.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Worker Placement #1
Thus far, my most successful application of board game mechanics to management have been to the scheduling process. Recently I had the task of scheduling 11 workers to four different and diverse tasks over the course of one month. Task 1 was pre-checking rooms to make sure they were ready for guests. Task 2 was working the front desk for four-hour increments. Task 3 was conducting tours, and task 4 was stripping linens from beds and taking them to a designated location.
I'm convinced that when workers are able to choose what they have to do, they are more likely to do a better job. In addition, I'm also convinced that when workers have to compete for the opportunity to do the job they want then they will be even more effective.
Enter the worker placement method. First, and most importantly, I had to create a "board" that contained ALL the available options. I figured that simplicity was key so I slaved over an adequate board for hours, trying to get the right design so that all the available shifts could be seen on one sheet including a corresponding calendar so that they knew when the shift was relative to the others. I wanted the whole experience to be a visual representation of everything they would have to do over the course of the entire month. In all there ended up being 201 shifts, which divided by 11 people is 18 shifts per person, with three left over.
Next I had to choose appropriate game pieces. I don't have enough colors or pieces to facilitate 201 selections so I decided to buy skittles and jellybeans to represent each player's "workers."
Finally, I placed 18 skittles or jellybeans of each color in small plastic cups and designated those candies as "not for eating." The rules were simple. On your turn place two of your workers on any two open spots. Game progressed around the table clockwise and then backwards in typical draft-style fashion.
The result looked something like this:
(Although for some reason Blogger is not letting me load photos so they will have to wait until a later time)
Check back soon for the pictures and my review of how it went.
I'm convinced that when workers are able to choose what they have to do, they are more likely to do a better job. In addition, I'm also convinced that when workers have to compete for the opportunity to do the job they want then they will be even more effective.
Enter the worker placement method. First, and most importantly, I had to create a "board" that contained ALL the available options. I figured that simplicity was key so I slaved over an adequate board for hours, trying to get the right design so that all the available shifts could be seen on one sheet including a corresponding calendar so that they knew when the shift was relative to the others. I wanted the whole experience to be a visual representation of everything they would have to do over the course of the entire month. In all there ended up being 201 shifts, which divided by 11 people is 18 shifts per person, with three left over.
Next I had to choose appropriate game pieces. I don't have enough colors or pieces to facilitate 201 selections so I decided to buy skittles and jellybeans to represent each player's "workers."
Finally, I placed 18 skittles or jellybeans of each color in small plastic cups and designated those candies as "not for eating." The rules were simple. On your turn place two of your workers on any two open spots. Game progressed around the table clockwise and then backwards in typical draft-style fashion.
The result looked something like this:
(Although for some reason Blogger is not letting me load photos so they will have to wait until a later time)
Check back soon for the pictures and my review of how it went.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
21 Games
(Not my wall of games...unfortunately?)My good friend Jeff got married last weekend. I'm so proud of him.
While I was at the wedding, his brother, a real estate agent with an entrepreneurial drive, encouraged me to delve into a discussion about 21 different games, analyzing each one for its application to management.
Until now, I have merely been creating and testing a couple hypotheses, which have been valuable to my progress so far and have helped me to understand what I am really trying to do, but I think his idea will help me to broaden the scope of my ideas and challenge me to develop a more comprehensive--and hopefully relevant--set of board game applications.
My goal then, over the course of the next year (2? 3?) is to take Jeff's brother's advice and compile on this blog the applications I can draw from 21 different games. I'm not sure whether I will limit this to board games or not, although if I do I will need to invest pretty heavily in some new games, which, for a poor college grad, could take a while. I will take donations (wink).
Also, I am unsure whether I will study every mechanic within a game for any semblance of application, or whether I will simply pick a mechanic that sticks out to me as being particularly useful and investigate it in detail.
In either case, I am interested in your, the reader's, suggestions for any games that you feel might be appropriate for this discussion. The list of games I own is pretty limited, but I would like to have some more ideas about which games to buy, so that I can spend my money wisely.
Thanks to Brettspiel
A big thank you to Brett at Brettspiel for the shout out. Only problem is, if people start linking to my blog then I'm going to have to update it more often!
Friday, May 29, 2009
Further Challenges
I was reading on Brettspiel about a book that discusses the importance of simplicity in systems (such as board games). Among the points argued is the basic premise that the system that is presented in the simplest way, without sacrificing any internal complexity, is the best system.
In my highest-low system I have found that the perceived complexity has hindered my employees interaction within the game. While it is true that the system is not really that complex, the scoring mechanism is a completely new and foreign concept to most people it, which limits their understanding of the system. As a result I have found, for example, that most of the employees forget or choose not to participate, and those who do participate have completely ignored one of the rules I set in place: that your score for the week is the score of the category you did the least amount during the week.
Instead, they have been reporting activities in one or two catagories for an entire week, which, according to my rules, would get them zero points. At this point I begin to wonder if they misunderstand the concept entirely, or if they simply forgot that I would be tallying scores every week instead of cumulatively over the whole summer.
To solve the problem I have assumed the latter and ignored the former, supposing that I could begin scoring cumulatively without anyone knowing the difference. At the same time, this will allow me to use the chart I made, which--when people see that others are participating--may create more incentive for everyone else to get involved.
After three weeks I did not expect to have as many roadblocks as I have had so far, but I should have expected at least this. In game design there are uncountable side-effects and incentive barriers that appear once people are added to the system. My goal is to "playtest" game mechanics in real management settings as much as possible so that they can be implemented in similar situations as easily as possible. The questions, then, are: How many playtests are required to get a game right? and Are there enough opportunities to playtest the number of times that are needed to reach the goal?
In my highest-low system I have found that the perceived complexity has hindered my employees interaction within the game. While it is true that the system is not really that complex, the scoring mechanism is a completely new and foreign concept to most people it, which limits their understanding of the system. As a result I have found, for example, that most of the employees forget or choose not to participate, and those who do participate have completely ignored one of the rules I set in place: that your score for the week is the score of the category you did the least amount during the week.
Instead, they have been reporting activities in one or two catagories for an entire week, which, according to my rules, would get them zero points. At this point I begin to wonder if they misunderstand the concept entirely, or if they simply forgot that I would be tallying scores every week instead of cumulatively over the whole summer.
To solve the problem I have assumed the latter and ignored the former, supposing that I could begin scoring cumulatively without anyone knowing the difference. At the same time, this will allow me to use the chart I made, which--when people see that others are participating--may create more incentive for everyone else to get involved.
After three weeks I did not expect to have as many roadblocks as I have had so far, but I should have expected at least this. In game design there are uncountable side-effects and incentive barriers that appear once people are added to the system. My goal is to "playtest" game mechanics in real management settings as much as possible so that they can be implemented in similar situations as easily as possible. The questions, then, are: How many playtests are required to get a game right? and Are there enough opportunities to playtest the number of times that are needed to reach the goal?
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Experiment adendum 1
After one week of the highest-low experiment I was slightly discouraged. People weren't reporting when they did extra actions! Was the highest-low mechanic not working? Or was something else wrong?
After talking with the staff and shrugging off my disappointment (person with the highest-low each week gets the reserved parking space in front of the building so I thanked them for allowing me to have it another week) I realized that the main problem was forgetfulness. In order to score, they were required to email me every time they did an extra action, which means they would have to remember to email me several times throughout the week. My solution (and I will see how this works out) was to print off self-reporting sheets. As they go through the week they put a tally every time they do something and then bring the sheet to our weekly staff meeting. Hopefully they will remember to bring the sheet.
I think the solution will work, but I am not sure it is the most efficient one. I had to come up with it relatively fast, which, as in the case with any new rules, could be disastrous the system. There are already at least two side-effect that I can identify: that since scores will only be reported at the end of every week, there will be no way to check other's progress and be encouraged to compete, and second, this system all but eliminates the need for the highest-low game board I made that is now hanging on the office wall. Sad.
I also forgot to mention to them that the winner for the whole summer will earn $30 to a restaurant of their choice. They didn't ask, which means that if they really embrace the game this next week (operating solely on the incentive for the parking space and to help one another) then I may cut the award down to $20 and save myself some cash.
After talking with the staff and shrugging off my disappointment (person with the highest-low each week gets the reserved parking space in front of the building so I thanked them for allowing me to have it another week) I realized that the main problem was forgetfulness. In order to score, they were required to email me every time they did an extra action, which means they would have to remember to email me several times throughout the week. My solution (and I will see how this works out) was to print off self-reporting sheets. As they go through the week they put a tally every time they do something and then bring the sheet to our weekly staff meeting. Hopefully they will remember to bring the sheet.
I think the solution will work, but I am not sure it is the most efficient one. I had to come up with it relatively fast, which, as in the case with any new rules, could be disastrous the system. There are already at least two side-effect that I can identify: that since scores will only be reported at the end of every week, there will be no way to check other's progress and be encouraged to compete, and second, this system all but eliminates the need for the highest-low game board I made that is now hanging on the office wall. Sad.
I also forgot to mention to them that the winner for the whole summer will earn $30 to a restaurant of their choice. They didn't ask, which means that if they really embrace the game this next week (operating solely on the incentive for the parking space and to help one another) then I may cut the award down to $20 and save myself some cash.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Highest-Low Mechanic Experiment
This summer I plan to test the hypothesis I stated in the last post. I will be supervising 6 individuals. Their required duties include: scheduling appointments with camp coordinators, signing over keys to guests, holding a duty cell phone and responding to issues that arise, responding to emergencies as they arise in the building, checking rooms before guests arrive and after they leave, filling out all necessary paperwork. These are duties that are in the job description.
There are at least four other tasks that I wish to encourage through the use of a highest-low game. These include, working together on tasks to improve camaraderie, ensuring we never run out of forms, and continually monitoring bulletin boards. These are not in the job description, and I feel I prefer to not add to the list of things that they are forced to do. Instead I hope to use the highest-low mechanism to provide incentive to choose to do that which I want done.
Here is an example chart:
I acknowledge the words are difficult to read, but what can still be seen are the four catagories and four players. Each player moves to the right on the chart toward higher point values based on the number of times spent helping a co-worker with room-checks or sprucing up a bulletin board.
While in my previous post I described the highest-low mechanic as a victory condition, in this case, the mechanic only gives a score per round. I plan to add each employees score from the week based on the activity they did the least to an overall score for the summer. The employee with the best total score at the end of the summer will earn a $30 gift certificate to the restaurant of their choice.
One consideration: since the game will involve a certain level of trust (each employee will have to report to me what they did to move them up the chart), I do not want the prize to be so highly valued that there will be more incentive to cheat than to play by the rules, but at the same time the prize must be valuable enough to provide incentive to participate (the "game," after all, is optional).
There are at least four other tasks that I wish to encourage through the use of a highest-low game. These include, working together on tasks to improve camaraderie, ensuring we never run out of forms, and continually monitoring bulletin boards. These are not in the job description, and I feel I prefer to not add to the list of things that they are forced to do. Instead I hope to use the highest-low mechanism to provide incentive to choose to do that which I want done.
Here is an example chart:
I acknowledge the words are difficult to read, but what can still be seen are the four catagories and four players. Each player moves to the right on the chart toward higher point values based on the number of times spent helping a co-worker with room-checks or sprucing up a bulletin board.While in my previous post I described the highest-low mechanic as a victory condition, in this case, the mechanic only gives a score per round. I plan to add each employees score from the week based on the activity they did the least to an overall score for the summer. The employee with the best total score at the end of the summer will earn a $30 gift certificate to the restaurant of their choice.
One consideration: since the game will involve a certain level of trust (each employee will have to report to me what they did to move them up the chart), I do not want the prize to be so highly valued that there will be more incentive to cheat than to play by the rules, but at the same time the prize must be valuable enough to provide incentive to participate (the "game," after all, is optional).
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Highest-Low Victory
A game mechanic that has been particularly compelling to me has been the "highest-low victory." Highest-low victory, which is what I will call it (I couldn't find it in the "mechanics" section of boardgamegeek), is a type of victory condition in where players earn points in several different catagories, but the winner is the player with the highest number of points in their lowest catagory. For an example of a game that uses highest-low victory, check out Reiner Knizia's "Ingenious."
Highest-low victory provides two main incentives. First, it encourages diversity. Since it would be impossible to win the game by only improving your score in one area, players have to diversify their attention to each of the catagories. Second, it encourages competition. Players are required to compete for the same resources, which causes each resource to become more important.
As I look forward to taking on more managerial responsibilities, I am considering the ways in which a highest low mechanic can be used. Some possibilities include:
-Providing incentive to do what nobody wants to do: Specifically assigning one person boring/annoying tasks could cause that employee to feel targeted or singled-out. Furthermore, the employee assigned to the task no longer has any incentive to complete the task as fully as possible. By including the less desirable tasks within a list of required and more desirable ones, and by scoring the task that is completed least, then there is incentive for everyone to choose to do the mundane or the annoying. People will compete for the opportunity to do what they don't want to do.
-Completion of individual tasks: Employees with various individual responsibilities may tend to shirk certain responsibilities. For example, a resident assistant is required to work hours at the front desk, spend time with residents, complete paper work, and make fliers and advertisements. Highest-low victory could ensure that even paperwork gets completed.
-Requiring/Limiting Break Time: When the organization has incentive to get employees to relax, then breaks/vacations/fun tasks can be included as a category that will be scored according to highest-low victory conditions. When time-off is scored along with time-on, then it provides more incentive to work especially hard in the other areas so that they don't fall behind. This also allows employees to feel that they have control over when/where/how they relax.
-Providing incentive to learn and improve: When the highest-low is scored, then employees have incentive to improve in the areas where they struggle the most. In jobs where skill or knowledge correlates with efficiency then employees will seek out their own training tools to improve their lowest score.
Methodology of course would vary in each of the above scenarios, and one of the most important things to consider would be the type of reward given to the player with the highest low. If the reward does not match the amount of work then the game will cease to be relevant. My suggestions for the application of the Highest-Low Victory are a means for improving worker efficiency and for broadening the reach of work related incentives, as well as for giving employees a greater sense of volition in the work place.
Highest-low victory provides two main incentives. First, it encourages diversity. Since it would be impossible to win the game by only improving your score in one area, players have to diversify their attention to each of the catagories. Second, it encourages competition. Players are required to compete for the same resources, which causes each resource to become more important.
As I look forward to taking on more managerial responsibilities, I am considering the ways in which a highest low mechanic can be used. Some possibilities include:
-Providing incentive to do what nobody wants to do: Specifically assigning one person boring/annoying tasks could cause that employee to feel targeted or singled-out. Furthermore, the employee assigned to the task no longer has any incentive to complete the task as fully as possible. By including the less desirable tasks within a list of required and more desirable ones, and by scoring the task that is completed least, then there is incentive for everyone to choose to do the mundane or the annoying. People will compete for the opportunity to do what they don't want to do.
-Completion of individual tasks: Employees with various individual responsibilities may tend to shirk certain responsibilities. For example, a resident assistant is required to work hours at the front desk, spend time with residents, complete paper work, and make fliers and advertisements. Highest-low victory could ensure that even paperwork gets completed.
-Requiring/Limiting Break Time: When the organization has incentive to get employees to relax, then breaks/vacations/fun tasks can be included as a category that will be scored according to highest-low victory conditions. When time-off is scored along with time-on, then it provides more incentive to work especially hard in the other areas so that they don't fall behind. This also allows employees to feel that they have control over when/where/how they relax.
-Providing incentive to learn and improve: When the highest-low is scored, then employees have incentive to improve in the areas where they struggle the most. In jobs where skill or knowledge correlates with efficiency then employees will seek out their own training tools to improve their lowest score.
Methodology of course would vary in each of the above scenarios, and one of the most important things to consider would be the type of reward given to the player with the highest low. If the reward does not match the amount of work then the game will cease to be relevant. My suggestions for the application of the Highest-Low Victory are a means for improving worker efficiency and for broadening the reach of work related incentives, as well as for giving employees a greater sense of volition in the work place.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Economy Game
I'm watching the news today. The US government is trying to fix the economy by adding and changing rules. Rules? The economy is a system that runs on incentives and choice. In other words, the economy is a resource management game with a very complex web of rules that very few people understand. I don't follow the news very often, and I don't claim to be an expert on anything relating to politics and economics, but I am familiar with one thing. Whenever games I design get too complicated, or whenever the system doesn't work, the better option is usually to reduce the number of rules not add more. New rules sound like great and exciting ideas. This will make the game really fun! But there's a nasty hitch to some rules, and you can't know how the new rules will impact the game until you test them out.
Monday, February 23, 2009
2 Rules
A beloved middle school teach of mine by the name of Mr. G____ summarized all the expectations of classroom behavior into two short and concise rules: "Be Here," and "Be Nice." While I am convinced that many middle school teachers would have nightmares about ruling a class with such simple guidelines, I am equally convinced that students, and people in general, respond to simplicity, and more importantly, to the respect that simplicity offers. I will vouch for Mr. G____'s method by saying that the freedom we experienced in his class begot knowledge and growth.
Additional rules, while they may seek to ensure conformity and standardization, confuse the process and undermine the goal. Instead of being asked to develop in maturity, a student may be asked to obey a number of set number of behavioral rules (do not shout, do not kick the chair in front of you, be here on time, bring your notebook to class everyday), which besides assuming the student's propensity to do such things, fails to accommodate all possible transgressions. "But Ma'am, I wasn't kicking Billy's chair, I was pushing it with my foot!"
On the contrary, we can assume that any sort of transgression is possible AND likely. In order to create order, therefore, rules must address the essence of the problem, not the various heads that it rears. I'm reminded of another Man who instituted a two rule system. Jesus said, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind'. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 37-40). Jesus clarified all the laws of the Old Testament in two clear, easy to understand rules. The two rules summarize the nature of the problem, give a large measure of freedom, and enable the opportunity for personal growth and integrity.
As a peer manager of college students I assume two things to be true. First, that they do not need to be told how to sit at the front desk, for to do so would be to insinuate that they lack intelligence, and second, that when people feel respected, they will do whatever they can to live up to that respect. I follow the lead of others, therefore, when I summarize all the desk expectations into two concise rules: "Be Here," and "Be Alert." All other aspects of the job stem from these two rules, and I try to give my workers as much freedom as possible to determine how best it means to follow the rules. It does not matter so much that these rules are stated, but that they are understood. It would be counter beneficial for me to post these two rules now at the desk as if to say, "You don't get it, let me explain," but if I were to begin again I might call attention to them.
Perhaps I have not adequately related this discussion to game mechanics and theory, but I am not sure that a correlative connection is necessary. Suffice it so say, people are more likely to play the game correctly when they can remember and understand the rules, and I am more likely to be pleased by the system I create when the participants do what is right, not because everything has been explained in line item form, but rather because they are fulfilling my trust in their ability to think for themselves, to understand, and to grow in maturity.
Additional rules, while they may seek to ensure conformity and standardization, confuse the process and undermine the goal. Instead of being asked to develop in maturity, a student may be asked to obey a number of set number of behavioral rules (do not shout, do not kick the chair in front of you, be here on time, bring your notebook to class everyday), which besides assuming the student's propensity to do such things, fails to accommodate all possible transgressions. "But Ma'am, I wasn't kicking Billy's chair, I was pushing it with my foot!"
On the contrary, we can assume that any sort of transgression is possible AND likely. In order to create order, therefore, rules must address the essence of the problem, not the various heads that it rears. I'm reminded of another Man who instituted a two rule system. Jesus said, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind'. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 37-40). Jesus clarified all the laws of the Old Testament in two clear, easy to understand rules. The two rules summarize the nature of the problem, give a large measure of freedom, and enable the opportunity for personal growth and integrity.
As a peer manager of college students I assume two things to be true. First, that they do not need to be told how to sit at the front desk, for to do so would be to insinuate that they lack intelligence, and second, that when people feel respected, they will do whatever they can to live up to that respect. I follow the lead of others, therefore, when I summarize all the desk expectations into two concise rules: "Be Here," and "Be Alert." All other aspects of the job stem from these two rules, and I try to give my workers as much freedom as possible to determine how best it means to follow the rules. It does not matter so much that these rules are stated, but that they are understood. It would be counter beneficial for me to post these two rules now at the desk as if to say, "You don't get it, let me explain," but if I were to begin again I might call attention to them.
Perhaps I have not adequately related this discussion to game mechanics and theory, but I am not sure that a correlative connection is necessary. Suffice it so say, people are more likely to play the game correctly when they can remember and understand the rules, and I am more likely to be pleased by the system I create when the participants do what is right, not because everything has been explained in line item form, but rather because they are fulfilling my trust in their ability to think for themselves, to understand, and to grow in maturity.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Note on Game Looks
Tonight a friend of mine unpacked his new copy of "Wasabi" and I got a chance to hold it. It felt good, but, more importantly, it looked amazing. I stood near a group of people and they immediately took notice. "A game about sushi! Cool! Let me look at it!" This, coming from non-gamers. It was simple and gorgeous, and they wanted to play it. It looked even better after we opened it up, and I found myself envious that people were not so enthusiastic about the games that I own.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Games and scheduling
As a part of my day job I schedule a staff of about 20 people to work a front desk in a building on campus. Last night one of the workers said, "For some reason I enjoy scheduling for the desk so much better than other things. Its like a game." I was pleased to hear this. My method of scheduling is like a game.
In Fantasy Baseball drafts, managers are given a draft number. Number one picks first, and then everyone else picks in order until the last person, who picks twice. Then everybody else picks in reverse order until number one, who selects twice, and so on. It looks like this: 1,2,3,4,5,5,4,3,2,1,1,2,3,4,5,5,4...
I use the draft method for picking hours on a schedule because it is fair and fun. Every draft number has equal value and participants can plan their "draft" ahead of time by ranking the hours they want according to the likelihood desirable hours will still be open when their turn comes up again.
In addition to using a draft, I draw the entire schedule on a large white board using dry erase markers. When hours are selected I write (in corresponding color) the name of the participant who selected them. The white board provides a visual representation of what hours remain, and in a way is very much like a game board by which participants can plan their next move.
Lastly, I hand out playing cards numbered 1-X according to how many people are participating. The playing cards increases the game feel and gives players a tangible game piece for identification in the process.
The cards also present opportunities for game expansion. Players could trade cards on their turn, or select a new card from a random stack of unchosen cards. Players could have a joker which could give them a special extra move when they need to make a power play for important hours.
Scheduling could easily be mundane, but by applying game mechanics to the scheduling process it has become interesting and, for some, entertaining. Draft style is a very simple mechanism that corresponds perfectly to scheduling. The application of similar mechanics to other lugubrious interpersonal tasks could yield similar results.
In Fantasy Baseball drafts, managers are given a draft number. Number one picks first, and then everyone else picks in order until the last person, who picks twice. Then everybody else picks in reverse order until number one, who selects twice, and so on. It looks like this: 1,2,3,4,5,5,4,3,2,1,1,2,3,4,5,5,4...
I use the draft method for picking hours on a schedule because it is fair and fun. Every draft number has equal value and participants can plan their "draft" ahead of time by ranking the hours they want according to the likelihood desirable hours will still be open when their turn comes up again.
In addition to using a draft, I draw the entire schedule on a large white board using dry erase markers. When hours are selected I write (in corresponding color) the name of the participant who selected them. The white board provides a visual representation of what hours remain, and in a way is very much like a game board by which participants can plan their next move.
Lastly, I hand out playing cards numbered 1-X according to how many people are participating. The playing cards increases the game feel and gives players a tangible game piece for identification in the process.
The cards also present opportunities for game expansion. Players could trade cards on their turn, or select a new card from a random stack of unchosen cards. Players could have a joker which could give them a special extra move when they need to make a power play for important hours.
Scheduling could easily be mundane, but by applying game mechanics to the scheduling process it has become interesting and, for some, entertaining. Draft style is a very simple mechanism that corresponds perfectly to scheduling. The application of similar mechanics to other lugubrious interpersonal tasks could yield similar results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
