Design Thinking and Participation: Lessons Learned from Three Case Studies

This paper examines how design thinking and serious games approaches can be used to support participation through the analysis of three case studies. Indeed we will analyze these approaches in three different contexts: (i) a state-owned multi-utilities company; (ii) a political party; (iii) an information system strategic committee. Our analysis framework relies on the concepts of "perceived usefulness" and "perceived ease of use" and we will use it to discuss the lessons learned. Our main finding is that these approaches really contributing in making complex and abstract matters more "tangible" and thus understandable.participation; design thinking; serious games; case study; perceived usefulness

Designing a serious game for community-based disease prevention in the Amazon

Many developing regions around the world rely on community-based healthcare strategies and practices to deal with prevention and control of often neglected diseases, by educating the local population and healthcare professionals, on the mechanisms by which such diseases spread and how they can be controlled. In this paper we describe a multiplayer serious game designed to raise awareness, and foster adoption of preventive measures among local citizens and community-health professionals about Leishmaniosis. We also discuss how the underlying concept for this game and its mechanics have been iteratively designed and developed in collaboration with a group of people with relevant medical and research expertise as well as practical knowledge resulting from working with our target population

On a property of mixed strategy equilibria of the pricing game

Before solving a two-stage capacity and pricing game for oligopoly, Boccard and Wauthy (2000) argue that, as under duopoly, at a mixed strategy equilibrium of the pricing game the largest firm's expected profit is the profit accruing to it as a Stackelberg follower when the rivals supply their entire capacity. We point to a serious mistake in their argument and then we see how this important property can be satisfactorily established.Bertrand competition

No Grice: Computers that Lie, Deceive and Conceal

In the future our daily life interactions with other people, with computers, robots and smart environments will be recorded and interpreted by computers or embedded intelligence in environments, furniture, robots, displays, and wearables. These sensors record our activities, our behavior, and our interactions. Fusion of such information and reasoning about such information makes it possible, using computational models of human behavior and activities, to provide context- and person-aware interpretations of human behavior and activities, including determination of attitudes, moods, and emotions. Sensors include cameras, microphones, eye trackers, position and proximity sensors, tactile or smell sensors, et cetera. Sensors can be embedded in an environment, but they can also move around, for example, if they are part of a mobile social robot or if they are part of devices we carry around or are embedded in our clothes or body. \ud \ud Our daily life behavior and daily life interactions are recorded and interpreted. How can we use such environments and how can such environments use us? Do we always want to cooperate with these environments; do these environments always want to cooperate with us? In this paper we argue that there are many reasons that users or rather human partners of these environments do want to keep information about their intentions and their emotions hidden from these smart environments. On the other hand, their artificial interaction partner may have similar reasons to not give away all information they have or to treat their human partner as an opponent rather than someone that has to be supported by smart technology.\ud \ud This will be elaborated in this paper. We will survey examples of human-computer interactions where there is not necessarily a goal to be explicit about intentions and feelings. In subsequent sections we will look at (1) the computer as a conversational partner, (2) the computer as a butler or diary companion, (3) the computer as a teacher or a trainer, acting in a virtual training environment (a serious game), (4) sports applications (that are not necessarily different from serious game or education environments), and games and entertainment applications

The frontlines of brand risk: interview with Patrick Marrinan

Whether it be the NFL, Dove, Wells Fargo, VW or countless others–managers need only open a daily newspaper to see how things can go terribly wrong for brands. Decline can be fast and the landing hard. In a contemporary marketplace where ideologies reign and social media guarantees the spread of (mis)information at light speed, a lot of what we think we know about brand marketing needs to be rethought through a risk-management lens. “For me, brand risk is any event, action or condition with the potential to damage a brand’s value, thereby making revenue generation and a company’s market value less than it should or could have been,” Patrick Marrinan, Managing Principal of Marketing Scenario Analytica, states. In his talk with Susan Fournier and Shuba Srinivasan, Patrick illustrates the many facets of a risk that has only begun to be recognized as a serious threat to carefully cultivated brand assets. Here we share what to watch out for and what brands can do to protect against risk.Published versio

Understanding Engagement within the Context of a Safety Critical Game

One of the most frequent arguments for deploying serious games is that they provide an engaging format for student learning. However, engagement is often equated with enjoyment, which may not be the most relevant conceptualization in safety-critical settings, such as law enforcement and healthcare. In these contexts, the term ‘serious’ does not only relate to the non-entertainment purpose of the game but also the environment simulated by the game. In addition, a lack of engagement in a safety critical training setting can have serious ethical implications, leading to significant real-world impacts. However, evaluations of safety-critical games (SCGs) rarely provide an in-depth consideration of player experience. Thus, in relation to simulation game-based training, we are left without a clear understanding of what sort of experience players are having, what factors influence their engagement and how their engagement relates to learning. In order to address these issues, this paper reports on the mixed-method evaluation of a SCG that was developed to support police training. The findings indicate that engagement is supported by the experience situational relevance, due to the player’s experience of real-world authenticity, targeted feedback mechanisms and learning challenges

I Don't Want to Think About it Now:Decision Theory With Costly Computation

Computation plays a major role in decision making. Even if an agent is willing to ascribe a probability to all states and a utility to all outcomes, and maximize expected utility, doing so might present serious computational problems. Moreover, computing the outcome of a given act might be difficult. In a companion paper we develop a framework for game theory with costly computation, where the objects of choice are Turing machines. Here we apply that framework to decision theory. We show how well-known phenomena like first-impression-matters biases (i.e., people tend to put more weight on evidence they hear early on), belief polarization (two people with different prior beliefs, hearing the same evidence, can end up with diametrically opposed conclusions), and the status quo bias (people are much more likely to stick with what they already have) can be easily captured in that framework. Finally, we use the framework to define some new notions: value of computational information (a computational variant of value of information) and and computational value of conversation.Comment: In Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR '10

The criminalization of lying: Under what circumstances, if any, should lies be made criminal?

This is the post-print version of the Article. The official published version can be accessed from the link - Copyright @ 2011 University of Illinois PressThis Article argues that lying should be a crime. In doing so, we propose the creation of a wholly new category of crime, which we term “egregious lying causing serious harm.” The Article has two broad objectives: the first is to make the case why such a crime should even exist, and the second is to flesh out how this crime might be constructed. The main contribution of the Article lies in the radical nature of its stated aim: the outright criminalization of certain kinds of lies. To our knowledge, such a proposal has not previously been made. The analysis also contributes to a broader discussion regarding the issue of overcriminalization. We conclude that while criminalizing certain forms of lies might at first blush appear fanciful, the case for doing so is not only plausible, it is indeed necessary