D2.2 Summary report and compilation of design challenges, design briefs, and wireframes in year two

Deliverable 2.2 1 Deliverable 2.2 Summary report and compilation of design challenges, design briefs and wireframes in year two Work Package: WP2: Intervention Design Grant Agreement Number : 101094766 Due date of deliverable : 31st January 2025 Actual submission date: 31st January 2025 Start date of project: 01/02/2023 (36 months) Dissemination Level: main body, public (PU); annex 1 & 2 confidential (C0) Deliverable Lead: Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR) Authors : Dai Griffiths ([email protected]), Natalia Padilla-Zea ([email protected]), Joaquín Alonso ([email protected]), Daniel Burgos ([email protected]) Contributors: Anna Merry ([email protected]), Aravella Zachariou ([email protected]), Jude Ower ([email protected]), Joost Schuur ([email protected]), Michelle Tang ([email protected]), Connor Arnold ([email protected]), Simon Egenfeldt Nielsen ([email protected]), Tim Garder ([email protected]), Paul Hollins ([email protected]), Paul Watson ([email protected]), Rebecca Harris ([email protected]c.uk), Anchal Garg [email protected], Barbara Kieslinger ([email protected]), Katharina Koller ([email protected]), Claudia Fabian ([email protected]) Point of Contact: Hendrik Drachsler ([email protected]) Deliverable 2.2 2 Deliverable Information Reviewers Claudia Fabian ([email protected]), Anna Merry ([email protected]) Status [ ] Plan [ ] Draft [ ] Working [ ] Internal review [x] Final [ ] Approved Abstract (for public dissemination only) The GREAT project explores ways of using games-based activities to help citizens express their opinions and attitudes to emerging policies and makes the results available to policymakers. To this end, the task of WP2 is to work with stakeholders on dilemmas related to climate change, carrying out activities to develop design challenges, design briefs and wireframes for games-based activities. This report consists of a summary of the activities carried out in year two of the project. Detailed planning and reporting documents are provided in Annex 1, and supplementary material in Annex 2. Both annexes are confidential. Keywords Policy dilemma, design challenge, design brief, wireframes Statement of originality This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise. Acknowledgement of previously published material and of the work of others has been made through appropriate citation, quotation, or both. Version Date Comment 0.1 04/11/2024 Draft 0.1 document created 0.2 22/01/2025 Version for peer review 1.0 30/01/2025 Final version The information, documentation and figures in this deliverable are written by the GREAT project consortium under EC grant agreement number 101094766 and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. The European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein. Deliverable 2.2 3 Table of Contents List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 4! List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... 4! List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................... 4! Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................... 5! Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 6! 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8! 2. Overview of policy stakeholders and activities .................................................................... 11! 3. Step one: create and prioritise research topics .................................................................. 15! 3.1 GCS1 UNDP exploratory, step 1 ......................................................................................... 15! 3.2 GCS2 Waterwise, step 1 ...................................................................................................... 18! 3.3 GCS3 Green Jobs, step 1 .................................................................................................... 19! 3.4 GCS5 UNDP Play2Act, step 1 ........................................................................................... 20! 3.5 Reflections on step 1 activities .......................................................................................... 21! 4. Step two: collaborate in study design ................................................................................... 24! 4.1 GCS1 UNDP exploratory, step 2 ....................................................................................... 24! 4.2 GCS2 Waterwise, step 2 .................................................................................................... 25! 4.3 GCS3 Green Jobs, step 2 .................................................................................................. 27! 4.4 GCS5 UNDP Play2Act, step 2 .......................................................................................... 28! 4.5 Reflections on step 2 activities ........................................................................................ 29! 5. Step three: collaborate in game design ................................................................................ 31! 5.1 GCS1 UNDP exploratory, step 3 ........................................................................................ 31! 5.2 GCS2 Waterwise, step 3 .................................................................................................... 32! 5.3 GCS3 Green Jobs, step 3 .................................................................................................. 34! 5. 4 GCS4 Rooftop Revolution (formerly Green Rooftops), step 3b .............................. 35! 5.5 GCS5 UNDP Play2Act, step 3 .......................................................................................... 36! 5.6 Reflections on step 3 .......................................................................................................... 37! 6. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 39! 6.1 Operational results and lessons learned ....................................................................... 39! Responding to time pressures ............................................................................................ 39! Tools and data ........................................................................................................................ 40! Deliverable 2.2 4 The distinction between wireframes and implementation .......................................... 40! 6.2 WP2 contributions to answering the GREAT research questions .......................... 40! Great research question 1.1 .................................................................................................. 40! 6.3 Contributions to the GREAT research agenda ............................................................ 42! References ........................................................................................................................................ 43! Annexes ............................................................................................................................................. 44! List of Figures Figure 1: Steps 1, 2 and 3 of the GREAT case study cycle....................................................12 List of Tables Table 1: Design activities conducted...........................................................................................13 Table 2: Brief descriptions of policy stakeholders involved.................................................14 Table 3: Research lines emerging from WP2 work in GREAT year 2................................42 List of Abbreviations DiBL Dilemma Based Learning ECRN European Creative Rooftop Network GREAT Games Realising Effective Affective Transformation NDC Nationally Determined Contribution SDG Sustainable Development Goal UNDP United Nations Development Program WP Work Package Deliverable 2.2 5 Acknowledgements We are deeply grateful to the following organisations for providing the context within which GREAT could carry out the activities described in this report, and for their active collaboration in our work. • Urban Gorillas, Cyprus • Klima-und Energiefonds, Austria • Zentrum polis - Austrian Centre for Citizenship Education in Schools • Waterwise • The United Nations Development Program We are also enormously grateful to the following game studios for their participation in GREAT, and for enabling citizens to express their view on the climate crisis through their games. • Actrio Studio • Amazon Games • Bandai Namco • Creative Mobile • Eline Media • FunPlus • Futurevision • HiRez • Jagex • Kwalee • Lockwood • Niantic • Rovio • SpaceApe • Sybo Games • Ten Square • Trailmix • TripleDot • Unity • UsTwo • Xbox Deliverable 2.2 6 Executive Summary GREAT WP 2 Intervention Design has two main responsibilities in the project. Firstly, it ensures that the case studies carried out by the project address the real needs of policy makers and other policy stakeholders. Secondly, it collaborates with policy stakeholders and games providers to generate detailed effective designs for interventions and instruments. The completed designs are then implemented in WP3 by the game platforms participating in the project: the serious games platform DiBL from partner SGI, and the PlanetPlay app which can be embedded in commercial games to gather the views of large numbers of players. The present deliverable summarises the work carried out by WP2 during year two of the GREAT project. The GREAT project methodology defines a cycle with eight steps. The work of WP2 corresponds to the first three steps, whose purpose is as follows. • Step 1: Definition of what the case study will achieve and with who (a design challenge) • Step 2: Game activity concepts to address a policy dilemma (a design brief) • Step 3: Collaborative design of game-based activities (documented as wireframes) In year two of the project five case studies were active, and they completed 13 steps, each of which is described in the main body of the public deliverable. Additional documentation is available in Annex 1, Planning and Reporting Documents, and Annex 2, Supplementary Material. These annexes contain private and potentially sensitive information, and so they are confidential to the GREAT consortium and to the European Commission. The outputs of WP2 have been sufficient to facilitate the implementation of each case study. The work has also generated valuable information for future implementation, and insight into the project’s research lines. Step 1 started from the assumption that policymaking stakeholders needed to obtain information from citizens to inform decision making but had not yet articulated a specific dilemma, nor the way in which this should be done. This proved to be true for some policymaking stakeholders, but some already had a clear priority focus before starting work. Others had a more general need for information than had been anticipated, which could not easily be captured as a tightly focused dilemma. Based on our work in year 2, we distinguish four categories of policy stakeholder: policy legislator, policy enabler, policy implementer, and policy influencers. Each of these has their own priorities, capacities and constraints, in terms of the scope of their competence, their relationship with other bodies or social movements which may constrain their activities, and the open-ended nature of their Deliverable 2.2 7 required outcomes, and the variety of stakeholders which they contain. The results reported here suggest that these have a strong influence on the way that they engage with collaborative design activities. In step three it was found that distinction between the design of wireframes (within the scope of WP2) and implementation (WP3) was hard to maintain in practice, because the capabilities and constraints of the platform have a strong influence on design decisions. This led to more iteration than had been foreseen and highlighted the importance of facilitators having a strong high-level understanding of technical aspects of the systems for which designs are intended. Time constraints on some policymakers’ availability for collaborative design also led to iteration, and to shorter and more informal interactions between key participants, usually by email and videoconferencing. This also led GREAT staff to complement their facilitation role with a more consulting role, working with stakeholders and developers to identify and elicit the information which is required for the design of a successful games-based intervention. A crucial enabler was personal contact between GREAT and policy stakeholders. In particular, in the work with the PlanetPlay infrastructure, corporate, professional, and personal contacts were strongly leveraged in establishing the agreement of games studios to participate in the project. The publication and format of data was an important issue for policymakers, as the comparison of GREAT data from different countries, regions or sectors may be perceived as unflattering for some in terms of their policy awareness or implementation. Similarly, games studios recognised the benefits of obtaining new data about their players, but identified risks associated with inappropriate sharing of commercially valuable information. In both cases, the risks associated with GREAT data emerge from the fact that it is not constrained or regulated by traditional data management or editorial processes. This is the strength of GREAT, which enables it to access interesting new data, but it should be recognised that it carries with it concomitant risks, and that these need to be discussed openly and resolved with collaborating stakeholders at the design stage. Deliverable 2.2 8 1. Introduction The GREAT project is concerned with the design and evaluation of consultative methods using games-based methods which can support policymakers in the formulation of policy. Within this context, work package two has two objectives: WP2 Objective 1: To ground project activities in authentic policy dilemmas, in actual challenges of social participation, and in the needs of policymakers. In addressing this objective, we ensure that project activities and outputs are authentic, in that they address the real needs of policy makers and other policy stakeholders, rather than following the interests of the games industry or of academics. Accordingly, each case study works with policy makers to design interventions and their associated instruments, with additional input from experts and citizens as the policymaker sees fit. By ‘policymakers’, we refer to those responsible for deciding on policy measures and implementation (e.g. government departments and agencies), and those who formulate policy proposals (e.g. NGOs). More than one policymaker may be involved in the activities. Still, there is always one specific policy maker who is the dilemma owner, who will be the immediate beneficiary of the information generated in the inquiry. It is the responsibility of WP2 to work with policy makers to identify an authentic policy dilemma, which is a viable focus for the case study. In some cases, collaborating policy makers may already have a clear idea of this, in which case WP2 works to clarify their ideas and needs. In other cases, the participants may only have a general idea of the issues they would like to address. WP2 Objective 2: To produce specifications and design documents which enable WPs 3, 4 & 5 to configure, build, deploy, and analyse games that generate data that can inform policy outputs. In addressing the second objective, we seek to collaborate closely with policy stakeholders and games providers to ensure that the detailed designs generated enable the interventions and instruments to be implemented in activities with citizens and other stakeholders and that the results provide insights that contribute to the design of policy. Thus, two key aspects of WP2 are that it works with authentic policy stakeholders, and that the interventions which are designed are carried out in a real-world context (i.e. that the policy stakeholders are not project partners, and the activities are not funded by the project). As discussed in D2.1, from the perspective of policymakers, the activities which are designed can help in two respects, which correspond to the third and fourth complexity challenges identified by French et al. (2001). ● Experiential complexity requires policymakers to understand the experience of citizens, and the way in which they may respond to policy interventions. GREAT Deliverable 2.2 9 activities address this need by providing new ways for policymakers to ascertain the views of citizens. ● Governance complexity is related to the heterogeneity of actors involved in creating social outcomes. GREAT activities address this need by enabling policymakers to interact with groups of citizens who are hard to reach by other means. The design activities carried out in WP2 are not intended to resolve these challenges, for example by facilitating the collaborative design of policy measures including both citizens and policymakers. This approach has been tried in the past, and while it is an attractive model, it has not achieved traction (see Chistiansson et al. (2024) and Palacin et al. (2020)). Instead, the purpose of the design activities is to ensure that the case studies carried out in WP4 address authentic policy issues, and that the results will be of genuine relevance to specific policy stakeholders. Priority has been given to exploring how inquiries using games-based methods can best be designed in collaboration with policymakers, given the constraints under which they work and the many calls on their time. Accordingly, this report describes intervention design activities carried out in collaborations between the GREAT project and dilemma owners, i.e. small groups of policymakers, who may be those responsible for deciding on policy measures (e.g. government departments), those who design policy implementation strategies and measures, and those who formulate policy proposals (e.g. NGOs). These policymaker stakeholders work with experts from games industry companies, experts in data management and processing, and academics with knowledge of research methods. Together, they design games-based inquiries, including domain experts and stakeholder groups as may be required to meet the needs of the policy stakeholders being welcomed. However, no attempt is made by GREAT to impose a broader participation, to avoid the risk that the design process may lead to outcomes which do not correspond to policy imperatives and constraints under which policymakers operate. The relationship between the design work in WP2 and the traditions of collaborative and participatory design is discussed in much greater detail in D2.1, section 2. Within the wider context of the project, the design activities of WP2 also directly address higher order project objectives such as: Project objective 1: Establish ways in which games can be designed to provide a link between citizens and policymakers. When the games-based activities designed in WP2 are implemented in GREAT case studies, they involve a much larger and wider range of stakeholders and citizens than that which was involved in the design process. It is these activities which generate the Deliverable 2.2 16 data, they also saw it as an exploratory study, preparing for more large-scale interventions later in the project. 3. UNDP were keen to collaborate in the study but could not commit to extended collaborative design activities due to other commitments. 4. UNDP were quickly able to identify a broad challenge where the GREAT methodology could be of help. Results The design challenge identified by the activity was: to provide a means to understand game players' views of the climate crisis, ensuring both a large-scale global response and a wide representation of geographic areas and genders. This is an appropriate challenge that can provide the foundation of a case study because it aligns closely with the purpose of the policymaker stakeholder, and it addresses a core difficulty which they experience in their work. However, it is broader than the kind of formulation foreseen by the GREAT methodology. This was a function of the role of UNDP, which is a policy stakeholder placed between the United Nations policy creation bodies and the countries which have to implement those policies. The role of UNDP is to support countries in developing their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) regarding commitments agreed in the Paris Agreement on climate change. In order to carry out this role, UNDP needs a good understanding of citizens’ views on the climate crisis in different countries, particularly the views of young people and others who do not engage with mainstream media, and this is where GREAT is seen as having a role. Lessons learned ● High-level commitment is essential in policy stakeholder organisations. ● It is essential to have commitment to collaborate at an elevated level in policy stakeholder organisations. ● Pre-existing links between partners are a powerful enabler in establishing collaboration, and in obtaining access to policy stakeholder decision makers. ● A policymaker stakeholder’s need for information may be broader than that anticipated in the GREAT methodology. ● Step 1 may be quite short, if the stakeholder is clear about and/or constrained in their priority policy actions. ● UNDP is charged with a demanding task, both in terms of the realities of geopolitics and climate change, and the demands placed on the UN as an organisation. Inevitably, there are multiple demands for attention and limited availability for collaboration. For example, the on-going collaboration with UNDP took place while the 2024 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 29) Deliverable 2.2 17 was being organised. When working with organisations such as UNDP the GREAT team to be more proactive in the collaboration. Deliverable 2.2 18 3.2 GCS2 Waterwise, step 1 Context Waterwise is a water-and-sustainability-related group of United Kingdom stakeholders who campaign for a wise use of water. Given this wide remit and range of stakeholders, and considering that Waterwise is composed of around 70 organizations, finding time slots to arrange meetings was difficult. Activities The facilitators prepared a detailed plan for the activities based on an activity design documented from the experience of the GREAT pilots in year one: Step-1 Activity Design 3, documented from the experience of the GREAT pilots in year one. This involved brainstorming, clustering, and voting. Two workshops were held involving 10 and 4 representatives of Waterwise, respectively. At the first workshop, nineteen ideas were formulated for challenges that could lead to identifying policy dilemmas. The brainstorming process took longer than expected, because of the range of perspectives of the participants. In the second workshop the ideas were developed, clustered, and voted on. Two challenges received 4 votes: ‘awareness and understanding of water scarcity’ and ‘why I need to do this’. These were combined in a single challenge. Time limitations resulting from limited availability of participants, were a significant issue of the process. Results The design challenge identified was to design games-based activities that would lead participants to increase their “Awareness and understanding of water scarcity and why I need to do this.” The results were sufficient to move forward with the case study, but time pressure meant that some aspects remained to be addressed (for example, potential player groups were only superficially discussed). The detailed planning documents, the activities carried out are documented in the annex to this report, and documents which were generated are available in Annex 2. Lessons learned ● Working with a stakeholder organisation with a flat structure and large membership creates challenges in creating consensus. ● Formally represented activity designs can be of practical use in case studies. ● More stakeholder representatives are necessary in the early stages. This can be reduced once the focus is clear. ● Brainstorming takes longer with many participants and varied perspectives. Deliverable 2.2 19 ● The availability of stakeholders and their coordination are challenging. Valuable strategies are (a) varying the number of people involved and (b) effective graphical communication of GREAT goals, case study aims, and tasks. ● A shared whiteboard is very effective for presentation, collaboration, and data collection, especially with a licence including voting functionality. However, while a shared whiteboard fosters concentration on the task, it can limit interaction and should be used once several ideas have already been generated in brainstorming. 3.3 GCS3 Green Jobs, step 1 Context Since the abandonment of the Die Grünen (Frankfurt) pilot study (see D2.1), the ZSI team has been looking for partners with a clear need which could lead to an entire case study. A fortuitous conversation with a representative of the Federal Ministry of Education and Science in Austria alerted the team to the potential for collaboration in a nation-wide school programme on democracy and political engagement, Aktionstage Politische Bildung, with a dilemma game being included among the actions to be implemented in Austrian Schools. Activities The first step was to establish who, exactly, would be the dilemma owner. The Ministry of Education had a policy agenda but was acting in this case study as a gatekeeper to schools, while the Aktionstage Politische Bildung had no policy agenda. Accordingly, the team contacted Klimafonds, an organisation which provides financial support for environmental projects and collaborates with the Ministry of Education on the Aktionstage Politische Bildung programme. Email exchanges were conducted with Aktionstage Politische Bildung and with Klimafonds. These were followed by a Zoom meeting with Klimafonds, which led to the identification of green jobs as the most relevant policy challenge. The dilemma-based approach offered by the GREAT project was immediately seen by Klimafonds to be a very useful tool to explore this challenge. Similarly, Klimafonds’ network of contacts with schools and their involvement in a nationwide educational program was an easily identifiable context within which such an inquiry could be conducted. Accordingly, the outline design of the intervention quickly fell into place. Deliverable 2.2 20 Results The design challenge which emerged from the conversation was to identify the factors which young people take into consideration when choosing their careers and those which would motivate them to choose a path to a green job. Beyond the immediate aims for this step, an outline plan for the following steps was established, with deadlines for implementation in the selected schools. Lessons learned ● Experience of this activity confirmed that policymaker stakeholders with mission critical schedules can be reluctant or unable to provide extended engagement in design activities. ● An open ended and pragmatic process to identify intervention opportunities can be effective, without the need for elaborate procedures, if there is an easily identifiable win-win situation for policymaker stakeholders and the GREAT project. 3.4 GCS5 UNDP Play2Act, step 1 Context Following GCS1, UNDP was convinced that the GREAT approach was valuable for exploring citizens’ views, reaching new segments of the population, including access to hard-to-reach participants. The starting point of this activity was therefore a preexisting decision to carry out a larger-scale case study at a larger scale making use of multiple games. Activities The intention of this case study was to engage a large number of games studies in the intervention. Building on successful on-going activities with UNDP in GCS1, step 1 of the new case study was launched at a face-to-face round table in New York organised by UNDP, for the purpose of establishing the case study (see https://www.greatproject.gg/blog/playmob-planetplay-lead-delegation-of-gamesstudios-at-undp-climate-promise-event). Prior planning for this event was carried out in collaboration with high level representatives of UNDP. The round table provided the opportunity to engage with a larger number of games studios, with 17 participants included EA, JSA, Riot Games, SYBO, Tilting Point, The Raine Group, Unity, and Xbox. The aim was to achieve commitment to a wider case study, a name and focus. The event was followed up with online interactions. Deliverable 2.2 21 Results The principal result of this activity was the transformation of the general expression of intent from UNDP into a specific commitment by four studios to carry out a large-scale study. These were Sybo Games, Unity, Xbox and the Raine Group. This core group will be expanded as work on the case study progresses. The design challenge is to knit together multiple studios' perspectives and requirements into an integrated studio case study to investigate citizens’ views on the climate crisis. The task of deciding on a name for the case study was given to the participants at the round table, and they decided on ‘Play2Act’. The activity confirmed that UNDP staff are very interested in the results of the case study. However, in accordance with the experience of GCS1 step 1 above, UNDP is faced by a very large and general problem (among others), i.e. that they seek to achieve implementation of the SDGs, but they do not have a clear picture of the views of citizens which can inform a strategy for achieving this. This is not easily translated into a specific dilemma. Lessons learned UNDP is an important and high-profile international policy body, but within the context of the Paris climate accords, much decision making is delegated to the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Accordingly, care needs to be taken to respect the prerogative of member states to decide on their own priorities in addressing the climate crisis. In the context of GREAT, the priority for UNDP is to stimulate citizens’ awareness of the challenge, and to understand citizens’ views, in order to stimulate action at national level rather than to propose or evaluate particular policies. 3.5 Reflections on step 1 activities The list of outcomes for step 1 above (see 2.2.1) assumes that the policy problem owner is aware of the need to obtain input to the policy decision making process from citizens but has not yet articulated a focus or the way in which this should be done. The role of WP2, from this perspective, is to facilitate insight into this focus and to articulate its implications for the design of an inquiry. The experience of design collaborations in WP2 shows that, in some cases, this assumption is appropriate. Thus, work with Waterwise (GCS2), and with Urban Gorillas (GCS4, reported in D2.1 and continued in section 5.4 below) followed this approach successfully through workshops, meetings, and exchange of documents. However, in other case studies the fit between the assumptions of step 1 and the needs of policy stakeholders was less clear. Deliverable 2.2 22 In work with Klimafonds, only a short meeting was required for the policy stakeholders to identify the issue they wanted to address. UNDP, on the other hand, needed information to inform its understanding of its operating environment rather than to focus on a particular dilemma. It would not be accurate to ascribe this distinction to policy stakeholders’ higher or lower awareness of their tasks and operating environment. Rather, it seems that structural and functional differences between policy stakeholders require a greater variety of approaches to collaboration. We note that the two case studies in which the foreseen activities of step 1 were most fully applied involved policy organisations with multiple members. Given the wide range of perspectives of their members, and the openness of their desired outcomes, the facilitated processes offered by the project are appropriate. Indeed, the activities of GREAT offer direct support for their core activity, to conceive of effective policy proposals or approaches to implementation. Klimafonds and UNDP are not in this position. The UNDP is tasked by the United Nations (UN) with encouraging and facilitating the formulation of Nationally Determined Contributions by countries which ascribe to the Paris Agreement. Klimafonds is tasked with implementing policy by providing financial support for environmental projects, and it is funded by and controlled by the Federal Ministry of Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology. Thus, both Klimafonds and UNDP are situated between the organisations which determine policy, and the organisations which carry out the measures. While they both have needs for the kind of information which can be provided by GREAT, these are, typically, open-ended and may not be clearly delimited. The policy stakeholders that GREAT engages with, in formal collaborations or peripherally, can be divided into a three-level hierarchy: ● Policy legislator (e.g. UN, national governments, and ministries) with legal powers to create binding policies ● Policy enabler (e.g. UNDP, Klimafonds) facilitating implementation ● Policy implementer (e.g. national governments subscribing to the Paris agreement, educators, landlords, etc.) creating changes on the ground. Additionally, we can distinguish ● Policy influencers (e.g. organisations without a formal role in policymaking which interact with policy bodies at all three levels, seeking to set the policy agenda and to monitor or guide implementation. Deliverable 2.2 23 While such a hierarchy is a pragmatic guide to project stakeholders, it implies a significant oversimplification of a highly complex landscape of interacting organisations and stakeholders. For example, an organisation such as UNDP has to engage with (or at least take into consideration) political actors with a wide range of interests and agendas, ranging including governments, the media, campaigning organisations, and industrial sectors. At a smaller scale, an implementation body such as Klimafonds interacts with other ministries, and with political and industrial actors (specifically in the Green Jobs case study, the Ministry of Education, schools, employers, and citizen stakeholders, especially teachers and students). The step 1 activities summarised above show how the GREAT project has responded to these varied policy stakeholder profiles by adapting its processes with the aim of maintaining a focus which meets their authentic needs and capacity for collaboration. Deliverable 2.2 24 4. Step two: collaborate in study design Step 2 builds on the design briefs developed in step 1 to determine what the gamebased activities will achieve and how. Facilitators collaborate with stakeholders to define: ● Specific dilemmas that require information on citizens’ preferences and attitudes which are of importance to the problem owner. ● The expected insight and evidence that can be offered to policymakers. ● The specific user groups who will be involved and their roles. ● How data will be gathered, analysed, and delivered to stakeholders These outcomes constitute a design challenge to be addressed in Step 3. 4.1 GCS1 UNDP exploratory, step 2 Context Step 1 had achieved commitment, but the role of the policy stakeholder made it hard to achieve a specific focus. This step needed to move from a general commitment to a particular plan. Activities As with step 1 above, the activity involved conversations between a small team from PlanetPlay, HiRez studios and UNDP, conducted over email and Zoom. The UNDP team consisted of a Knowledge Management Manager and a Knowledge Management Coordination Specialist. The following aspects were addressed. 1. Identification of a game that would provide access to players whose views would be collected. This involved negotiations with games studios. 2. Strategy for inclusion of the PlanetPlay app in the target game. The options were: a. embedded content. This involves contracting for paid advertisements in an established market. b. in-game roll-out. Inclusion of data collection in an existing game. No additional cost is involved, but with the need for negotiation with the studio, which creates overhead and has an uncertain outcome. 3. The number of interactions which could be expected with players, and the impact of this on the flow of gameplay. 4. Data processing and use of data. Deliverable 2.2 25 Outputs The design brief which emerged from the conversations was for ● an activity to provide insight into citizens views on climate change ● embedded in the game SMITE, which was judged to be of appropriate userprofile and scale (ten million players). ● A/B testing of the methods embedded content and in-game roll-out. This provided sufficient input for the PlanetPlay technical team to set up the intervention. The precise focus of the questions was deferred to step 3. Lessons learned Policy stakeholders may experience significant constraints on the kinds of decisions which they can take, for both legal and political reasons. This has implications for the design of the inquiries that they are able to conduct. Collaboration with game studios on the details of embedding the app is a critical step in the design process and must respect the studio's requirements. Informal interactions such as those which characterised this activity can be effective, but the details of the discussions tend not to be preserved. More precise documentation about the collaboration would provide richer evidence for the case study. 4.2 GCS2 Waterwise, step 2 Context Momentum had been created in step 1, but time pressure meant that some aspects were not fully addressed and were taken up in step 2. Following the step 1 workshops, the results were collated in preparation for step 2. Activities The activities were based on the GREAT activity design Step 2, activity design 1. Identification of player groups (carried over from step 1) was added as an initial task. The workshop first defined the scenario, and then generated ideas for the kind of game that would suit that scenario. Two main concerns emerged in this step: the potential conflict of interests and the scenario definition. These elements took the most time in the process of step 2. Deliverable 2.2 32 Placement of the survey within the game was an important design decision, as visibility and access were required to achieve adequate participation. The team evaluated various options for embedding the survey into the game, taking into consideration aesthetic design whilst considering the typical behaviour of gamers. Outputs A final set of questions was determined (see annex), together with a strategy to launch at the end of the week. Two graphics were designed for deployment in SMITE, to be assessed in a/b testing. It was decided to give priority to a streamlined user experience, and that any identity management process would detract from the achievement of large-scale responses, as well as creating a data management problem for the project. However, the hashed IP address of the respondent will be recorded, both to avoid repeated responses and to generate valuable information. It was also decided to record the ‘dwell time’ of a question before an answer was captured, which could give an indication of how much time a player had thought about their response. Other technical events to be monitored include first load of a survey, the initial engagement, when questions are shown, and if a link at the end of the survey is followed. This information will allow engagement and completion rates to be calculated. These design decisions were recorded as text, rather than in a graphic wireframe. Lessons learned ● Consultation with games studios is confidential, but nevertheless more could be done to document the interactions in an anonymous format. ● It is essential to have an in-depth discussion of the technical details of deployment and data-gathering involving all participants in the collaboration, to ensure a good fit with the infrastructure and needs of stakeholders. This should include at least the policy stakeholder, PlanetPlay, the games studio(s), and data analysts. 5.2 GCS2 Waterwise, step 3 Context Experience of the previous two steps indicates that there is a tension between what is pragmatically achievable and the desired output, because of time available for collaboration. Activities In a ‘classic’ 5-stage design process (empathise, define, ideate, prototype, and test), step 1+2 of the GREAT cycle helped to inform the empathise, define, and ideate stages. Deliverable 2.2 33 This means step 3 in the GREAT cycle worked through prototyping and testing stages of a design process. The term ‘testing’ does not imply ‘piloting’ of the artefacts as required in step 4. Testing is purely through the lens of rapid prototyping that the generated ideas seem to be achieving the project goals. At the time of the creation of this deliverable, only the prototyping had been completed. When testing has been completed, there is the option to iterate back through ideation, prototyping, and then testing until stakeholders and GREAT partners are happy that the prototypes will achieve project goals. If this is the case, then that process will be reported in D2.3. The activities were supported with Miro board and online video conferencing platforms. The design process engaged GREAT partners and stakeholders in iterative cycles of rapid prototyping, in-house testing of data to be gathered for insights, and reflection on whether the chosen approach is achieving the project goals. The scope included both DiBL and the PlanetPlay infrastructure. Some iteration was required, due to the complexities of implementing within the chosen technology or discussing refinements with stakeholders. The collaboration made clear that there is a tension in the design process, where it needs to satisfy sponsor insights, evaluations needs, and technical implementation. Outputs Three versions of the design were created in Miro, with the final design providing a wireframe for implementation. Lessons learned ● A successful design process takes time. Despite strong commitment from all parties, in this case study it has taken about 6 months to go from sponsor idea through to DiBL design, partly due to the difficulty scheduling activities when all stakeholders and project staff are available, or due to illness. ● To keep development of the design on track, milestones could be more firmly defined and scheduled by the academic lead. ● With an organisation such as Waterwise, it makes sense to have larger numbers involved in step 1, and fewer in steps 2 and 3. Deliverable 2.2 34 5.3 GCS3 Green Jobs, step 3 Context The case study methodology foresees that stakeholders will be able and willing to participate in a collaborative design workshop, with the case study team in the role of facilitators. The policy stakeholder was not in a good position to do this ● young people are not part of their network, so they have no relevant experience ● well-established work and communication processes do not support the extended commitment needed for collaborative design. Activities The GREAT team therefore had to act more as design consultants, discussing the brief with the stakeholders to define the purpose of the game, its objectives, and outcomes, and then being given the freedom to design the activities and game. The roles were: ● Klimafonds (dilemma owner, provided information and resources) ● SGI (game platform provider, giving guidance on game design and technical support) ● ZSI (academic lead, selected information and constructed the flow of the game) Activities were centred around 5 iterations of brainstorming and game design, involving ZSI and SGI. Klimafonds provided feedback on a first completed version of the game, which was then piloted in schools. Piloting identified changes needed before use in data gathering. In particular the focus was adjusted from apprenticeship pathways to university level. Outputs A DiBL game was produced, ready for testing and then launching the first activity with authentic participants. The game is designed to be reusable, and Klimafonds would like to use the game within the Austrian school system and beyond, but this raises the issue of who would provide facilitation. Lessons learned ● A more iterative process than that set out in the GREAT methodology can be effective. ● Iterative design and close collaboration, combined with technical training provided by the game platform to the academic lead, make it possible to collaborate up to the final production of the game, rather than producing a wireframe for delivery to developers. Deliverable 2.2 35 ● An organisation such as the policy stakeholder in this case study is not in a position to budget for extended engagement in a design process without receiving funding. ● A ‘design consultant’ approach to collaboration with policy stakeholders can be successful. 5. 4 GCS4 Rooftop Revolution (formerly Green Rooftops), step 3b Context Work on GCS4 is reported in D2.1. However, design work was continued, based on piloting of the initial design, as reported here as step 3b. Activities The activities involved a representative of the academic lead (Frederick University), a representative of the policy stakeholder (Urban Gorillas), and the team responsible for the game platform (SGI). An evaluation activity of the wireframe and prototype game involving a run-through game play was carried out with Urban Gorillas members, followed by work between FU and SGI to revise the implementation. In practice three iterations of in-depth revisions over a 14-week period was required to refine the question sets and the role play aspects of the game. The revision process was facilitated by Zoom meetings and emails, and largely consisted of a dialogue between the case study facilitator (who has developed a good understanding of the dilemma and the objectives of the sponsor, and also has a good understanding of the DiBL platform) and a member of the SGI team (who can guide the facilitator through the detail of the design process, and provide guidance on effective designs). Outputs A number of key design decisions were made and incorporated into the wireframes including the following: ● 3 DiBL sessions should be designed with separate information sets depending on the target group – Citizens/Investors/Architects ● The sessions should take place in a face-to-face physical setting ● Sessions should include a minimum of 8 persons and a maximum of 16 persons in order to control the information during discussions ● To develop the roleplay element of the existing game as an independent part 2 ● To develop professional standard visuals for the game (Images and Videos) Deliverable 2.2 36 Lessons learned ● Iteration of step 3 in response to evaluation by the policy stakeholder (as foreseen in the case study cycle diagram) is a valuable activity ● Design and implementation in step 3 are highly time consuming, and full collaboration in the design is beyond the resources available to a small policy stakeholder. ● Having a facilitator from the GREAT team with previous training in using the technical side of DiBL greatly facilitates the process, even if the support of the technical team is still needed. 5.5 GCS5 UNDP Play2Act, step 3 Context In previous steps in GCS1 and GCS5 it has become clear that GREAT needs to adapt its methodology to the needs of a policy stakeholder (such as UNDP) which does not have a tightly focused dilemma, but rather a more general need for information. In this context the key design challenge is to mediate between a policy stakeholder and their need for information, and the games studios who are the gatekeepers for access to the players of their games. The results of the GCS1 case study showed that in-game rollout is a much more effective approach than embedded content. Accordingly, this approach was adopted in GCS5, with strong implications for the activities of step 3. Activities The in-game rollout approach meant that the bulk of the activities in step 3 involved collaboration with game studios, including major platforms. For each of the twenty participating game studios, detailed collaborative design was undertaken to plan the embedding of the PlanetPlay interface in the studio’s game to achieve the highest visibility and participation. The participating games studios were: Actrio Amazon Games Bandai Namco Creative Mobile Eline Media FunPlus Futurevision Jagex Kwalee Lockwood Niantic Rovio SpaceApe Sybo Games Ten Square Trailmix TripleDot Unity UsTwo Xbox Each studio had their own concerns and priorities, and their own interfaces in their games. Most interface designs involved the use of in game message systems, while some contacted users directly on launch. There was also a need to plan adaptation of Deliverable 2.2 37 the PlanetPlay infrastructure as a function of each game’s features and technical and design limitations. An important issue for studios was game brand integrity, i.e. ensuring that 1. The case study includes nothing that would reflect badly on the studios. 2. The case study is consistent with the studio's corporate social responsibility position and other strategies and actions. 3. The integrity of the game flow is maintained, to maintain player engagement. It was found that embedding anything in a game involves complex legal clarification of intellectual property rights, as well as liability should any player become distressed. In addition to NDAs, two formal agreements were signed. Outcomes Revisions to the design of the PlanetPlay App were specified, including the addition of a link out to the PlanetPlay app, to enable users to sign up for the Play2Act community. The questions to be included in the embedded app were finalised, as were the specifics of data management. A programme of deployment in studios’ games was established, with embedding strategies for each studio. This number of studios was augmented as the case study progressed. Consequently, there was not a clean break between design and deployment. The design decisions were recorded as text, rather than as wireframe diagrams. Lessons learned Valuable lessons were learned about the perspectives of studios towards this inquiry. ● Studios are keen to learn more about their players through the data that is generated. They believed that the data could provide new information about how their players think, and that this could be valuable to them in their customer relationships and in informing the development of new products and services. ● Studios are reluctant to identify responses by platform or by game, because this might reveal confidential information about player numbers in a competitive environment. ● Corporate Social Responsibility is the biggest motivation for studio participation. 5.6 Reflections on step 3 The designation of ‘wireframe’ as an output of step 3 in the GREAT methodology is intended to separate the conceptual design of the game-based intervention from its implementation. The step 3 activities reported here show that in practice this separation Deliverable 2.2 38 is hard to maintain. Experience shows that the specific technical affordances and requirements of the platforms condition to a great degree the kinds of conversations which are needed to create a conceptual design. Two possible approaches arise to address this. 1. GREAT staff can interpret the affordances and requirements to policy stakeholders and facilitate design activities with those stakeholders. 2. GREAT staff can take a role between the platform and the policymaker, in what might be termed a consultancy role. In this they are tasked with eliciting and understanding needs of the policy stakeholder and interpreting them to the developer, and in understanding the affordances and requirements of the platform and interpreting them to the developer. Both approaches are greatly enabled by training project staff who take on a facilitating or consulting role in the development procedures and capabilities of the platforms. The reflections made on step 1 (section 3.5 above) describe the limited availability of policy stakeholders to collaborate in design, and accordingly it is unsurprising that GCS1, GCS3, GCS4 and GCS5) all adopted a consultancy approach. It will be informative to see the degree to which GCS2 is able to apply a facilitated approach to step 3, given that GCS2 successfully ran facilitated workshops in steps 1 and 2. The particular technical requirements of the two platforms condition the type of work which is conducted in step 3. DiBL (the SGI platform), is well suited to specification of the design as a classic wireframe, using a shared whiteboard such as Miro, whether the role taken by GREAT staff is as facilitator or consultant. This is true both in the initial design and in proposing iterative revisions to the game. For the PlanetPlay platform, the results of GCS1 showed that ‘in-game rollout’ (placement in games through direct negotiation with studios) is a much more effective approach than ‘embedded content’ (paid-for placement in games). Accordingly, the ingame placement was adopted in GC5. A vital part of the design process is the identification of the game in which the intervention will be embedded, and with in-game rollout this involves extensive negotiations with multiple games studios. Negotiations address both the commitment to participate and the strategy to be used in embedding the PlanetPlay app. Both these aspects are dependent on detailed and confidential conversations between the PlanetPlay team and the studios that are participating in the case study. This process is commercially highly sensitive, which precludes the direct engagement of policy stakeholders. In principle, policy stakeholders could be involved in decision making once negotiation with studios has been moved forward, but in the case of GCS1 and GCS2 the policy stakeholder did not see this as being necessary. Deliverable 2.2 39 GCS1 and GCS2 showed that games studios are interested in the insight that the data can provide into their players, and that a key condition of their participation is that the collaboration is consistent with, and has a positive impact on, their corporate social responsibility strategy. It was also found that studios are highly sensitive to any ranking of responses by game, which could be perceived as showing their game or players in a bad light, and which might reveal commercially valuable information to competitors. This is a parallel finding to the sensitivity to the use of PlanetPlay data in step 2 and confirms that this is a major design consideration. 6. Conclusions 6.1 Operational results and lessons learned In the activities described in this deliverable, WP2 has achieved its two objectives set out in the project plan. ● WP2 Objective 1: To ground project activities in authentic policy dilemmas, in actual challenges of social participation, and in the needs of policymakers. For each case study, collaboration has been established with one or more policymaker stakeholders and activities have been carried out which successfully elicited their needs for information. ● WP2 Objective 2, To produce specifications and design documents which enable WPs 3, 4 & 5 to configure, build, deploy and analyse games that generate data that can inform policy outputs. The outputs of WP2 have been sufficient to facilitate the implementation of each case study. Responding to time pressures Both structured workshop activities and less structured and informal activities achieved successful results. However, in D2.1, conclusions point 3, it was concluded from the pilots that “the availability of key respondents is likely to be limited” with the consequent “need to emphasise activity designs which achieve outcomes in a tight timeframe, and with a range of degrees of stakeholder input, from minimal to extensive”. This has proven to be the case. Accordingly, in focusing on the achievement of these objectives, WP2 has responded to the emerging needs and constraints of policy stakeholders by flexibly adapting its processes. As a result, some steps of some cases have involved simpler and/or more informal activity designs and fewer stakeholder participants than had been anticipated in the case study methodology. In Deliverable 2.2 40 future work, WP2 will continue to examine how the project can flexibly respond to the requirements and constraints of policy stakeholders. Tools and data Both face-to-face and (more frequently) remote activities achieved successful outcomes. Email, videoconferencing, and shared online documents were used in almost all activities. Additionally, Miro was used in all activities related to the DiBL platform. This has been a very valuable tool for collaboration, but it has proved difficult to share the resulting documents in any platform or format form other than Miro itself. This is an inconvenience in reviewing the data for analysis of the design process. It has also been seen that informal design processes tend to leave less rich data than formal processes, both because of the distributed and sometimes transient nature of the data that is generated, and because confidential information is more likely to be found in unstructured personal communications. This remains an ongoing challenge for WP2. The distinction between wireframes and implementation In step three it was found that distinction between wireframes and implementation was hard to maintain in practice, because the capabilities and constraints of the platform have a strong influence on design decisions (see section 5.6). This has led to more iteration in step three than had been foreseen and has highlighted the importance of facilitators having a strong high-level understanding of technical aspects of the systems for which designs are intended. These lessons will be applied in future case studies. 6.2 WP2 contributions to answering the GREAT research questions The role of WP2 is to provide support for WP4 in organising the GREAT case studies, and it is through the analysis of those case studies that the project will be able to answer its research questions. However, the activities of WP2 also shed light on some of the research questions of the project. A case in point is the insight from WP2 which contributed to a journal paper on GCS1 (Griffiths et al. 2025). Great research question 1.1 RQ 1.1 is Which games-based activities can be used to elicit, represent, and communicate citizens’ views on policy dilemmas? The processes established by WP2 provide part of the answer to this question, although they do not concern the implementation or use of the games-based activities in pilots. WP2 identified a number of constraints and enablers for the design of games-based interventions. It was confirmed, as anticipated in D2.1, that an important constraint is that the time commitment from policy stakeholders to participate in design activities is often limited. This factor leads to the organisation of iterations of shorter and more informal interactions between key participants, usually by email and videoconferencing. Moreover, a lack of availability also creates pressure to move away from a model where Deliverable 2.2 41 GREAT staff facilitate activities with stakeholders, and towards one where GREAT staff take on a more consulting role, working with stakeholders and developers to identify and elicit the information which is required for the design of a successful games-based intervention (see 5.6 Reflections on step 3). Additionally, we can hypothesise that the fact that the work of GREAT staff is funded, but the participation of stakeholders is not, may inevitably lead stakeholders to see participation in case studies as a kind of free outsourcing, or consultancy. This may have more general implications for collaborative design in the field of policy which can be explored in coming work. However, this constraint is not equally applicable to all policy stakeholders, as discussed below in relation to RQ 1.4. Despite time pressures, structured activities, and formal representations of those activities, were nevertheless found to be valuable in steps 1 and 2 of GCS2 Waterwise. A crucial enabler was personal contact between GREAT and policy stakeholders, whether this was long established or emerging out of ongoing activities of partners. This was the basis for the establishment of all the case studies, and it may be expected that it also served to create a positive working environment for WP2, whose activities are the first in the case study cycle. More specifically, in the work with the PlanetPlay infrastructure, corporate, professional, and personal contacts were strongly leveraged in establishing the agreement of games studios to participate in the project, and their willingness to negotiate mutually satisfactory arrangements for inclusion of the app in their platforms and for the agreed use of data. It is hard to imagine how the approach adopted in GCS5 Play2Act could be successfully applied in the absence of such a network. PlanetPlay is not alone in having a network of this type, but clearly some aspects of in-game roll out methods will not be available to, for example, a typical social science research group acting alone. RQ 1.4 How widely applicable are games-based activities in eliciting, representing and communicating citizens’ views on policy dilemmas, and which variables need to be taken into consideration when adapting them to different contexts? In section 3.5, above, we reflect on the different ways in which policy stakeholders respond to the activities of WP2. Amongst the stakeholders which we have interacted with we can distinguish policy legislators, policy enablers, policy implementers and policy influencers. Each of these has their own priorities, capacities and constraints, in terms of the scope of their competence, their relationship with other bodies or social movements which may constrain their activities, and the open-ended nature of their required outcomes, and the variety of stakeholders which they contain. The results reported here suggest that these have a strong influence on the way that they engage with collaborative design activities. In this analysis, we can see the beginnings of a taxonomy of policy stakeholder characteristics and contexts which can shed light on