FLUXX Family to FLUXX Six Thinking Hats

Game Modification

Course: INTE5830 Games and Learning Instructor: Dr. David Thomas Project: Game Modification Student: Jill Kamas Date: 3.21.2013

The Parallel Thinking Game

Original Game: FLUXX

Process

4 types of cards (addl. types possible)

Essential Concepts: What makes FLUXX, FLUXX?

1. 2. 3. 4. Easy to start and play Minimal number of basic rules Ever-changing rules Card types: keeper, action, new rule, goal

1 2 3 4

5.

Played card is the current

focus of the game

Process

Visual Characteristics: What makes FLUXX, FLUXX?

Color Coded

Process

Purpose of FLUXX Modification: To teach parallel thinking.

Six Thinking Hats
Six Thinking Hats is a simple, effective parallel thinking process that helps people be more productive, focused, and mindfully involved. And once learned, the tools can be applied immediately!
The White Hat calls for information known or needed. "The facts, just the facts." The Yellow Hat symbolizes brightness and optimism. Under this hat you explore the positives and probe for value and benefit. The Black Hat is judgment - the devil's advocate or why something may not work. Spot the difficulties and dangers; where things might go wrong. Probably the most powerful and useful of the Hats but a problem if overused. The Red Hat signifies feelings, hunches and intuition. When using this hat you can express emotions and feelings and share fears, likes, dislikes, loves, and hates.

Process

You and your team members can learn how to separate thinking into six clear functions and roles. Each thinking role is identified with a colored symbolic "thinking hat." By mentally wearing and switching "hats," you can easily focus or redirect thoughts, the conversation, or the meeting.
1. http://www.debonogroup.com/six_thinking_hats.php

The Green Hat focuses on creativity; the possibilities, alternatives, and new ideas. It's an opportunity to express new concepts and new perceptions.
The Blue Hat is used to manage the thinking process. It's the control mechanism that ensures the Six Thinking Hats guidelines are observed.

Merging Visual Design of FLUXX with Six Hats Thinking

What if?
Play this card and wear any hat. What action does the new info suggest?

If we do?
Suggest benefits that supports the action/solution & diffuses the argument against. The listed benefits should satisfy both logical and emotional arguments

Color Coded
Provocation Benefits
What if instead of., we ?

Propose an action/solution. If one is already in play, propose a modified version.

Costs, statistics

Details of new cards p.11-16

Process

Hard Facts

How much?

If we dont

New goal
Question the premise of the question or problem.

The Parallel Thinking Game

Costs

Re-frame

How much will it cost? How will we measure success?

Emotional Appeal

State why is the proposition flawed? (based on conservative logic)

Reaction based on emotion, intuition, gut feeling w/o need for justification. Reaction, fear, flattery, pity, ridicule, spite, wishful thinking.

Perhaps the problems isnt.. But instead is .

Merging Game Play of FLUXX with Six Hats Thinking

1. Easy to start and play 2. Simple basic rules 3. Changing goal 4. Played card = focus of game 5. Cards:
Data: propose solution Alternatives: propose solution Benefits: support current solution Costs: oppose current solution Emo: either support or oppose current solution Re-Frame: the goal.

Data

What if?
Propose an action/solution. If one is already in play, propose a modified version.

If we do?
Suggest benefits that supports the action/solution & diffuses the argument against. The listed benefits should satisfy both logical and emotional arguments

1
Hard Facts

Play this card and wear any hat. What action does the new info suggest?

Alternatives

Costs, statistics

Process

5
How much? If we dont New goal
Question the premise of the question or problem.

4
Benefits

Costs

Re-frame

On average we lose 12 employees/ yr. This costs $30K/emplo yee or $360,000.

How much will it cost? How will we measure success?

Emotional Appeal

Change the solution to meet the benefit.

State why is the proposition flawed? (based on conservative logic)

Manipulation of the conversation based on emotional appeal.

Benefits

What if instead of., we ?

Details of new cards p.11-16

Reaction, fear, flattery, pity, ridicule, spite, wishful thinking.

Perhaps the problems isnt.. But instead is .

Whats Different?
On the Table:
Basic Rules
The Parallel Thinking Game
1. Deal 3 cards/player 2. Choose player to go first. 3. Player draws one card. 4. Player plays one card. Propose solution Raise issue/question Re-frame the goal

In the Cards:
Benefits
Suggest benefits that supports the action/solution & diffuses the argument against.

Play Cards
Playing these cards means posing a potential solution.

The listed benefits should satisfy both logical and emotional arguments

Process

Benefits

The Overarching Goal

An overarching goal is identified at the outset of the game. This goal can be changed or modified by play of the Blue Card.

Pause Cards
Playing these cards means posing a question or making an observation.

Fast Forward Card

This card can change or modify the goal of the game.

Whats the Purpose?

Teach Parallel Thinking:
To the Management
So they can THINK, wearing any one of the Six Hats

Process

The First Test?

Scenario: Moderated Corporate Retreat Goal 1: Increase profits by reducing employee turnover.
Today, we are going to learn parallel thinking & solve some of your companys most pressing problems!

But, wait.what about that super fun ice breaker exercise & the ropes course?

Process

Test One: Goal Increase Profits by Reducing Turnover

Data/Info
Play this card & wear any hat! Based on the information, offer a possible solution or ask another question. 15% - Turnover Rate 200: Company Size 30 Employees/yr

Test 1: Data Cards

1. Our Turnover Rate: 15% Company size 200 30 employees/yr 2. Loss per Employee Level Entry Level: 18 Mid Level: 8 High Level: 4 5. Sources of Expense Exit costs Recruiting Interviewing Hiring Orientation Training Compensation & benefits while training Lost productivity Customer dissatisfaction Reduced or lost business Administrative costs Lost expertise Temporary workers 6. Most Costly Sources Recruiting for high level positions Lost Expertise Customer Dissatisfaction Training 7. Ask questions re: additional information required

Process

The Hard Facts

3. Cost of Employee Turnover: Entry Level: 30-50% of yearly Middle Level: 150% Specialized High Level: 400%
4. Estimated Cost Entry Level: 216K Mid Level: 720K High Level: 4.8 M

Test One: Goal Increase Profits by Reducing Turnover

What if?

Alternatives
Use the stated technique to challenge the current solution. Offer an alternative solution.

Test 1: Alternatives Cards

Absence thinking: what is not there? List attributes: what is there? Challenge Assumptions. Concepts Compromises Boundaries Operations The Impossible The Cant be Done The Essentials Patterns of behavior Functions the way things work Paradigms Dominant Thinking Polarizing tendencies Breakdown the problem. Force unlikely associations. Reverse the problem Reference core values of company. Imagine the future (pos. or neg.) Reverse brainstorming: Imagine how the problem could have been prevented. Slay a sacred cow. Name a dead elephant.

Other Possibilities

Process

Technique: Reverse the problem.

Test One: Goal Increase Profits by Reducing Turnover

If we do?

Benefits

Test 1: Benefits Cards

What is the merit of the approach? What positives can be identified in this solution? What could be done to make this solution work better? Faster? More economically? Under what conditions could this work? What would it take to make this proposal acceptable? Describe how this solution would function. What current trends support this solution? How does this solution align with the values of the company? How does this solution reflect other initiatives in the company?

Process

Support for Solution

Support the current solution by listing benefits & positive attributes. -orDiffuse the argument against the current solution by listing benefits

What is the merit of the approach?

Test One: Goal Increase Profits by Reducing Turnover

Costs?

Test 1: Costs Cards

Process

Identify the Problems

Identify the problems with the proposed solution.

What can go wrong if we proceed with this solution?

List the potential problems you foresee.

What will happen if we take this action? How much will it cost? What resources will be used? How much time to implementation? What can go wrong if we proceed with this solution? What are the weaknesses that we would need to overcome? How does this solution align with our experience, policy, strategy, values, ethics, and resources? How will people respond? Will it work? be profitable? be acceptable?

Test One: Goal Increase Profits by Reducing Turnover

Emotional Appeal

Test 1: Emotional Appeal Cards

Describe your reaction to this proposed solution? How do you think other people will react/feel? What is you intuition/opinion about the proposed solution? What are your Gut feelings . . . Hunches Insights Likes/dislikes? What emotions [fear, anger, hatred, suspicion, jealousy] are involved here? Fear: support/oppose Flattery: support/oppose Pity: support/oppose Ridicule: support/oppose Spite: support/oppose Wishful Thinking: support/oppose

Process

Emotional Appeal

React to the proposed solution without explanation or justification.

How do you think other people will react/feel to the proposed solution?

Test One: Goal Increase Profits by Reducing Turnover

New Goal
Question the premise of the question or problem. Each player offers an answer.

Test 1: New Goal Cards

What is the problem? Is this the real problem? What is the underlying problem? Why do we need to solve this problem? Where should we go first? Where do we start? What should we be thinking about?

Process

Re-framer establishes new goal.

Are we getting anywhere? What factors should we consider? What sort of outcome would we regard as successful? What have we achieved so far?

Re-frame

Is this the real problem?

Test One: What happened during play?

Overarching Goal: Increase Profits by Reducing Employee Turnover
Turn 1 Card Played black Question What can go wrong if we proceed with this solution? NOTE: Must answer own question from POV of Blk. Must answer within bounds of current knowledge What could be done to make this solution work? NOTE: Must answer within bounds of current knowledge - meaning how can we ensure an increase in profit by reducing turnover? Result Reducing turnover may not increase profit.

yellow

We know employee turnover is costing us...its worth pursuing as a way of increasing profits. NOTE:It may be frustrating to not have immediate access to the data. but that may be an essential part of the exercise.?? The data suggests that we should focus our efforts on retaining our high level employees because recruiting for high level positions & loss of expertise are the two biggest costs.

white

Process

Most Costly Sources Recruiting for high level positions Lost Expertise Customer Dissatisfaction Training What is the underlying problem with the retention of high level employees? NOTE: ? Must frame goal within bounds of current knowledge (retention of high level employees) Why do we need to solve this? NOTE: Aarrgh...I want the data. Breakdown the problem.

blue

NEW Goal: Identify the causes of turnover of high level employees.

5 6

blue green

NEW Goal: Fixing the underlying causes of high level employee turnover will increase profits. Yes, but reducing all turnover will increase profits even more. Shouldn't we look at all of the underlying causes of turnover? Yes we should. I think we are more likely to find a good solution if we look at all levels of employee turnover. The data suggests that the expense of losing high level employees far outweighs that of either low or mid level employees.

red

white

What are your Gut feelings . . 3. Cost of Employee Turnover: Entry Level: 30-50% of yearly Middle Level: 150% Specialized High Level: 400%

Test One: What happened during play? (cont.)

9 green Reference core values of company. Does this singular focus reinforce the team "everybody has an important role to play in the success of this company" value? I am concerned that the other employees would sense favoritism. The issues causing higher level employees to leave are different that those of mid and lower level employees. Addressing those issues may not raise any flags at all. It seems like the higher level employees already have so many more perks... If you do the math, on average, we lose 4 high level employees each year. Their loss costs us 5 times more than the loss of mid and lower level employees does. 10 11 black yellow What will happen if we take this action? Under what conditions could this work?

12 13

red white

What are your insights? 2. Loss per Employee Level Entry Level: 18 Mid Level: 8 High Level: 4

Process

14

green

Absence thinking: what is not there?

The data is compelling but what else are we not looking at here? By focusing so quickly on this as a solution, are we missing the opportunity to uncover some very core problems at the company? Clearly, turnover is costing us a LOT - maybe a 10% total loss of profit. Yes, we could solve just the high level employee problem but given the loss amount, we need to look at the whole system. - from recruiting through hiring through exiting and rehiring. By the time we do all of this, make it through, implementation and see improvements we may lose another 10 million.

15

blue

What should we be thinking about?

16

black

How much time to implementation?

Test One: What happened during play? (cont.)

17 yellow What current trends support this solution? From Dan Pink: summary of recent research re: motivation Why good high level employees stay: First, they need to be properly compensated - take that off the table... Then they need: Autonomy, Mastery, Purpose
Ok, I understand the value in the holistic - whole system approach but what if we remained focus on higher level employee turnover and used it to test some of those concepts - like giving higher levels more local control through distribution of responsibility (autonomy and maybe mastery) 18 green Challenge the concept

19

white

If we were going to just solve for higher levels, what information do we need?

Why higher levels have left in the past. How much it really is costing us and how exactly we are measuring that.

Process

At this point: the game could have gone on, but it may be better to prompt the beginning of a new inquiry. Because of the first piece of data shifting focus to the high level employee - no other options were evaluated at all. Also, at this point it would be very beneficial to have questions answered (see right)

What are other companies doing to retain top employees? What does the research say? Are there already established/tested methods for addressing top level employee loss?

Who have we lost? What has it cost?

Test One: Observations & Conclusions

Observations & Conclusions:
1. Starting was a little awkward. But the players caught on quickly. This could be improved by including an example round of play. 2. As play continued, the players began to modify the given question/statement to better suit the situation. This was a very positive development. Include that instruction at the beginning. 3. The game would be improved with more information/data given up front.

Process

4. The game would be improved by inserting break points at which to ask what additional data is needed and to summarize progress. 5. Red Hat turned into a non-player whose input was less valued or ignored. This role need to be re-characterized by emphasizing that red represents the voice of most company employees because they do not have access to enough information to respond analytically. 6. The game did not progress how I thought it would. Regardless, the direction of game play was a fruitful one. 7. At a certain point, the players wanted freedom from the cards in order to more deeply pursue lines of thinking. Maybe this is where the Blue cards come in. When a Blue card is played, everyone has an opportunity to respond wearing any hat they wish.

Project Reflection:
Working through the merger of these two concepts; FLUXX and Six Thinking Hats, pointed out many aspects of game development we have covered in class. The merger is, from Clark Abts (1970) perspective, a serious game. It is entertaining but foremost, it has a fully considered educational purpose. That purpose is teaching parallel thinking while solving real world problems.

each hat. Through that experience, they are able to see each other's perspective more clearly. One of the surprises in playing the game was observing the desire to fully and fantastically inhabit each role, using that new perspective to make a meaningful

contribution. This is significant because it takes the game beyond

simply learning new ways of thinking into developing empathy and respect for alternative perspectives. This is what Sutton-Smith refers to as the "rhetorics of play", the global, cultural roles for exploring themes like power, progress, self-discovery and

Reflection

For the intended user groups, upper management teams in the corporate retreat setting or, really, any adult team setting where group problem solving is required, the aesthetic experiences include narrative, challenge, fellowship, discovery and expression. Because the dynamics of the game include role playing in order to view and evaluate a problem from multiple perspectives, the focus

revelation through the procedural rhetorics of role playing and problem solving.

Also observed while playing, was player frustration with the mechanics of turn taking and rule following that produce the dynamics of unpredictability and chance. This is interesting because those dynamics are also what yield the most positive emotional responses. Without chance, the players would not have to exchange roles and the learning would be diminished. Even though the players were very willing to take on the other roles, they had a strong drive to return to their natural role.

is not on winning. The dramatic tension is created through the rise

and fall of narrative; understanding the conflict, moving towards resolution, encountering obstacles, considering alternative solutions, debate, testing and ultimate resolution. The challenge lies in two forms: learning to think differently and solving pressing problems. Each of the team members will take many turns wearing

This assignment is an ideal example of the benefits of learning by doing. For me, there is no better way. As with any good design, the rapid prototyping approach provides great benefit. It allows us to follow our instincts, make some assumptions and test them without investing so much time and effort in speculation.

necessarily in the same order. The critical error in FLUXX Six Hats is the pure separation. As players, we can pretend to, for example, think in a purely oppositional analytical (black hat) way but in order to do that, we internally siphon off much of the complexity (red, blue, green, yellow hat) we used in our analysis. I think this is counter-productive and there must be a better solution.

This process has produced a few parting questions and issues. (NOTE: The questions and issues related specifically to the -Jill Kamas

Reflection

mechanics and dynamics of FLUXX Six Hats are included at the end

of the evaluation of game play) The problem I see with the FLUXX
Six Hats model is depicted in the illustration of the phrenologic head from the cover of De Bono's book that divides the brain into six regions. We simply cant think that way. I don't think this is a small point. If the objective is to teach innovative problem solving, then, at some point, the game dynamics must allow the individual to wrangle internally with multiple modes of thinking. I see innovation as an iterative discipline of analytic response to data, amended by additional data, provoked or challenged by unconventional thinking, influenced by emotion and intuition and then refined by analytic response and then, again...and again..not Bibliography: Abt, Clark (1987). Serious Games. University Press of America. De Bono, Edward (1985). Six Thinking Hats. Little Brown and Company Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M. & Zubek, R. (2001). MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research. Sutton-Smith, Brian ( 2009). Ambiguity of Play. Harvard University Press.