=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1462/paper5
|storemode=property
|title=“Gamified” Social Dynamics in the Interactive Systems as
a Possible Solution for Increasing Co-Design of Emerging
Services in Smart Territories
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1462/paper5.pdf
|volume=Vol-1462
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/chitaly/Opromolla15
}}
==“Gamified” Social Dynamics in the Interactive Systems as
a Possible Solution for Increasing Co-Design of Emerging
Services in Smart Territories==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1462/paper5.pdf
“Gamified” Social Dynamics in the Interactive Systems as
a Possible Solution for Increasing Co-Design of Emerging
Services in Smart Territories
Antonio Opromolla 1, 2
1 ISIA Roma Design, Piazza della Maddalena 53, 00196 Rome, Italy
2 DASIC - Link Campus University, Via Nomentana 335, 00162 Rome, Italy
{a.opromolla@unilink.it}
Keywords: co-design, gamification, smart territory, role play, storytelling, non-
verbal language, gesture recognition systems, wearable technologies
Abstract. The co-design practice aims to involve city users in the (re)design of
products and services of a territory meeting the real people needs. Although its
application gives clear advantages to the territories, many problems of this
practice prevent a real, effective, and continuous active participation of people.
So, its tools, approaches, and methodologies need to be renovated. In this paper
the state of the art of a PhD thesis, aiming to identify how the co-design processes
could be improved, is shown. In details, the preliminary analysis and results of
the research are discussed, focusing on the gamification of the social dynamics
among the city users who take part in the co-design processes as a possible
solution to the emerged problems.
1 The Problem
In the last years, the academic debate on smart territories focused on many different
components (e.g.: technologies, infrastructures, good policies, etc.) as fundamental
elements of the “smartness”, as stated by Chourabi et al. [1]. Moreover, some studies
have identified smartness indicators, with the aim to elaborate rankings of smart cities
(e.g.: [37], [38], etc.). However, as we showed in a previous work [39], these
approaches put aside the individuality of each territory, assuming that it is possible to
compare them. On the contrary, the assumption on the basis of this work is that different
territories are difficult to compare, because of both different structural elements and
different needs of people who inhabit them.
For this reason, the debate about smart territories is increasingly focusing on the
human component of territories. In this regard, according to the Human Smart Cities
Manifesto, people satisfaction is the main purpose for the smartness [2]. So, the active
participation is a central requirement for people satisfaction, since it creates, as defined
by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) [3], a
partnership between Public Administrations (PAs) and city users (i.e. all the people
who use the different city services for different reasons). In this process, the latter are
46
Proc. of CHItaly 2015 Doctoral Consortium, Rome (Italy), September 28th 2015 (published at http://ceur-ws.org).
Copyright © 2015 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.
actively engaged in the decision-making processes and they determine the topics of this
partnership. The co-design practice, in details, when applied in the urban environment,
aims to involve city users in the (re)design of products and services of a territory
meeting the real people needs. In this practice, the points of view of the different
stakeholders are considered. Indeed, during a co-design session, designers involve users
from the stage of problem identification until the stage of prototyping of the conceived
product or service [4]. Some examples of the use of these practices are PERIPHÈRIA
[5] and MyNeighbourhood [6] projects.
Although the co-design gives clear advantages to the territories, many problems of
this practice prevent a real, effective, and continuous active participation of people.
According to a research investigation carried out in this study, although 85% of people
consider positive or totally positive the possibility to involve city users in the PA
decision-making processes and 73,6% are willing or absolutely willing to be involved
in these processes, only 24,5% of people took part in the past in PA decision-making
processes. Among them, 25,9% consider their experience negative or totally negative,
defining it “ineffective”, “disadvantageous”, “unwieldy”, “complicated”, “not
exciting”, “trivial”, “repetitive”, and “boring”. Moreover, the respondents affirm that
the difficulty in finding people willing to get involved in these processes, the lack of
interest from the PAs, the possible lack of experience in the design field by city users,
and the lack of openness and collaboration of people are among the main disadvantages
of co-design practices. For these reasons, the latter needs to be renovated.
In this paper the state of the art of a PhD thesis, aiming to identify how the co-design
processes could be improved, is discussed. The focus is on: the research question of the
work, the status of the identified problem in the academic debate, the preliminary ideas
and results, the followed methodology, and the contributions of this work to the
problem domain.
2 The Research Question
Considering the problems emerged in the previous paragraph, the research question of
this work is: “How the co-design practices can be improved in order to better involve
city users in (re)designing services and products of a territory?”. In details, the purpose
of this research is to identify dynamics bringing city users to the main territory issues
and involving them in designing products or services. The aim is to renovate the co-
design practice, making people more willing to be involved in identifying the problems
of a territory, in ideating products or services, and in prototyping them.
3 Current Status of the Problem
The co-design, considered as the general practice of involving users in designing
products and services for themselves, is not a recent approach. However, in the last
years the importance of people in these processes is increased. Just think the
increasingly important role assumed by consumers in creating products that companies
will market and sell them, as stated by Prahalad et al. [7]. With the larger consideration
47
Proc. of CHItaly 2015 Doctoral Consortium, Rome (Italy), September 28th 2015 (published at http://ceur-ws.org).
Copyright © 2015 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.
of the relationship between PA and the other city users, this practice has been also
applied to the design of urban products or services.
In the academic literature and in different projects, a large number of tools and
methodologies are applied in order to facilitate the communication processes among
people who participate in a co-design session and/or to explore and represent problems.
Among these tools: the group sketching, the issue cards, the rough prototyping, the
affinity diagrams, the mind maps, the storytelling, the role play, and the character
profiles [8]. The possibilities of a fast prototyping of the products/services allow also
to facilitate the fabrication of a model of the designed solutions.
However, in the relationship between PA and the other city users, the co-design
process is still considered as an exceptional event. On the contrary, it should be inbuilt
in this relationship, becoming a common and everyday practice. The use of the new
ICTs, for instance, allows that. They can build a direct and continuous dialogue between
PA and the other city users, so the latter can deeply influence the public agendas. In
details, web 2.0 tools have created virtual communities focused on specific problems
and/or specific territories, increasing the possibilities for people to take part in PA
decision-making processes [9].
Moreover, a mobility co-design, in which city users take part in the co-design
processes during their “use” of the city, could capitalize the lived experiences and
emotions, in order to express needs and problems in the moment when they are
perceived or conceived. However, these methods are underused. The customer journey
maps [4] allow to focus on the city user experience in interacting within the territory,
but they are usually organized so that the city user is involved after the moment when
the experience is lived. In this regard, the living lab concept is very important. They are
laboratories that allow to create, explore, and evaluate new ideas related to new
products or services within a territory. Indeed, they operate in real territorial contexts
and they allow to create and test the services in the real contexts of use [10].
The methods above mentioned are some of the ways used to renovate the co-design
practices and to facilitate people in participating in the PA decision making processes.
The latter is also the focus of the research shown in this paper. Indeed, some of the
concepts and suggestions discussed in this paragraph were considered the basis of this
work. However, it tries to propose a personal and original way to the identified problem.
4 Preliminary Ideas and Results
The smart territories analysis is the starting point of this research. According to the
systemic perspective of Minati [11], defining all the components of a system is a very
difficult work. So, it is not possible to provide a complete description of the system and
it is necessary to investigate a single variable at a time. Moreover, according to Nam et
al. [12] the smart territories can be considered as systems with three main components:
people, technologies, and institutions. Considering the affirmation provided above, it is
necessary to investigate only one of them at a time. The human component was the first.
This decision is consistent with the topic of this research that is the active participation
of people in designing new products and services in their smart territories.
48
Proc. of CHItaly 2015 Doctoral Consortium, Rome (Italy), September 28th 2015 (published at http://ceur-ws.org).
Copyright © 2015 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.
One of the most important contributions for the experts of urban planning is the work
of Alexander et al. [13]. In defining the patterns of the language of the territories, they
investigated the interactions of people within the territories. In details, they focus not
only on the importance of urban spaces arranged around people needs, but also on the
usefulness of spaces that allow the interaction among people. Indeed, social
interactions arise within the territories. The development of these relations leads to the
emergence of new systemic properties that are new characteristics and attributes of the
system, within the spaces.
This paragraph investigates the ideas and results of the research, focusing on the
consideration of the territories as spaces of meaning, on the “game” as a cornerstone of
the territories, and on how to “gamify” the territories and the co-design processes in
order to involve city users in PA decision-making processes.
4.1 Territories as Spaces of Meaning
The territories are constantly (re)defined by the interaction among people. These
activities allow the city users to continuously re-semanticize spaces, by ensuring to
meet their needs and desires. These places become carriers of meanings always
different over the time. Therefore, the meaning arises thanks to a collective and shared
building process. In this regard, Goffman [14] defines the interaction among people as
a representation, a staging during which two or more parties continuously build a
meaning related to an event or a situation. This “dramaturgical metaphor” was also used
by Habermas [15], who described the dramaturgical action as a possible model of
social action, where participants represent one to the other an audience and make
visible something one to the other.
In this process of transformation, the language plays a central role. In this regard,
the Speech Act Theory developed by Austin [16] and Searle [17], noted that in every
act of communication is always present a performative function. Eco [18] defines
“communication” as an act that produces a transformation. The focus is not only on the
verbal language, but also on the non-verbal language. The different forms of the latter,
that are the paralinguistic system (i.e. the sounds of a verbal communication), the
kinesics (i.e. the communicative acts expressed by body movements, e.g.: the gestures),
the proxemics (i.e. messages sent with the occupation of space), and the haptic (i.e.
messages expressed through the physical contact) are carriers of meaning that structure
actions, affecting the urban environment [19].
4.2 The Game as a Cornerstone of the Territories
In this process of transformation of the spaces, the game is one of the cornerstone.
Indeed, it permeates not only the urban spaces specifically dedicated to the game (e.g.:
playgrounds, parks, etc.), but also urban spaces born with other purposes but used with
playful purposes (e.g.: a road that becomes a playing field, the technique of parkour,
the traffic light that becomes a stage for a juggler, etc.). These examples need to be
considered over their playful component, since the activity that characterizes those
leads to the award of new meanings to the spaces. It concerns, for example, the
49
Proc. of CHItaly 2015 Doctoral Consortium, Rome (Italy), September 28th 2015 (published at http://ceur-ws.org).
Copyright © 2015 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.
emergence of new social needs, of different points of view, and of new social dynamics.
Generally of new systemic properties.
In this regard, according to Huizinga [20] the game can be considered as a significant
function since it gives the community a chance to express how the world is seen. Turner
[21] emphasizes this aspect, focusing on the game as a way to represent the world, to
explore, invent, and recombine it. Moreover, Mead [22] considers the game as a key
element in the formation of the “Self” process that leads a person taking the role of the
Other and, therefore, encouraging social cooperation. In this regard, Winnicott [23]
stresses that the game always presupposes the presence of an Other and that it is a
deeply unifying activity.
Starting from the assumption that the game is a cornerstone of territories and an
opportunity for the emergence of new properties, the research has investigated whether
and how it can be used also during the co-design practices, in order to better involve
city users in (re)designing services and products of a territory. In details, this analysis
focused on the gamification concept. According to Detering et al. [24] this term refers
to the application of elements borrowed from the game environment in contexts that do
not belong to the game environment, with the aim to make more entertaining and
stimulating the activities usually considered boring. The gamification approach has
been mainly applied in the education field (in order to stimulate students to learn while
having fun) and in marketing field (for consumer loyalty).
This research tries to apply the game elements to the co-design processes.
4.3 “Gamify” the Co-design Processes
In order to understand if and how the gamification approach can positively mould the
co-design processes, three types of analysis were conducted: a review of the academic
literature about gamification in smart territories and in co-design processes, an
identification of the meeting points between gamification and co-design, and a survey
with the aim to identify the willingness of people in using solutions combining co-
design and gamification.
A Literature Review. This part of the research aimed to investigate how, within the
academic literature, the gamification approach was applied in smart territory field. This
analysis showed that most of the contributions focused on the design and development
of web and mobile applications. Some of these applications were investigated. The
focus of the analysis was on: the main areas of application of these solutions, the
interaction modes between city users and game/application, and the modes of
involvement of city users in the game (in [40], the results of the literature review).
The analysis showed that the main aim of the investigated solutions is to encourage
people to carry out eco-friendly actions within the urban environment (e.g.: taking
public transportation instead of the car [25], to separate the waste [26], to check noise
pollution [27], etc.). So, in using these applications city users generally have to learn
something and the correctness of their behaviour is examined [28]. Concerning the
relationship between co-design and gamification, the academic literature presents some
examples in which the contributions, ideas, and people needs are the core and are used
50
Proc. of CHItaly 2015 Doctoral Consortium, Rome (Italy), September 28th 2015 (published at http://ceur-ws.org).
Copyright © 2015 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.
in order to realize, through the gamification approach, products or services useful to the
users themselves. Brandt et al. [29] use different game design elements in collaborative
design activities, in order to improve the idea generation process and communication
between stakeholders. Except for some examples directly linked to the urban issues
[30], most of the contributions are related to collaborative design activities concerning
other solutions and methodologies. For instance, Cantoni et al. [31] apply a toy-based
methodology in web communication design, Svanaes et al. [32] apply role playing in
designing mobile systems, and Dodero et al. [33] apply different game elements in a
collaborative learning environment.
The Meeting Points between Gamification and Co-design. In order to identify how
the gamification approach can be applied in co-design processes, the connections
between practices, tools, aims, stakeholders, and areas of application of these two
topics were investigated. The analysis showed that there is a high number of
connections between gamification and co-design. The main are: the focus on
“improving” the world, the importance of the actions of players/city users, the use of a
method and clear rules that produces concrete outcomes, the focus on the cooperation
and exploration, the “level” concept (of difficulty in the game and of engagement in
co-design), the interaction between different people with specific characteristics, etc.
This operation allowed at a first level to identify the meeting points between co-
design and gamification, but at a second level the outcome was the definition of the
boundaries of design possibilities that allow to insert game elements in co-design
practices. They will show in the paragraph 4.4.
The Survey with City Users. The aim of this survey was to identify the willingness of
people in using solutions combining co-design and gamification. It was carried out on
a sample of 220 participants with an age range between 25 and 54 years old, with no
differences between males and females. Indeed, according to the data of ISTAT - Italian
National Institute of Statistics [34] and Osservatorio gioco online [35] this target is
considered the more active both in participating in social and political issues, and in
playing games (in [41], the results of the survey).
According to the collected data, 77,2% of the respondents consider positive or totally
positive the use of the gamification approach in order to involve city users in PA
decision-making processes. 70,4% of the respondents affirm that the gamification
approach could increase their involvement in these processes. Among these people we
find also: 50% of respondents who had declared to be not available (or absolutely not
available) to be involved in PA decision-making processes; the 71,5% of respondents
not already involved in these processes; the 61,4% of people who had declared to be
not frequent gamers; the 68,6% of people who do not used services based on the
gamification approach.
Generally they prefer to use the solutions combining co-design and gamification in
order to identify problems in a specific area. They declare to prefer solutions organized
in micro-sessions and to be used in and around the city, simultaneously with other
activities (e.g.: walking, strolling, visiting a place, etc.). The preferred areas of
51
Proc. of CHItaly 2015 Doctoral Consortium, Rome (Italy), September 28th 2015 (published at http://ceur-ws.org).
Copyright © 2015 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.
application of these solutions are the mobility and the environment issues. Finally,
respondents prefer to use digital solutions rather than “analogical” ones.
4.4 How to “Gamify”
On the basis of the outcomes emerged from these analysis and from the considerations
above discussed, we can affirm that it is possible to integrate game elements in co-
design processes. Indeed, many meeting points between gamification and co-design
were identified (paragraph 4.2) and the city users are generally willing to participate by
using solutions combining these two practices (paragraph 4.3). Moreover, the co-design
for the urban environment through the gamification approach has been little
investigated in the academic literature (paragraph 4.1).
In this paragraph the requirements of the solutions combining gamification in co-
design practice are identified. The investigated elements are the most suitable
participants, environments, playtime and applications.
The Participants. The main users of these solutions will be young adults, who are
people aged between 25 and 34 years, followed by people belonging to the age group
between 35 and 44 years. Males will be slightly more than women. Moreover, they will
have a level of education at least equal to the high school diploma.
Players will be not only people already willing to be involved in PA decision-making
processes, but also people not willing or people who did not take part in the past in
these processes. So, the use of game elements might be a good mean to encourage them
to participate. Most of players who will use these solutions are people interested in the
possibility of using game solutions for purposes different from the game itself.
However, having already used these types of solutions in the past does not seem to be
a key variable to decide to be involved in these applications.
The Environments. The game environment will be the physical territory. Most players
would use this game in and around the city rather than in a fixed location. This aspect
is consistent with the preference of players for games organized in multiple sessions.
Indeed they want a high degree of freedom that allows them to decide when to play/co-
design, on the basis of their time, desire, and motivation.
The Playtime. Users will play/co-deign in parallel with other activities. So, the best
solutions should take into account the activities that normally people carry out in
“using” their territories, without interfering with them. This characteristic makes these
solutions very similar to the urban games.
Since the possibilities of interaction between the city users and the physical
environment in which they live are numerous, there are many opportunities to play/co-
design. The variables to consider are the following: the main action performed by the
user (she/he moves, she/he is stopped); the goal of the presence of the user in the
physical environment (the trip home, the shift work, the shift to another place of the
personal life, the shift to other public place such as a public office, relax, walk, visiting
the city, shopping, waiting); the used means (public transportation, private vehicle such
52
Proc. of CHItaly 2015 Doctoral Consortium, Rome (Italy), September 28th 2015 (published at http://ceur-ws.org).
Copyright © 2015 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.
as bicycle, car, walking); the places (street, square, park, garden, waiting areas, public
offices).
The Application. These solutions will be part of so-called collaborative games, since
the players should be able to work together. The collaboration is intended as the union
of the activities carried out by individual players and those carried out by two or more
players together. Indeed, although the game focuses on a common goal, the single
player needs to have specific missions and related benefits. So, the use of game
mechanics (points, badges, awards, etc.) is a key element.
Moreover, since the game needs to have a certain end, the general goal of the game
needs to be identified before. The use of clear rules helps to lead to the end. The
combination of the rules and the resources will lead to the identification of the most
suitable product or service.
The most suitable game elements for the solutions follow. They can be considered
as the framework of the solution discussed in the next paragraph and, for this reason,
they can represent the reference points for the design of new solutions combing game
elements for co-design purposes.
1. Role. Each player (city user) will have their own resources, information, possible
actions, and relationship with other players. These elements will be used to
contribute in (re)designing the product or service. For example, if the common goal
is to find solutions for regenerating an urban space, the possible roles played by the
different city users could be: “the responsible of the green areas”, “the road
manager”, “the responsible for pollution and waste”, “the responsible for security”,
“the responsible for public infrastructure”, “the budget manager”, etc.
2. Mission. Each player will have a mission to complete. It will be part of the more
general goal. In the example above mentioned, the mission of the road manager is to
create solutions for a more sustainable mobility. She/he will contribute by using
specific resources (e.g.: the car/bike sharing services) and actions (e.g.: close a
road). The resources and the actions will be previously identified by the manager of
the co-design process. About that, von Neumann et al. [36] define “game” the rules
of the game and “play” the way in which these rules are reflected in the course of a
specific game. So, in our solutions the manager of the co-design process will define
the game (i.e. the actions and the resources) but the players define the play (i.e. the
combination among the different actions and resources).
3. Experience Points. Each player, on the basis of the undertaken actions, will receive
points and badges, which will represent her/his engagement in the processes.
4. Story. Once the planning is completed, people who manage the game (a mentor) not
only will decide the winner (on the basis of the collected points and badges) but
she/he also will tell the story built by the city users who played (by defining the
characteristics emerged from the co-design processes).
The phases of the co-design that may be most affected by these solutions are: the
creation of products and services in the area, the identification of the problems in the
territory, and the implementation of the designed service/product.
53
Proc. of CHItaly 2015 Doctoral Consortium, Rome (Italy), September 28th 2015 (published at http://ceur-ws.org).
Copyright © 2015 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.
5 The Contribution of the Work to the Problem Domain
As we said, the aim of this research is to show how the use of game elements can
improve the co-design processes, through the gamification of the social dynamics.
Although nowadays the active participation of city users in decision-making processes
is a sector in which PAs are more and more investing, the problems are still numerous.
In this context, the game represents a solution, not yet fully explored, useful to
encourage people to interact with each other and to take part in these processes. Indeed,
the relationship and the collaboration among city users leads to explore unpredictable
elements and to find new solutions.
One of the suitable solutions combining game elements in co-design processes is the
outcome of this research. This project is only one of the possible “declinations” of the
elements of the framework identified in the previous paragraph. Starting from this
framework, the identified solution, which in fact is a game tool for co-design processes,
uses a wearable technology, specifically a smart ring, in order to allow city users to
interact with the urban environments. This solution requires the use of a non-verbal
language, the gestures, as a communication tool among city users. In details, each
player (city user) will have a smart ring, corresponding to a specific role (e.g.: “the
responsible of the green areas”, “the road manager”, “the responsible for pollution and
waste”, etc.) and specific missions (as part of the overall mission of the game). The ring
will recognize the gestures performed by the wearer. Each gesture refers to specific
actions (e.g.: “add”, “delete”, “clean”, etc.) and resources (e.g.: “trees”, “meeting
areas”, “footpaths”, etc.), useful to co-design the solutions.
A mobile application associated with the single ring allows not only to show the city
user their missions, the collected point and badges, and the available resources and
actions, but also to record the performed gestures. Indeed, the mobile application, in
recognizing the gestures, will transform them into icons and will store them. These
icons will be associated to a specific place and will be visible to all the players. A
combination between the different icons, as the outcome of a process of interaction
between the players, will create the overall story, corresponding to the (re)designed
product/service.
In this solution, the participation in (re)designing products or services of the urban
environment occurs when city users “use” the city that is the moment in which they feel
their needs and they are able to identify possible resolutions to the problems. Indeed,
the use of the experience in the specific moment in which it is experienced allows to
produce more effective outcomes rather than its use in other moments (e.g.: during a
co-design session organized around a table).
Moreover, it is expected that this disseminated game oriented to the co-design takes
places during the cracks, that are the empty times and spaces of people in their
interactions within the territory.
Finally, the interaction modes among city users (the gestures) are used as real design
tools. In this process, the used support (the smart ring), is particularly suitable, since it
is minimally invasive and its use is independent from the execution of other activities.
54
Proc. of CHItaly 2015 Doctoral Consortium, Rome (Italy), September 28th 2015 (published at http://ceur-ws.org).
Copyright © 2015 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.
6 The Methodology
The research methodology is divided into five main phases:
1. Identification of the problem. The academic literature on smart territory was studied.
This operation allowed to identify the problem. In order to explore it, a research
investigation was conducted, by identifying the aspects to focus on.
2. Exploration of the solutions to the emerged problem. The literature on the human
component of the territories and on the gamification approach was studied. The
reference to the architectural and urban studies, semiotics, sociology of
communication, and game studies was necessary in this phase. Moreover, the study
of the real application projects, the contact with experts, the participation in
conferences and seminars, and in Italian and European projects on smart cities and
open government have been crucial to learn more. After the identification of the
meeting points between co-design and gamification, the administration of a survey
has investigated the effective willingness of the most suitable city users in using
these solutions.
3. Definition of the requirements of the solutions. A high number of elements
concerning the most suitable characteristics for the solutions combining co-design
and gamification has been identified. So, the basic requirements have been listed.
4. Design and realization of the solution. Starting from the defined requirements, a
proof of concept of one of the most suitable solutions has been identified. The choice
of the most suitable specific technologies for this project and the suitable gestures
associated to the specific “roles” are in progress. The prototyping phase will follow.
5. Testing and Evaluation. The project designed in the previous phase will be subject
to a test in a municipality of the city of Rome, whose neighbourhood committee has
shown interest in the identified solution. The aim was to involve the young adults of
this municipality, who complain about a lack of services, in designing solutions that
improve their quality of life. This test will be useful to validate not only the designed
solution but, more in general, the methodology of applying game elements in co-
design processes. In details, the effectiveness of the solution in designing new
products or services for the territory, the number of city users involved in this
process, and the general experience lived by the engaged city users (e.g.:
pleasantness of the process, perception of their usefulness in the process, possibility
of a future engagement, etc.) will be evaluated through a final survey which will
follow the test.
References
1. Chourabi, H., Nam, N., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J.R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., Pardo, T.A.,
Scholl, H. J.: Understanding Smart Cities: An Integrative Framework. In 45th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 2289–2297. IEEE Computer Society,
Washington (2012)
2. The Human Smart Cities Manifesto, http://humansmartcities.eu/join-our-
network/manifesto/
55
Proc. of CHItaly 2015 Doctoral Consortium, Rome (Italy), September 28th 2015 (published at http://ceur-ws.org).
Copyright © 2015 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.
3. OECD: Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-
Making. OECD Publishing, Paris (2001)
4. Smart cities: Co-design in Smart Cities. A guide for Municipalities from Smart Cities (2011)
5. PERIPHÈRIA, http://www.peripheria.eu/
6. MyNeighbourhood, http://my-neighbourhood.eu/
7. Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V., Co‐creating unique value with customers. Strategy &
Leadership, vol. 32 issue 3, pp. 4–9 (2004)
8. Service Design Tools,
http://www.servicedesigntools.org/taxonomy/term/1
9. Carroll, J.M., Horning, M., Hoffman, B., Ganoe, C., Robinson, H., Rosson, M.B.:
Community Network 2.0: Visions, Participation, and Engagement in New Information
Infrastructures. In: Costabile M.F., Dittrich, Y., Fischer, G., Piccinno, A. (eds.) End-User
Development. LNCS, vol. 6654, pp. 270–275. Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2011)
10. European Commission - Information Society and Media Living Labs for User-Driven Open
Innovation. An Overview of the Living Labs Methodology, Activities and Achievements.
Technical Report (2009)
11. Minati, G.: Esseri collettivi. Sistemica, Fenomeni Collettivi ed Emergenza. Apogeo, Milano
(2001)
12. Nam, T., Pardo, T.A., Conceptualizing Smart City with Dimensions of Technology, People,
and Institutions. In: 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference:
Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, pp. 282–291. ACM, New York
(2011)
13. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein M.: A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings,
Construction. Oxford University Press, New York (1977)
14. Goffman, E.: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday, Garden City (1959)
15. Habermas, J., Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M (1962)
16. Austin, J., How To Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press, New York (1962)
17. Searle, J.R., Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge (1970)
18. Eco, U.: Trattato di Semiotica Generale. Bompiani, Milano (1975)
19. Paccagnella, L., Sociologia della Comunicazione. Il Mulino, Bologna (2004)
20. Huizinga, J., Homo Ludens. Beacon Press, Boston (1971)
21. Turner, V., From Ritual to Theatre. The Human Seriousness of Play. Performing Arts
Journal Publications, New York (1982)
22. Mead, G.H., Mind, Self and Society. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1934)
23. Winnicot, D.W., Playing and Reality. Tavistock Publications, London (1971)
24. Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Lennart, N., O’Hara, K., Dixon, D.: Gamification. Using Game
Design Elements in Non-Gaming Contexts. In: CHI'11 Extended Abstracts on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2425–2428. ACM, Vancouver (2011)
25. Jylhä, A., Nurmi, P., Sirén, M., Hemminki, S., Jacucci, G.: MatkaHupi: A Persuasive Mobile
Application for Sustainable Mobility. In: ACM Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous
Computing Adjunct Publication (UbiComp) 2013, pp. 227–230. ACM, New York (2013)
26. Vara, D., Macias, E., Gracia, S., Torrents, A., Lee, S.: Meeco: Gamifying Ecology through
a Social Networking Platform. In: IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo
(ICME), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2011)
27. Martí, I.G., Rodríguez, L.E., Benedito, M., Trilles, S., Beltrán, A., Díaz, L., Huerta, J.:
Mobile Application for Noise Pollution Monitoring through Gamification Techniques. In:
Herrlich, M., Malaka, R., Masuch M. (eds.): 11th International Conference on Entertainment
Computing (ICEC) 2012, pp. 562–571. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (2012)
56
Proc. of CHItaly 2015 Doctoral Consortium, Rome (Italy), September 28th 2015 (published at http://ceur-ws.org).
Copyright © 2015 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.
28. Liu, Y., Alexandrova, T., Nakajima, T.: Gamifying Intelligent Environments. In:
International ACM Workshop on Ubiquitous Meta User Interfaces (Ubi-MUI '11), pp. 7–
12. ACM, New York (2011)
29. Brandt, E., Messeter, J.: Facilitating Collaboration through Design Games. In: 8th
Conference on Participatory Design: Artful Integration: Interweaving Media, Materials and
Practices, vol. 1, pp. 121–131. ACM, New York (2004)
30. Oliveira, M., Petersen, S.: Co-design of Neighbourhood Services Using Gamification Cards.
In: Fui-Hoon Nah, F. (eds.) HCI in Business. LNCS, vol. 8527, pp. 419–428. Springer
International Publishing (2014)
31. Cantoni, L., Marchiori, E., Faré, M., Botturi, L., Bolchini, D.: A Systematic Methodology
To Use LEGO Bricks in Web Communication Design. In: 27th ACM International
Conference on Design of Communication, pp. 187–192. ACM, New York (2009)
32. Svanaes, D., Seland, G.: Putting the Users Center Stage: Role Playing and Low-fi
Prototyping Enable End Users to Design Mobile Systems. In: SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 479–486. ACM, New York (2004)
33. Dodero, G., Gennari, R., Melonio, A., Torello, S.: Gamified co-design with cooperative
learning. In: Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA 2014),
pp. 707–718. ACM, New York (2014)
34. ISTAT (Italian National Institute of Statistics): La Partecipazione Politica in Italia. Report,
ISTAT (2014)
35. Osservatorio Gioco Online: Il Gioco Online in Italia: tra Maturità e Innovazione. Report,
Politecnico di Milano (2014)
36. von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O.: Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton
University Press (1944)
37. Giffinger, R., Fertner, C., Kramar, H., Kalasek, R., Pichler-Milanović, N., Meijers, E.: Smart
Cities: Ranking of European Medium-Sized Cities. Centre of Regional Science at the Vienna
University of Technology, Department of Geography at University of Ljubljana and the
OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies at the Delft University of
Technology, 2007
38. Cohen, B.: What exactly is a Smart City?,
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1680538/what-exactly-is-a-smart-
city
39. Ingrosso, A., Sciarretta, E., Opromolla, A., Pazzola, M., Volpi, V., Medaglia, C.M.,
Calabria, A.: Smart City, Definizioni e Classifiche. Il Caso Italiano, In:
Comunicazionepuntodoc, vol.10, pp. 55–67. Lupetti Editore (2014)
40. Opromolla, A., Ingrosso, A., Volpi, V., Medaglia, C.M., Palatucci, M., Pazzola, M.:
Gamification in a Smart City Context. An Analysis and a Proposal for its Application in Co-
design Processes. In: Games and Learning Alliance Conference (2014)
41. Opromolla, A., Volpi, V., Ingrosso, A., Medaglia, C.M., Co-design Practice in a Smart City
Context through the Gamification Approach: A Survey about the Most Suitable
Applications. In: Streitz, N., Markopoulos, P. (eds.) Distributed, Ambient, and Pervasive
Interactions. LNCS, vol. 9189, pp. 578–589. Springer International Publishing (2015)
57
Proc. of CHItaly 2015 Doctoral Consortium, Rome (Italy), September 28th 2015 (published at http://ceur-ws.org).
Copyright © 2015 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.