From Knowing It to “Getting It”: Envisioning Practices in Computer Games Development

Abstract

This is the published version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link Full terms and conditions of use: http://pubsonline.informs.org/page/terms-and-conditionsThis article may be used only for the purposes of research, teaching, and/or private study. Commercial use or systematic downloading (by robots or other automatic processes) is prohibited without explicit Publisher approval, unless otherwise noted. For more information, contact permissions@informs.org.The Publisher does not warrant or guarantee the article's accuracy, completeness, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Descriptions of, or references to, products or publications, or inclusion of an advertisement in this article, neither constitutes nor implies a guarantee, endorsement, or support of claims made of that product, publication, or service. Copyright © 2013, INFORMS Please scroll down for article-it is on subsequent pagesINFORMS is the largest professional society in the world for professionals in the fields of operations research, management science, and analytics. For more information on INFORMS, its publications, membership, or meetings visit http://www.informs.org T he development of information systems and software applications increasingly needs to deliver culturally rich and affective experiences for user groups. In this paper, we explore how the collaborative practices across different expert groups can enable this experiential dimension of use to be integrated into the development of a software product. In an empirical study of computer games development-an arena in which the novelty and richness of the user experience is central to competitive success-we identify the challenges of conceptualizing and realizing a desired user experience when it cannot be readily specified in an initial design template, nor represented within the expertise of existing groups. Our study develops a theoretical framework to address these challenges. Through this framework, we are able to show how achieving a desired user experience requires developer groups to not only work across the boundaries that arise from specialized expertise, but also across wider fields centred on cultural production and software development, respectively. We find that their ability to do this is supported by distinctive "envisioning practices" that sustain an emerging shared "vision" for each game. The key research contributions that we then make are (a) grounding envisioning practices as a means of theorizing the collaborative practices centred on conceptualizing the user experience; (b) identifying how these practices are interwoven with the "producing practices" of software development, thus enabling collaboration to span expert groups and disparate fields; and (c) theorizing the role of vision as an emerging conceptual boundary object in these practices. Information Systems Research

Visual organizing: Balancing coordination and creative freedom via mood boards

“…The findings corroborate the centrality of affirming creative workers' quest for artistic expression (Eikhof & Haunschild, 2007) and confirm the role of visions to hold various communities of specialists together (e.g., Cohendet & Simon, 2007;Nandhakumar et al, 2013). The paper adds to this literature by illustrating the material and, particularly, visual foundations upon which these exigencies are managed, drawing on the diverse material affordances of artifacts, such as visual briefings or mood boards used by actors to integrate seemingly contradictory requirements.…”

“…Particularly, creative production involves both processes of differentiation, whereby creative producers manage sub-products with relative creative autonomy, and integration, whereby sub-products must cohere with a common aesthetic vision (e.g., Nandhakumar, Panourgias, & Scarbrough, 2013).…”

Co-designing a digital platform with boundary objects: bringing together heterogeneous users in healthcare

“…The non-artifact ill-structured boundary objects [17,19] in phase 1 and 2, were open boundary objects whereas the boundary objects in phase 1 were more open than in phase 2 [43]. However, in phase 3, there was a need for some more structured prototyping, moving towards Leigh Star's [19] tailored use within the social worlds of the design process, resulting in the use of more closed, structured boundary objects [19,43,44]. The emergent properties of the boundary objects can therefore be seen as moving from open to closed over time.…”

“…Open boundary objects can especially be applicable as a concept where non-artifacts are seen as boundary objects [17,19,43]. The distinction made by Ewenstein and Whyte [43] between open and closed boundary objects has grounds in Leigh Star [19] distinctions Bbetween the Bill-structured^use of boundary objects between social worlds and more specific Btailored uses^within those worlds^ [19,44].…”

Situated Boundary Spanning

“…Gasson [2005] also identifies the need to adapt boundary objects depending on the specific concerns of designers. The distinction between "closed" and "open" boundary objects is important in supporting design processes [Nandhakumar et al 2013] because they indicate whether boundary objects are amenable to evolution based on the questions they raise rather than on the answers they provide.…”