OmaStadi Budgeting Game An evaluation framework for working towards more inclusive participation through design games Andreas Wiberg Sode Master’s Thesis Aalto University Andreas Wiberg Sode OmaStadi Budgeting Game - An evaluation framework for working towards more inclusive participation through design games Master’s Thesis, Master of Arts Supervisor: Teemu Leinonen Advisors: Maria Jaatinen & Mikko Rask New Media Design and Production programme Department of Media School of Arts, Design and Architecture Aalto University, 2020 3 Abstract AUTHOR Andreas Wiberg Sode DEGREE PROGRAMME New Media Design TITLE OF THESIS OmaStadi Budgeting Game - An and Production evaluation framework for working towards more inclusive YEAR 2020 participation through design games NUMBER OF PAGES 102 + 22 DEPARTMENT Department of Media LANGUAGE English Today, the notion of participatory budgeting has been The impact of the game is analysed using five identified goals and implemented in more than 1500 cities worldwide. In Finland, the subsequently examined using three democratic criteria for evaluating City of Helsinki’s new participatory budgeting process, OmaStadi, participatory processes: participation (inclusion), political equality, opens up an annual budget of 4.4 million euros to implement and quality of deliberation. The evaluation results are then used to proposals suggested by citizens. For this process, the city has develop a broader evaluation framework with guidelines for how to developed a design game, the OmaStadi game, to facilitate these plan, implement, and analyse further evaluation of the OmaStadi proposals. The main goal of the game is to make participation game. in OmaStadi more inclusive. Therefore, it is designed to support qualities such as equal participation, improved discussion, creativity, The research findings indicate that the game seemingly supports citizen learning, and city perception. The fact that the game is the overall inclusiveness of the broader budgeting process. Further, specifically designed to be played by citizens as part of a participatory it contributes to making the gameplay, discussion, and idea budgeting process, makes it among the first of its kind in the world. development more equal for the citizens. Lastly, the game was seen Thus, research into its impact are consequently unique. to strengthen the discussion between citizens, improve the creativity of these, and enhance the overall quality of their proposals. However, This thesis evaluates the OmaStadi game’s impact on the overall in terms of quality of deliberation, high deliberative quality seems inclusiveness of the first year of participatory budgeting. This is done hindered by certain players’ strong attachment to their own ideas or using a constructive and learning-oriented approach that focuses tendency to give away their power very easily. on the challenges (limiting factors), strengths (enabling factors), and achievements (impact) of the game. Research data are collected through qualitative interviews with five civil servants in charge of facilitating OmaStadi, the main designer of the game, and four of the KEYWORDS participatory budgeting, co-creation, design games, participating citizens. design practice, democracy, citizen participation, evaluation, impact 4 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank Kirsi Verkka and her team of Stadiluotsit at the Helsinki’s Participation and Information Unit at the Helsinki City Executive Office for their support and efforts to help recruiting participants for this study. A special thanks is directed to the designer from Hellon and the four Helsinki citizens who participated in my interviews. I would also like to thank my advisors Maria Jaatinen and Mikko Rask for their valuable, extensive, and encouraging guidance throughout the entire thesis process. Furthermore, I wish to thank my friends at New Media, Creative Sustainability, and Collaborative and Industrial Design for the never- ending support and encouragements. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge my parents Peter and Annette, who inspire me every single day. Thank you for always being the two extra pairs of eyes that helps me see in the dark. 5 Contents 1.0 Introduction 7 2.2 Citizen participation: Involving citizens in decision-making 29 1.1 The role of co-creation and service-design 2.2.1 Direct and indirect participation 29 in public sector organisations 8 2.2.2 Deliberative democracy and public deliberation 31 1.2 Helsinki’s participation model and its role 2.2.3 Proximity democracy 32 in the city organisation 10 2.2.4 Participatory democracy 32 1.3 Helsinki’s participatory budgeting process 11 2.3 What is participatory budgeting? 34 1.4 Games in the City of Helsinki 13 2.3.1 What travels the world as participatory 1.5 OmaStadi Participatory Budgeting Game 14 budgeting? 35 1.6 Research topic 18 1.6.1 Research objectives 20 3.0 Research design 37 1.6.2 Research questions 21 1.6.3 Thesis structure 21 3.1 Research approach 38 3.1.1 Ethnographic observation 39 2.0 Theoretical background 22 3.1.2 Semi-structured in-depth interviews 39 3.1.3 Affinity diagramming 41 2.1 Games in design 23 3.2 Data collection 43 2.1.1 Design games, participatory design, and co-design 23 3.2.1 Interviews with civil servants at City of Helsinki 43 2.1.2 What are design games? 24 3.2.2 Interviews with service designer and development 2.1.3 OmaStadi participatory budgeting game as a manager 44 design game 25 3.2.3 Interviews with Helsinki citizens 45 2.1.4 How can design games contribute to participatory processes? 26 2.1.5 Homo ludens and games 28 6 4.0 Research findings 49 6.0 Conclusions 93 4.1 Evaluating the impact of the OmaStadi Game 50 6.1 Studying the OmaStadi game 94 4.1.1 Evaluation goals and objectives 50 6.2 Understanding the impact of the 4.1.2 Enabling and limiting factors 52 OmaStadi game 94 4.1.3 Impact outcomes 54 6.3 Developing an OmaStadi game evaluation 4.1.4 From evaluation to framework 62 framework 95 6.4 Suggestions for further research 96 4.2 OmaStadi Peli Evaluation Framework 63 5.0 Discussion 78 7.0 References 97 5.1 Participation, quality of deliberation, 8.0 Appendix 103 political equality, and the OmaStadi game 79 5.1.1 Evaluating the OmaStadi game’s role as a A: Interview guide PB managers 104 design game 82 B: Interview guide Stadiluotsit 106 C: Interview guide Hellon designer 109 5.2 Why should public organisations conduct D: Interview guide PB manager 111 evaluations? 82 E: Interview guide Helsinki citizens 113 5.3 How is impact usually measured? 83 F: Interview privacy and consent form 116 5.4 How do you measure design practice? 86 G: Citizen interview results 118 5.4.1 Who benefits from measuring the impact of design? 87 5.4.2 Evaluation as an iterative and continuous process 88 5.4.3 What can designerly approaches bring to impact evaluation practices? 89 5.5 Theoretical and practical contributions by the thesis 89 5.6 Quality of the research and its limitations 90 5.7 The active participation of women vs. men 92 1.0 Introduction Chapter 1 | Introduction 8 This represents a systemic shift towards a more participatory and 1.1 The role of co-creation co-creative public governance with a more active type of citizenry. This transitions the public sector away from its traditional role as and service-design in authority and service provider towards an organiser of co-creation activities, in which the sector seeks to facilitate and participate in public sector organisations a collaborative partnership with citizens (Torfing et al., 2016, p. 2; Torfing et al., 2016, p. 6). Contrary to earlier, this new arena of co- Recently, there has been a major change in how the public sector creation seeks to enhance and support close collaboration between includes and engages citizens in political decision-making and public both public organisations, civil servants, and private citizen actors service development. Citizens now demand and expect more from (Torfing & Triantafillou, 2013, p. 15). In order to benefit from the the services typically supplied by public sector organisations. Because extensive resources and ideas that citizens have, public institutions of this pressure, public administrations have been increasingly and civil servants are required to collaborate across previously siloed interested in including citizens in the process of finding solutions departments and to further break down the separation between to public problems and in designing and developing new innovative the public and private actors (Torfing et al., 2016, p. 6). Not only concepts to tackle the constantly changing societal challenges we see do public organisations and administrations need to change the today (Torfing et al., 2016, p. 5-6). Practitioners in both academia way they work internally across departments, they also need new and public administrations agree that it is necessary to adopt a practices for working with citizens. For this reason, notions such as more participatory and collaborative governance system. Ultimately, citizen participation have recently gained more attraction among both improving the formulation of policies and the delivery of improved scholars, civil servants, and public policy-makers. public services requires increased collaboration, deliberation, and engagement of citizens and other private stakeholders (Torfing & While citizen participation is by no means new to the field of Triantafillou, 2013, p. 11-12). This has led to an increased interest public governance, the introduction of co-creation activities into in notions such as citizen participation, user empowerment, and public sector working practices changes the traditional way of co-creation (co-design) (Torfing & Triantafillou, 2013; Torfing et al., viewing the participation of citizens. Typically, theories of citizen 2016). These practices all view user stakeholders (citizens) not only participation placed the engagement of citizens on a kind of “ladder”. as resources, whose knowledge, experiences, and skills can aid the This ladder distribute active citizenry on a set of rungs, starting with work of expert practitioners (policy-makers and designers), but also citizen manipulation (i.e.