close
    Subscribe to News

    Popular Stories

    Weave Toolkit: SAFe PI Planning with Weave
    7+1 Principles And Five Frameworks for Agile Portfolio Prioritization
    Backlogs, BLACKlogs and Dreamlogs - Entrepreneurial Agility
    How to Run HUGE Retrospectives Across Dozens of Teams in Multiple Time Zones!
    Conteneo's Innovation Ambitions
    Written by Luke Hohmann
    on December 05, 2015


    We've completed our fourth Sprint for the San José Budget Programs, adding resident recruitment, improving copy, and providing more information on the overall process to our d3decides.com web site. The City has now started to work on the actual content for the sessions, which has motivated me to revisit the core design of both Buy a Feature and the Budget Game, my extension of Buy a Feature created in 2011 for Participatory Budgeting with limited resources.


    A Theory of Fun
    Buy this book - you'll love it!

     

    I'm looking at my own work with fresh eyes, as I've recently read A Theory of Fun, Ralph Koster's marvelous book on gaming and gaming design. Ralph laid out a set of qualities and attributes that a "perfect game" would possess and it has me wondering if Buy a Feature and The Budget Game are the world's perfect game.

    To explore this, let's start with a review of Buy a Feature and its progeny, the Budget Game, and then compare these to the attributes of a perfect game outlined by Ralph.

    The Development of the Budget Game

    We started producing Participatory Budgeting events for San José in 2011 with our first Budget Game. The detailed design of this first event can be found in my original post here, but for this post I'll just summarize the rules of Buy a Feature and the Budget Game.

     

     

     

     

    There is a list of 12-20 items for sale. These could be features for a dishwasher or government services, like keeping a library open. There is a set of scarce economic resources that individual players in the game control to buy what they want. Five to 8 players collaboratively purchase the items they think are most important. Once an item is purchased, it is purchased for the group. We explore the results to learn what was purchased (the priorities!) and why these were important (the negotiations among players).

     
    What makes Buy a Feature especially "fun" is that most items require collaborative purchasing -- that is, if the item costs $120, and each player has $50, then at least three players must contribute funds to purchasing the item.

    What makes Buy a Feature serious is that you can’t have everything you want, so you have to choose, and choose carefully, because your choices will impact the city budget. What makes the game scalable is that you are working in a large number of small groups and we can scale these groups to the size of the physical space, or, using our online platform, to an unbounded number of groups.

    What makes the results actionable are that people are purchasing “whole and complete” items. Specifically, if an item is not purchased, then it just isn't as important as items that are purchased.

    The "fun" aspect that I've come to appreciate better from reading Ralph's book is that this negotiation is an intense form of learning - and this learning is "fun" - adult fun.

    Buy a Feature works perfectly for collaborative Budget Allocation or Budget Investment activities. For example, in 2014 San José residents used Buy a Feature to determine how they might allocate a ¼ or ½ sales tax project to respectively raise $34M or $68M (official results from 2014 available here).

    Buy a Feature does not work as well when organization is facing a significant deficit and needs to make cuts in a budget. This was the situation in San José in 2011, 2012 and 2013. We needed a different game - the Budget Game.

    The Design Of the Budget Game

    The Budget Game builds on the core mechanics of Buy a Feature in two ways. First, it starts with a list of potential items to purchase but gives the players a very limited, and typically zero, budget (we refer to these as the "green sheet"). Second, it provides a means for the players to acquire items by giving them a list of items they can CUT from the budget or a list of taxes they can raise (the "red sheet"). The trick is that players must unanimously agree to a red sheet item before they are given money. If agreement is reached, the funds associated with that item are distributed equally among the players.

    I'd like to stress the importance of unanimously agreement. This is a very powerful, hard to achieve requirement. It requires subtle negotiation, listening, understanding and accepting the impact of a given set of choices. I invite you to look at the results of the Budget Games from 2013—you'll see that unanimous agreement was NOT achieved on every item. Some groups of residents decided to raise taxes; others didn't. Some groups of residents decided to cut services; others didn't. The reasons were varied and compelling.

    So the design of the Budget Game is:

    1. We have a list of budget items that community leaders can fund (the "green sheet").
    2. Community leaders do not have enough money to purchase these items.
    3. We have a second list of budget cuts or tax increases that community leaders can select to get more money (the "red sheet").
    4. The pricing and structure of items on either list are set by the City and cannot be adjusted.
    5. Community leaders are placed into groups of 5 to 8 people. Two Conteneo Certified Collaboration Architects manage the process, one as the Facilitator and one as the Obsever.
    6. There is no requirement that any items are purchased or cuts. The Community leaders are in complete control of their virtual money.

     

    Is Buy a Feature and the Budget Game the Ideal Game?

    Let's review Koster's attributes for an ideal game and see how Buy a Feature and the Budget Game stack up.

     

    Is Buy a Feature and the Budget Game the Best Game Ever?

    If you're reading this far into the post I hope you realize that we're not so full of ourselves that we truly believe that Buy a Feature and the Budget Game are the best game ever. Games are considered "ideal" or great in context and, as many game industry experts have pointed out for years, we play games until they become boring. Indeed, I think it is safe to say that there is only one (infinite) game that is the best game ever, and it isn't Buy a Feature and the Budget Game.

    That said (or read, if you're picky), it is undeniable that Buy a Feature and the Budget Game are terrific serious games (ahem, collaboration frameworks) that are optimal for increasing civic engagement and creating actionable feedback for government officials.

    But don't take my word for it! I hope that you'll read this post with enough skepticism that you decide to join us in San José on Feb 20th, 2016, as a Facilitator or Observer (register here). Create your own experience with these games, track me down, and let me know how you'd put on your game designer hat and mod these games to make them even better.

    And in my next post, I'll elaborate on my Agile 2015 keynote on why surveys SUCK and why games are better.

    Let us know what you think. 

    Add your comment below.

    You may also like:

    Budget Games Collaboration Events Every Voice Engaged News Participatory Budgeting San Jose

    Building the Budget from Zero: Online Participatory Budgeting in San José,CA

    Mayor Sam Liccardo and the San José City Council, in partnership with the Every Voice Engaged Foundation and Conteneo In...

    Agile Budget Games Buy a Feature Collaboration Collaboration Cloud Collaboration Frameworks customer Customer Story Decision Engine Innovation Games Multidimensional Collaboration Prioritization

    Case Study: How to Take the Pain out Portfolio Prioritization

    Ed. Note: This is the story of how Decision Engine and the Collaboration Framework known as “Buy a Feature/Budget Games”...

    Budget Games Collaboration Deliberative Decision Making Every Voice Engaged Participatory Budgeting Prioritization San Jose

    Budget Puzzles Considered Harmful

    In my last post about Participatory Budgeting I discussed why surveys suck when used as a tool to understand budget prio...