After a few sessions of testing our EDGY-based game, we’re moving on to phase 2 of testing. As good design practice dictates, we prototype and test. Then we adjust and test again.

So, what did we learn in 2024?

• The ideal number of participants is between 4 and 6.
• 50% of teams who have played are comfortable with personifying and embodying a role, i.e. acting and making decisions à la [insert your favorite controversial CEO here].
• 50% of teams are comfortable giving points based on their judgment.
• To simplify the game, cards should be specific to each game.
• Dividing the game into levels of complexity and according to the time available works very well.
• The 3rd level is still not “fun to play” and is not self-supporting.

Those are the broad strokes, and I’ll spare you all the other little subtleties.

So, we made some adjustments and tested the whole thing in mid-January with our friends at Interface. From our point of view, we’ve greatly improved the game in the way we use it, i.e. play to learn, then apply to succeed.

After a few discussions with Carol-Ann, Project Manager at Capital Numérique, we concluded that it would be interesting to use the game to bring together the heads of the various Interface event committees. They could play, then use the same principles to synchronize the teams and establish the high-level strategy for the event. In this way, it will be easier to have a coherent project, and those in charge can be more autonomous in their decision-making later on.

And how did the evening go? It went really well! The participants started by creating a fake company. The aim was to revive their grandfather’s sock company, but with a Big Data twist. In short, a company that was a little zany, but completely coherent. To achieve this, we used EDGY’s 3 facets and 3 intersections.

Then we did the same exercise, but this time with Interface. The discussions were more serious, with real considerations, but still a lot of laughter. It must be said that the first game had prepared the atmosphere well. All in all, good discussions and good alignment regarding the experience, architecture and identity of the event.

But can we really say: “Mission accomplished, we understand and know everything now” with so few questions? No. But it’s a good basis. Playing time: 30 minutes.

Let’s move on to Game 2. This one takes a closer look at each of the facets and their intersections. From our initial 6 facets, we’ve added 12 new elements, bringing more depth to the previous discussions.

Which communication channels should we prioritize? Are conferences the only product? And how do the little extras, like karaoke, contribute to the experience? What process should we put in place to manage the inevitable queues?

During this game, there were questions, answers and, above all, “we’ve got to think about it”. Playing time: 1 h 30.

All in all, there’s still a lot of work to be done for the Interface team, but they’ve had a great opportunity to have fun, bond and agree on the strategy for the first edition of this new event.

What about you? Have you ever had to put together a global vision for such an ambitious project in less than 3 hours?