DECISION MAKING IN SITUATIONS INVOLVING INSTITUTIONALIZED

CREATIVITY - THE DEVELOPMENT OF VIDEOGAMES

Peter Zackariasson, Umeå School of Business & Economics, Peter.Zackariasson@fek.umu.se

Tim Wilson, Umeå School of Business & Economics, Tim.Wilson@fek.umu.se

ABSTRACT

There are industries that rely on creativity, i.e., the ability to produce work that is novel and
appropriate for market consumption. The workings of organizations in these industries can be
perplexing to understand and difficult to manage because of their very dependence on creativity.
Problems (or opportunities) in these situations may be considered to be in fact a cluster of
interlocking problems (opportunities) with interdependent solutions. In turn, “the solution” is
one that provides some reconciliation for the diverse sources of the interlocking problems in a
way that provides some satisfaction for each. In effect, this description defines the situation
under which a videogame is developed. Results of an ethnographic field study are used to
illustrate how this situation has been handled in an institutionalized setting.

Key Words: Creativity, Videogames, Decision Making, Project Management, Actor Networks

INTRODUCTION

One definition of creativity has it as being “an arbitrary harmony, an expected astonishment, a
habitual revelation, a familiar surprise, an unexpected certainty, an intoxicating steadiness, a
miraculous expectation, …” [15]. As little as we know about individual creativity, perhaps we
know less about organizational creativity – and these organizations are important. There are
whole industries that rely on creativity, e.g., the movie – or music industry. Work in these
industries tends to be run by projects, but it is not uncommon for these projects to have time and
cost overruns and perhaps not even meet goals on output. At the heart of these difficulties is the
manner in which decisions on output are made. March [13, p.58] has suggested that disciplines
tend to see decision making as organized by a logic of appropriateness – economists and political
scientists, for instance, talk about the importance of institutions, anthropologists about culture
and norms, and psychologists about identities. Within this framework, the concept of creativity
poses a problem. It is not tied to a discipline, nor are we quite sure that decisions really get made
in a classical sense. The purpose of this paper is to relate observations made in the development
of a videogame by a successful firm that produces these games on an ongoing basis. Details of
the approach are contained in a dissertation of the primary author of this paper [17].

OBSERVATIONS

Background - In the treatment of “real” decision-making, it has been noted that there is a class of
“non-rational” problems in which “the problem (or opportunity)” is in fact a cluster of
interlocking problems (opportunities) with interdependent solutions [3, pp.54-56]. In turn, “the
solution” is one that provides some reconciliation for the diverse sources of the interlocking
problems in a way that provides some satisfaction for each. In effect, this description describes
the situation under which a video game is developed. To put things in perspective, a videogame

-1-
is the product of the cooperation of several artistic skills: coding, art, design, and audio. The
first of these areas is programming, or coding. A videogame, on the most elementary level,
consists of a number of objects and rules. The characteristics of these objects and the
relationships among them are defined in codes. In that sense, codes are the basis for all input in
videogames. The second area is art, or graphics. The construction of objects will enable the
user, or gamer, to visually interact with the game codes. These objects are mainly made in three-
dimensions, enabling then to move and interact with other objects. Depending of the capacity of
the platform, these objects can be made more or less realistic in shape and texture. The third area
is that of game design. Object placements and object interactions have to be aligned with the
general purpose of the game, the game plot. In that respect, a game designer often works with
codes and the objects created by graphics. The fourth and last area that has to be in place to
complete a videogame is that of audio. There are several different kinds of sounds in a game.
There are sounds that stem from the game world itself, plus sounds appropriate to the
surroundings and music that will transfer a mood inside the game. These four areas are
separately, artistically challenging areas. Aside from basic technical skills, there has to be
knowledge about what will work inside a game and how the aspect of ‘fun’ will be introduced
and/or enhanced. The challenge thus is not only in creating good outputs in each separate area,
but also in creating a complete game that will encourage, or capture, immersion. Immersion
itself is a concept that indicates how well the producers have bridged the distance between gamer
and game, making them one in such a way as to encourage long gaming hours.

Organization and Projects - We would tend to characterize this firm as a “project organization”
[cf. 14, pp.191 ff.], but the term “production team” (insofar as they it tends to work on a single
project at a time) is equally applicable. The four teams that comprised the working organization
coincided with the tasks that must be accomplished in the development of any game –
programming, art, audio and design, and the organization centered on the leads of each of the
four development areas. These leads are the individuals responsible for the output in their
respective areas. The product manager has a role equivalent to that of a project manager,
coordinating resources and keeping track of the project. The project that was in progress when
the field visits were made was a sequel to an innovative and award-winning game introduced in
2000. The project had been scheduled as a 24-month effort and was nearing the end of
development. Thus, the immediate task at the time was to produce a playable demo with a
trailer, which was to be presented at a press release by the producer along with some other
games. The game was to compete with other high-ranked games, was built on the same “motor”
(platform) as the previous game, and was accessible to “mods” (skilled players who had the
ability to change the game by reprogramming it). At the time of this writing, the game has
reached the market and has received its share of acclaim.

Implementation and Decision Making – We think it fairly obvious that the initiation and wrap-up
of videogame projects are in many ways similar to “standard” projects. That is, time and
resources can be set and agreed upon at initiation; similarly, at the end of the project (end of
build), reasonable people can agree that the project is complete and the deliverables satisfactory.
The uniqueness in these projects, as it were, is agreeing up-front what exactly the deliverables
will be. In this regard, the publisher places unusual trust in the developer. Put another way, the
goal for the specific project that was being conducted at the time of the field study might have
been, “develop a videogame that is more fun to play than the previous one and is competitive

-2-
with other games of the same genre at the time of commercialization.” This goal is both
qualitative and transient. Progress is difficult to ascertain until progress is made, which puts
these projects within the typology of decisions that Lindblom [11] [12] has described. That is,
ends and means become intertwined. One is thus left to “muddle-through” [12] or
“incrementalize” [11] one’s way to progress.

The company under study had developed a heuristic [cf. 16, pp.27-28] that allowed it to
systematically approach their opportunities of this general type while maintaining an element of
control. This model not only affected each project individually, but the whole company as an
enterprise [18]. Basically, the group ran 10-day mini-projects with each team working on its
area. At the end of ten days things were put together and progress was evaluated toward the
“(more) fun” game. These builds impacted future goals. Simon [16, p.162] has in fact suggested
that a paradoxical, but perhaps realistic, view of design goals is that they both motivate activity
and generate new goals. We envision this approach as a spiral sloping upward with two tails.
The tails represent the initiation and completion stages of the project. Cycles tend to be circular,
but because there is ongoing progress, the overall process is represented as a spiral to connote
continued progress. Finally, although Gantt charts are normally downward flowing toward
completion, we suggest the helix tilts upward. In this way, we connote progress as “spiraling
up” toward a desired state of output instead of “spiraling down.”

A single cycle in this process contained three types of decisions. First, there are the “continuous
opportunities of redefinition.” Drucker [7, p.8] has indicated that in knowledge work,
individuals at the lowest level can (are forced to) make decisions that critically affect company
performance. The company in which this study was done had a policy of preferably hiring only
“gamers” within each specialty. By the very nature of the task, individuals were given latitude
(redefinition opportunities) in the approach taken to their assignments. The hiring approach
ensured that decisions within this context would be made from a gamer’s point of view – if it
were exciting to the individual doing the job, there was a reasonable chance that it would be
exciting to a paying gamer. The second type of decision came mid-way through the mini-project
on the fifth day. At this point, the internal producer and team leads met and discussed
approaches and problems. If there were needs for mid-cycle changes, they were addressed here
so as not to waste the second week. Finally, the internal producer would put together advances
in an operating build that each staff member was expected to play. From this experience, an
evaluation was made of efforts and the path for the next cycle was set.

Project participants were included in the decision making process. The “producer staff” included
in the initiation and completion stages asserts the nominal control that the producer firm had as
owner of the development firm. Under the general situation, there would also be an ongoing
interest of this group in the progress of development as monitored during the various interim,
special builds. The “management core of the game developer” was composed of the CEO,
product manager, and the team leads. It was not only the responsibility of this group to plan and
control development efforts, but they also were responsible for suggesting the nature of new
developments. That is, the projects were suggested on the basis of these individual’s assessment
of potential gamers’ interest, competition and their own present and future development
capabilities. Additionally, there was the whole project staff, which participated in the continuous
cyclic decisions. The organization was not (could not be) a democracy, but individuals were

-3-
heard. Finally, there were the external testers. Alpha testers were generally inside, or in close
proximity, to the producer. The purpose of the alpha test is to move the game to a “feature-
complete” status in preparation for the beta test. The beta test, on the other hand, was open, i.e.,
one can sign up for consideration as a beta tester. The beta test is kind of a stress test – how
much can the technology withstand? On an ongoing basis, there are also minor inputs from
future gamers. Early adopters, or “hardcore gamers,” many times establish forums on the web
where anticipated videogames are discussed and critiqued. Opinions of features that should be
included are discussed, and expectations as well as wishes are expressed. The company engaged
in these discussions on a selective basis, choosing professional forums for interaction.

These individuals were the “actors” who were involved in game development, but we may be
overlooking essential contributors to this process. Developments in the firm would have been
impossible without available technology and equipment. There is a school of thought that asserts
that humans alone do not advance development. This line of thinking suggests that no situation
is purely social; there is always the presence of the technical and vice versa. This de-
dichotomization of human and nonhuman actors has been one of the contributions of actor-
network theory – ANT [1] [2] [4] [5] [8] [9]. ANT is relationally materialistic [10, p.4], which
means that any object or actor is defined in relation to other objects or actors. It follows then that
technology and people are not fixed, nor separable. Output is thus a co-creation of these actors
working together as clearly is the case in videogames.

REFLECTIONS

There are few industries with the current growth prospects of online videogames. It has been
forecast that the traditional videogame market will go from $23.2 billion in worldwide revenue
in 2003 to $31.2 billion in 2009 [6]. This article has focused on the means that a successful
game producer has developed to meet these challenges. The basis of understanding is associated
with the understanding of how creative people from four different areas can be brought together
to develop a product in an effective, efficient way. At the implementation level, we observed
that the firm developed a heuristic designed to blend the efforts of individuals. Creativity at the
base level depended upon the creativity of these individuals. Individual contributions thus were
important, and the heuristic allowed for/encouraged individual decisions early in each build. On
the conceptual side, it has been posited that the general treatment of this phenomenon could be
associated with a Lindblomian type treatment of a cluster of interlocking problems/opportunities
with interdependent solutions. Lindblom himself appeared to be of the opinion that many if not
most policy decisions were of this type [12], as were many strategic decisions in general [11].
The games developed within the study firm fit this pattern. They were not March [13, p.58] type
decisions. Management’s challenge was to get the contributions of the groups to fit together,
which involved series/parallel efforts. That is, progress depended on progress in each area.
Nevertheless, the art team, for instance, could not proceed without programming and
programming could not go without knowing what the art team needed. Thus, the heuristic was
developed and designed around the short cycles. In these situations, coordination is a requisite to
get the group contribution to creativity, but so is it necessary for individuals to freely interact. It
seems as if that was the case here, and in fact, we have referred to these individuals as
“gregarious gamers” in another publication [18]. It would be a mistake to undervalue the
strategic decision to preferentially hire gamers into the firm.

-4-
It may be that the 10-day builds served a purpose other than a “check point.” One of the
problems in attempts at creativity is the “block” – one’s progress stops and attempts to proceed
result in only a “spinning of the wheels.” In these block situations, instead of moving onto the
next cycle, one keeps going around in circles. We are not behaviorists, but we follow Simon [16,
p.162] in thinking the game builds after each cycle proved motivational toward the continued
progress in the process. No one individual had to understand the total game concept, but each
one could make recommendations from his/her area of interest and expertise. With 20 or 25
minds at work, there exists a decent probability that someone will come up with the ideas of how
to move on to the next step. Actor-network theory would say that technology, or nonhuman
actors, is part of this production process. The cathode ray tubes were the easels upon which the
participants painted. Likewise these same easels drew the participants into their painting.
“Every spot of paint on a canvas creates a new pattern that is a continuing source of new ideas
for a painter … The painting process is a process of cyclical interaction between painter and
canvas in which current goals lead to new ones [16, p.163]. Likewise, the heuristic permitted
leeway in activities, but tight control in reflections. The inscriptions into this document thus
weighted heavily on activities. Its presence lingers at the desks and in the corridors of the
facility, on the intranet, in presentations, and in other documents created to support the project.

The heuristic perhaps provides the understanding that links decision-making within this specific
study with the general understanding of institutionalized creativity in organizations. That is, it is
not the creativity of any one individual that is critical in this process, although it is useful, nor is
it necessary for any one individual to understand all that is going on – series and parallel
operations, specialization and integration, working together, getting things done – that is the key.
The big step, the one that this firm apparently mastered, was devising an approach that forced
effort from one cycle to the next.

CONCLUSIONS

We have reported here on a successful effort at institutionalizing a degree of creativity by a

videogame developer. The treatment is associated with the Lindblomian concepts of “scientific
muddling” a.k.a. “incrementalism.” Decisions on progress reside with both individuals and the
group. The heuristic developed by the firm under study has been described. It is suspected that
similar methods would be useful in only similar situations. Nevertheless, any institutional
attempts at creativity would seem associated with similar Lindblomian situations and thus
dependent upon both individual and group contributions.

REFERENCES

[1] Akrich, M. “The de-scription of technical objects.” in Bijker, W. and Law, J. eds., Shaping
technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, 205-224, MIT Press, 1992.

[2] Akrich, M. & Latour, B. “A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of
human and nonhuman assemblies.” in Bijker, W. and Law, J., eds., Shaping Technology/
Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, 259-264, MIT Press, 1992.

-5-
[3] Braybrook, D. & Lindblom, C. A strategy of decision: Policy evaluation as a social
progress. London: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1963.

[4] Callon, M. “Is science a public good? Fifth Mullins lecture.” Virginia Polytechnic Institute,
23 March 1993. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 1994, 19(4): 395-424.

[5] Callon, M. “Techno-economic networks and irreversibility.” in Law, J., ed., A sociology of
monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination, 132-164, London: Routledge,
1991.

[6] DCF Intelligence. Worldwide market forecasts for the video game and interactive
entertainment industry, 2004. (Preview downloaded 9/21/2004).

[7] Drucker, P. The effective executive. New York: Harper Business, 1966, republished1993.

[8] Latour, B. Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1999.

[9] Latour, B. Science in action. London: Open University Press, 1987.

[10] Law, J. “After ANT: complexity, naming and topology.” in Law, J. and Hassard, J., eds.,
Actor network theory and after, 1-14, London: Blackwell Publishers, 1999.

[11] Lindblom, C. “Still muddling, not yet through.” Public Administration Review, 1979,
November-December, 517-526.

[12] Lindblom, C. “The science of ‘muddling through.’” Public Administration Review, 1959,
19, 79-88.

[13] March, J. A primer on decision making. New York: The Free Press, 1994.

[14] Meredith, J. and Mantel, S. Project management: A managerial approach, 5th ed.,
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003.

[15] PDMA (Product Development & Management Association) 2004. The PDMA Glossary for
New Product Development. www.pdma.org/library/glossary.html (downloaded 8/15/2004).

[16] Simon, H. The Sciences of the artificial, 3rd ed., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.

[17] Zackariasson, P. Cyborg Leadership: Including nonhuman actors in Leadership. Licentiate

thesis. Umeå School of Business and Economics, Department of Business Administration,
2003.

[18] Zackariasson, P., Blomquist, T. & Wilson, T. “EPM in videogame development: Life
amongst Lindblomian cyborgs.” Projects & Profits, 2004, IV(10), in press.

-6-