Talk:Innovation game

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Games, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GamesWikipedia:WikiProject GamesTemplate:WikiProject GamesGames articles

Marketing & Advertising Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Untited[edit]

This note is a commentary on my first article in Wikipedia. I invite Wikipedia editors who are inclined to put tags on the page to also include additional notes here so that I can understand why the tag was applied.

Three tags were added to the article: {{wikify}}, {{uncat}}, and {{orphan}}. I tackled these sequentially, as follows:

uncat: I added the article to several categories related to "market research". I subscribe to the notion of applying multiple, perhaps-overlapping categories to an article since people categorize things differently.

orphan: I inserted links to this article in selected related articles (about 4). I studied the help and commentary on orphaned articles, but could find no guidelines for how many links it takes to become "unorphaned". I chose 4.

wikify: This tag confused me at first because it seemed to overlap the uncat and orphan tags. Before writing the article, I checked for a duplicate. I was careful not to plagarize the "Innovation Games" book by Luke Hohmann, although I did refer to it when writing definitions of certain terms and phrases. I believe the lead paragraph is formatted correctly, and the section headers follow the order I found in other articles. I don't think an "infobox" is necessary unless Wikipedia begins formal categorization of certain kinds of focus groups or qualitative research methods. For now, I left it out.

Let me know if I've missed something.

EricKuhnen

71.139.196.165 (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Large issues[edit]

This is essentially just the argument for Innovation Games, rather than some general category. The section on history confuses game theory with games - they are very different. I am going to try to fix it a bit. --goodoldpolonius2 (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if this is the proper use of a Wikipedia entry and keyword.[edit]

I'm a professional interested in educating the public on using gameplay for innovation. The entry clearly states that it refers to the book and the model it presents. But since it doesn't offer up a larger context, it seems odd to me that anyone typing in "innovation games" would be sent here. While it certainly has a valid claim to the term, this work is by no means the first, only, or definitive book (or model) on the subject of games for innovation, or for change.

To avoid bloat and confusion, shouldn't there be some reconciliation of closely related topics? Or a parent definition that isn't author-specific, which could be expanded and cross-referenced in the context of other innovation game models/techniques? Forgive my ignorance if I've misinterpreted the Wikipedia rules, or the purpose of this page, but I always understood that domains of practice should be left generic, unless the entry describes a universally-recognized pioneer. Please advise.

pc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricia Colley (talk • contribs) 23:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no yeah you're entirely correct, this is definitely one of those "article reads like an advertisement" kinds of biased article (sorry, I don't know how to link to the various page clean-up marking definition pages) 136.35.170.50 (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE[edit]

I had my boss tell me to walk into prospecting sales' meetings which included C-Levels and draw a tree on the board, add different horizons, and then pass out paper apples and ask executives to place apples on the tree to represent levels of importance (low hanging fruit-sales 101, project management 101.a - ).

He also told me to play the "20/20 game"; directing me to ask questions to triage the prospect's needs. "Which is more important THIS or THAT?... THIS or THAT? THIS.......or ...... THAT?" (Yes - I get it, the annual vision test - Really?!!!)

I value the opinion of my peers and ran this by several which included VPs of sales and marketing at Fidelity, Oracle, and SAP. ALL agreed they would leave a meeting or stay and be frustrated if a software representative, similar to myself, would waste their time with these games.

A week later, I quit a job that I enjoyed as I felt these types of games humiliated not only me but my audience. –People leave people not companies–

I would recommend that competent sales professional use simple conversation, business experiences, and case study knowledge to extract essential information from their audience during a discovery meeting.

KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE, you may insult their intelligence or even worse expose your inadequacies with these games — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:C601:4B67:C55F:8E41:AACB:73AF (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]