How might we choose to structure daily routines - which could include anything from personal aspirations, basic work functions or ongoing familial responsibilities, with other groups which share relatively similar viewpoints and values? Granted, we already have approximations for the above scenario, to some degree. Most of the income levels which have shifted upward, as workplace structure has divided between core and peripheral elements, include spontaneous coordination in the marketplace for time based services.
It's the income levels which have shifted downward, where people tend to lack common reference points to coordinate mutual assistance. Skills coordination games could help some of these individuals explore new organizational frameworks for individual and group development. Such games could provide a beginning point, whereby individuals with limited resources might contemplate a more hopeful future.
Many of the informal coordination patterns of the past no longer exist, in developed economies. Future patterns will need economic definition, so they can contribute to the productive agglomeration which has largely been lost outside of today's more prosperous regions. In all of this, both producer and consumer aspirations will need to be taken into account, so that individuals can contribute to the reality of their own environments.
Nevertheless, it won't be easy to discern personal preferences at the outset. Not only has our economic reality changed greatly in recent decades, but our institutions have often substituted their own preferences on our behalf, in the meantime. Experimentation for the creation of new workplaces, will be slow and to some degree, painstaking. Skills coordination games would provide opportunities for individuals to come together and debate the possibilities of shared aspiration and responsibility.
In some instances, skills coordination games would simply provide a test, to determine how one feels about the process. Do these activities seem practical to the observer? Answers will depend on one's prior inclinations and perceptions. Much may also depend on the work habits one has already put to use in the workplace, or other skills and activities that seem reasonable to share with others.
Once a given group is organized and ready to proceed, a process of deliberation is set into motion. First, how do our more important aspirations fit into our ongoing schedules? Often, daily schedules revolve around these challenges, even though they do not always take an economic form and are instead a part of our personal activity. How might time arbitrage be different in this regard? The flexible nature of educational settings in knowledge use systems, could provide occasions when we get the chance to discuss our personal challenges with others within an economic framework.
Each group begins the discussion with personal aspirations and goals they would like to pursue. Simply hearing what others hope to achieve, suggests possibilities for others, as to the activities they might in turn wish to seek out. Once everyone shares these thoughts, the process begins again with hobbies and other areas of proficiency that participants would be willing to provide.
After these possibilities are discussed, is the third offering of lower skill work. What would participants be comfortable providing for others, and how much time would they be able to do so? A willingness to participate at multiple skill levels, makes it easier to achieve high levels of matched activity with others, which is one of the more important aspects of the game.
Participants might also discuss personal motivations for the preferences they seek. Once everyone is familiar with what is initially offered, the group shifts to what they might accept of the offerings, either in the present or at some point in the near future. How many gaps exist between what is needed, and what is being offered?
Whether or not this is a problem, depends on the nature of the group, and whether in some instances participants would consider educational commitments to more closely align with the expressed desires of the group. Plus, basics would be more important in the beginning, and as a game continues, there would be more focus on experiential options alongside practical options. After these discussions, everyone could once again compare offerings, and discuss whether the process unfolded differently from what their initial expectations might have been.
While little of this process may appear practical at first, these groups would be striving to determine in real time, what countless articles have said needs to be done: Begin the process of determining how we wish to live among one another in the future. Ultimately, it's a matter of finding better answers among ourselves, before our institutions can know how best to respond.