GAMIFICATION: A FRAMEWORK FOR THE WORKPLACE
By
Harry Jacobs
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
The University of Liverpool
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
20/01/2013
ABSTRACT
GAMIFICATION: A FRAMEWORK FOR THE WORKPLACE
By
Harry Jacobs
Workplace Gamification is a relatively new concept. Companies and organizations are now
looking at Gamification to help solve organizational issues such as employee engagement,
learning and collaboration. The concept of Gamification is more than just game playing in the
workplace: it is about introducing elements of game-play to real world situations. Up until recently, very few academic studies have explored the various frameworks of Gamification as
they exist. This dissertation bridges the gap between the various frameworks of Gamification
that exist in business and examines how it relates to game theory and the psychology of motivation, in order to prove that Gamification has merit and that under ideal circumstances it is
beneficial to implement in the workplace.
The methods of research involved studying several frameworks and designs for Gamification,
using qualitative methods such as studying existing literature to demonstrate that there is academic merit to these frameworks. Interviews with two organizations were also used; one of
which has implemented a Gamification solution, while the other is in the planning stages of a
Gamification strategy in the workplace. Using such qualitative methods in this paper illustrates
that there is academic support for a common framework design that can be shared amongst
companies and organizations. The quantitative methods herein measure the effectiveness of
Gamification within the user community of these systems.
As a result of the research, it was determined that while Gamification can be modeled into organizations, these organizations must have a clear understanding of how its organizational
goals correspond to their short and long term goals. The model framework that was created as
part of this dissertation reflects how the organization and its internal and external users relate
to the short and long term goals and how feedback is a critical part of Gamification. As well as
the notion that Gamification cannot be stagnant once applied, it must be continually updated
and changed to reflect both the changing business goals and the skills of the users who use
the system.
The implications of developing a framework for organizations are that they must have a thorough understanding of their organizational goals and how they relate to the users. As the success of Gamification relies on the definition of an organization’s short and long term goals, the
clarity of such definitions will correlate to the success rate of Gamification in the specific organization. If they want to implement Gamification, companies may consider changing their management philosophy from a vertical organizational structure to a flat organizational structure,
thus increasing the likelihood of a successful implementation as it will allow employees greater
responsibility and autonomy.
DECLARATION
I hereby certify that this dissertation constitutes my own product, that where the language of
others is set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where I
have used the language, ideas, expressions, or writings of another.
I declare that the dissertation describes original work that has not previously been presented
for the award of any other degree of any institution.
Signed,
Harry Jacobs
Student, Supervisors and Classes:
Student name:
Harry Jacobs
Student ID number:
15729325
GDI name:
Taly Sharon
RMT (GDI) class ID:
ComputingReserachMethodsTraining.20120503.202
DA name:
Ina Van Loo
DST (DA) class ID:
ComputingAdvisorClass.20120503.202
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to Naureen Merjac and Imran Sayeed of NTT Data, who
encouraged me to study the significance of Gamification in an organization such as NTT Data. I
would also like to thank Mario Herger of SAP who showed me the importance of a strong community in which to implement Gamification. My grateful thanks are also extended to Ina Val Loo
who was invaluable in keeping me on track during the dissertation process at the University of
Liverpoool and Terri Elvald, a long time friend, who provided editorial support.
Finally, I wish to thank my wife, Aingeal Stone, who encouraged me to pursue my dream of a
Master’s Degree and stood behind me every step of the way over the last two years.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES
vi
LIST OF TABLES
vii
Chapter 1. Introduction
1
1.1
Scope
1
1.2
Problem Statement
1
1.3
Approach
1
1.4
Outcome
2
Chapter 2. Background and review of literature
3
2.1
Introduction to Gamification
3
2.2
Gamification Literature Review
8
Chapter 3. Theory
3.1
22
Theory
22
Chapter 4. Analysis and Design
23
4.1
SAP
23
4.2
NTT Data
23
4.3
Capgemini
24
4.4
Gametize
25
4.5
The Players
25
4.5.1
4.5.2
Demographic Results ............................................................................. 25
Analysis of the Survey Questions .......................................................... 27
Chapter 5. Methods and Realization
5.1
29
Methods and Realization
29
Chapter 6. Results and Evaluation
6.1
30
Results and evaluation
30
Chapter 7. Conclusions
33
7.1
Lessons Learned
33
7.2
Future Activity
33
7.3
Prospects for Further Work
34
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Survey of client implementations of Gamifcation ..............................6
Figure 2: Market Forecast for Gamification ......................................................7
Figure 3: Fogg’s Eight Step Model of Persuade Technology ........................10
Figure 4: Computer as tools in Persuasive Technology Fogg(2003) .............10
Figure 5: DiTommaso’s Frame work for success. ..........................................11
Figure 6: Dignan’s Behavioral game model. ................................................12
Figure 7: Five Stage Behavior Change Lifecycle. .........................................13
Figure 8: Basic View of Motivation (Vassileva, 2012) ...................................15
Figure 9: Basic motivational model ................................................................15
Figure 10: Flow Theory .................................................................................16
Figure 11: MDA ..............................................................................................18
Figure 12: Game Design Map ........................................................................21
Figure 13: Survey Results Male to Female Respondents ..............................26
Figure 14: Survey Results Age breakdown ....................................................26
Figure 15: Survey Results Years Worked ......................................................27
Figure 16: Gamification Framework Model First Model Framework ...............30
Figure 17: Expanded Model Framework Organizational Gamification ...........32
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1: Navigational Data-Entity Hierarchy (typical) .....................................13
Table 2: Human Desires vs. Game Mechanics ..............................................19
Table 3: Motivational pairs. ............................................................................28
vii
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1
Scope
This paper will examine Gamification models (frameworks) that exist; currently, no complete Gamification model framework exists for organizations to use, current Gamification
models are incomplete and are not standardized. The focus will be on converging current
management, gaming and psychology theories into one Gamification model framework
that can be used by organizations to successfully implement Gamification within their organizations. The scope does not include discussion regarding any of the Gamification
platforms available to organizations or the implementation of such systems.
1.2
Problem Statement
During the next five to ten years, organizations may consider implementing Gamification
as a way to enhance and improve business processes in areas such as employee engagement, training and collaboration. As evidence based on current implementation
demonstrates, the organization and the nature of its employees play a significant role in
the success of implementing Gamification. Without a standard organizational model from
which to implement Gamification, success of implementation cannot be guaranteed.
Thus, a standard Gamification framework model that an organization can use as a basis
for organizational changes is required.
1.3
Approach
In analyzing current models and literature that focuses on Gamification, this paper will
determine if a single model can be created and applied to any organization. This standardized model will allow organizations to implement a complete Gamification solution.
These models will be presented to industry experts to validate whether it is feasible to use
as both an academic model and a business model.
The approach is to start with current existing models of Gamification that are qualitative in
nature. These models come in the form of Academic Models such as Fogg (2009) persuasive technology models as well as models created by industry experts such as the
DiTommosa (2011) Gamification framework. In order to show a Gamification framework
as valid, this paper analyses these models from both a game theory perspective as well
as a motivational one. Based on these perspectives, a method for an integrated framework can be developed
To support the literature, review interviews will be conducted in organizations that have
implemented and will be implementing Gamification, to determine what state must exist in
the organization to be able to support a successful Gamification layer within the organization. Additionally, interviews with companies that specialize in Gamification delivery will
be conducted. Finally, a quantitative perspective of Gamification with employees who participate in Gamification systems will be examined. These qualitative and quantitative
analyses along with a study of the theories that support Gamification will allow the creation of a framework that organizations must have in place in order to bring Gamification
into the workplace.
1
1.4
Outcome
The outcome of this dissertation will be a general Gamification model that can be
applied to organizations. The paper begins with a determination of the definitions
of Gamification. Once Gamification is defined, it will explore the various theories of
gaming and motivation, providing the groundwork to understand why enterprise
Gamification can be successful in the workplace under an organizational structure
that allows Gamification to be implemented.
The underlying support for this technology within the business and organizational
culture must exist before Gamification can provide any enhancements to the organization. In order to add Gamification, the model must have all the various components that are needed to support a game-like layer within an organizational system,
such as a social media site. This model framework illustrates the relationship between the organization, the users, short and long term goals, feedback and the
different components that are related to the organization.
2
Chapter 2. BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1
Introduction to Gamification
This section broadly introduces the topic of Enterprise Gamification, modern Gamification
has existed for five to ten years; however the concept of the importance of making work
enjoyable was recognized in 1973 by Coonradt (2007) who founded Games of Work. This
Organization was created to study why companies in the US were experiencing productivity losses in the workplace. In 1983, Coonradt (2007) asked “Why would people pay for
the privilege of working harder at their chosen sport or recreational pursuit than they
would work at a job where they are being paid?” His five principles are now considered
the building blocks of modern Gamification. The principles are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Clearly defined goals
Better scorekeeping and scorecards
More frequent feedback
A higher degree of personal choice of methods
Consistent coaching
Krogue (2012) states that Coonradt based his book on a quote by Thomas S. Monson
that states, “when performance is measured, performance improves, when performance
is measured and reported back, the rate of improvement accelerates.” Expanding on that,
Coonradt in Krogue (2012) gives two additions to Monson’s original quote. First, “Increasing the frequency of feedback improves the quality and quantity of performance.” Secondly, “When Feedback is illustrated on charts and graphs, the impact is even greater.” Today’s Gamification is based on principles that were developed almost 40 years ago. It is
technology today that allows delivery of Gamification to a broader audience of potential
users.
According to Werbach (2012), Gamification itself is not a true game, but a series of
game-like elements that are introduced into non-game applications. An example of a
Gamification principle is exhibited in rewards programs, such as with credit card usage,
where the purchaser earns points for every purchase made on the credit card. The points
can be redeemed for credit that goes directly on the card, or possibly redeemed for gifts.
Although simplified, reward programs such as this are an example of applying Gamification principles to a real world activity. Suits (1967) provides an understanding of how a
“game” is defined when he states, “a game is to engage in activity directed toward bringing about a specific state of affairs, using only means permitted by specific rules, where
the means permitted by the rules are more limited in scope than they would be in the absence of the rules, and where the sole reason for accepting such limitation is to make
possible such activity.”
Woods (2012), from a business perspective states that “Gamification is about achieving
goals using an engaging set of metrics-based interaction.” Gamification allows managers
to access these metrics for their participants, allowing them to shorten feedback cycles,
which in turn allows for up to date feedback to the user. Traditional methods typically give
employees feedback on a yearly cycle that is set out by human resources policies and
practices. These feedback cycles are more often qualitative in nature and feedback is
often not a true picture of an employee’s performance throughout the year. Gamification
becomes part of the business feedback cycle and allows managers to measure performance of employees in quantifiable ways. Ultimately, Gamification should be designed
into systems and therefore “Gamification can actually become an integral part of the process design for business”, Woods (2012).
3
Schell (2009) states that “a game is a problem-solving activity approached with playful
attitude.” The game allows players to move from start to finish along pathways that
branch. Players make choices throughout the various paths. Werbach (2012) elaborates,
“The game provides the environments to make these choices, the structure and the
rules.” Therefore, a game has branching paths to make choices moving from start to finish, players make choices and move through the pathways (play). The structure is what
gives us the choices and gives us a sense of freedom.
Another concept of gaming, according to Zimmerman (n.d.) also talks of the ”magic circle”, which is a concept first introduced by Huizinga in which “The magic circle represents
the idea that games take place within limits of time and space and are self-contained systems of meaning.” This gives game players a boundary between the real world and the
game. The task of the game designer is to bring the players into the game and motivate
them to continue playing, in order to achieve this; the game must have meaning and provide value to the player. However, the issue with Gamification that Mehta and Kass
(2012) raise, is that while games have been proven to draw users in, they were not necessarily developed to change behaviors outside the game itself. This suggests that the
main concern to Gamification from an organizational perspective does not exist within the
gaming aspects, rather, in the changes that need to be made in the organization to support Gamification.
Casual gaming is defined as “individuals in a broadband household who play at least one
hour per month”, Macchiarella (2012). One reason to bring Gamification into the workplace, according to Macchiarella (2012), is that casual video gaming has increased 241%
from 2008 to 2011 in the United States. According to Bunch (2012), “135 million people in
the US play at least 1 hour of video games a week.” Gaming is not just for children anymore, according to the ESA (2012), the average age of game players is 30 years old. Indeed, 37% of all gamers are 36 years old and above, this represents the largest age
group, with the under 18 years old at 32% and the 18 – 35 at 31%. The adult population
of game players, on average, have been playing games for 14 years. What this means
for companies and organizations, according to Bunch (2012) is that “a large section of the
workplace is already familiar with game mechanics and find virtual achievements rewarding.”
Gamification encompasses many disciplines including game design, psychology, marketing, economics and computers. It allows companies and organizations a mechanism to
learn about human behavior and ultimately influence that behavior. Bunch(2012) states
that in a study by State Farm Insurance, offers two oversimplified explanations of behavior modification. First in terms of non-neuro-chemical, he states that, “when people are
rewarded for a task, they felt encouraged to continue on with similar tasks. It’s that feeling
of accomplishment that makes a person want to accomplish more.” There is also a neurochemical explanation for behavior modification. When a person is rewarded, the brain
releases dopamine into their system. “The dopamine stimulates receptors in the brain
that reinforce behavior and create positive associations with whatever task was performed” (Bunch, 2012). While the physiological effects are out of scope for this paper, it
is worth noting that this affect is being studied by marketing organizations, they are using
the
term
Dopamine
Marketing
or
Neuromarketing
(http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com). Games can be considered addictive and the
idea of achievement in the game will motivate employees to continue the desired behavior.
It is worth noting that Werbach (2011) differentiates between four different types of Gamification. Most recognizable would be External Gamification this type is used in marketing,
sales and customer services applications. As previously noted, this can apply to credit
cards or other customer loyalty programs that offer points and induce a consumer to
spend. Second is Internal Gamification, this is used for HR activities such as training, but
also includes productivity enhancements in activities such as collaboration. Smith in
Stillman (2012) discusses the implementation of games at the Microsoft organization, two
areas of Gamification that have seen success in organiztions such as Microsoft and SAP
have focused on “expanding skills in role, or ‘organizational citizenship behaviors that
4
require core skills – is the best way to ensure the success of a productivity game. Player
motivation is a key component of the success of the productivity game.’” While adding this
playful element to the workplace, according to Wood (2012), companies like LiveOps of
Santa Clara, CA. have been able to decrease training for their roadside assistance call
centre to 14 hours from their original 4 week training period. While operators of the call
center can opt out of the gamified system, 95% of the operators stayed in the program
and the company saw an increased performance rate from 8% to 15%. With the use of
leader boards and reward points, employees can see where they stand within their work
group or team. It is noted in a number of articles, including Chorney (2012), that Gamification takes content that already exists and adds Gamification techniques in order to engage the user.
The third type, Serious Games, according to Werbach (2012), while not strictly Gamification, these simulations mirror real world activities such as Military Operations, flying simulations and medical operations. The idea behind a serious game is not to enhance a job
performance, but to fully immerse a user in an experience which provides a safe environment in which to learn. Unlike games or systems that include elements of Gamification, serious games are not meant to entertain or add an element of playfulness.
The last type of Gamification according to Werbach is called crowdsourcing. According to
Moore (2011), Gamification was used in a breakthrough in AIDS research. In 2008, at the
University of Washington a game called Foldit (http://fold.it/portal/) was created and released to gamers. Foldit is a game that allows players to manipulate proteins that would
help scientists to understand protein structures. The idea of the game was to prove that
scientific games could lead to important breakthroughs in research though collaborative
effort of a community that would not be normally associated with scientific research; in
fact according to Moore (2011), 60,000 gamers solved the structure for the protein retroviral protease. Research scientists had been trying to solve this problem for 10 years. Improved collaboration among virtual teams is just one of the benefits of introducing games
into the workplace.
Many organizations today are looking at Gamification as a way of solving some fundamental business issues. For a large organization such as NTT Data, which is currently
29th on the list of Fortune 500 companies (CNN, 2012), one of the biggest issues facing
the company is that many employees work outside the company’s offices in what are
called “engagements”. As a result, many NTT Data employees feel a closer association
to the engagement they work for than they do for NTT Data. This leads to issues including employee retention, engagement and motivation. Workplace Gamification can offer
organizations solutions to solving some of these employee issues. According to Meloni
and Gruener (2012), engagement (shown in Figure 1) is the number one issue organizations want to resolve or support. Werbach and Hunter (2012) state that, “engagement has
business value in itself. Studies suggest roughly 70% of American workers aren’t fully
engaged in their jobs.” When employees are not engaged, it affects both their happiness
and performance.
5
Figure 1: Survey of client implementations of Gamifcation 1
While Gamification is not new to consumer driven products such as credit cards or social
media sites such as Facebook, Foursquare and Twitter, businesses are beginning to recognize that there is value in adding playfulness to the work environment. According to
Reeves and Read (2009, p. 175) “…that work and play have traditionally been considered
separately,” this is especially true when it comes to typical software used by employees to
do their job. However, this trend is changing, “there’s a growing business trend, and parallel, scholarly and scientific effort, that is reevaluating the segregation of work and play.”
(Reeves and Read, 2009, p. 175). McGonigal (2011), presents a major argument for
Gamification in business, stating that people can feel more rewarded in the virtual world
than in real life. With a small investment in IT systems, Gamification, used correctly, can
foster intrinsic rewards that cost less money than increasing extrinsic rewards such as
remuneration.
The Gartner Group (2011) predicts that by 2015, 50% of all companies will gamify systems and processes. Gamification according to Bunchball (2010) an industry leader in
Gamification states that, “Gamification applies the mechanics of gaming to non-game activities to change people’s behavior.” The goal of Gamification is to increase participation
and engagement where a “Particular compelling, dynamic, and sustained Gamification
experience can be used to accomplish a variety of business goals” (Bunchball, 2010).
McGonigal (2011, p. 11) supports The Gartner Group predications by stating that those
who ignore games will be at a disadvantage as they will not know how to leverage games
within their businesses. As a result will miss potential opportunities to solve problems and
create new opportunities. Gamification according to Meloni and Gruener (2012) has been
growing exponentially, the graph in Figure 2. supports Gartner’s prediction of Gamification
showing strong growth over the next few years.
1
Meloni, W. and Gruener (2012) Gamificaiton 2012: Consumer and Enterprise Market
Trends, Available at: http://gamingbusinessreview.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/05/Gamification-in-2012-M2R3.pdf. pp. 11
6
Figure 2: Market Forecast for Gamification 2
According to Deterding et al. (2010), the actual term “Gamification” was first seen around
2008, but since 2010 it has garnered wide spread use. Deterding et al. (2010) supports
Bunchball (2010) by stating that “the process of using game thinking and game mechanics to solve problems and engage users” as well as “Integrating game dynamics into your
site, service, community, content or campaign in order to drive participation.” This is
achieved by adding a playful element to the work environment.
Dabbish and Von Ahn (2008) state that those who studied HCI (Human Computer Interaction) over the last thirty years, “have recognized and written about the importance of
enjoyment and fun in user interfaces”. Research has suggested, “…that incorporating
game like elements into user interfaces could increase user motivation and the playfulness of workplace activities.” However, it is noted there has to be a very tight relationship
between playing the game and the type of work being done.
Malone (1982) studied students using two simplistic computer games in order to create
“guidelines for designing enjoyable user interfaces.” In creating an interface, he looked at
various elements such as the challenge, examining whether the game offers a clear goal,
and whether it provides feedback as the user moves closer to the goal. Another aspect of
design is the fantasy element; the interface must appeal emotionally to the user. The final
aspect is curiosity; the interface “…should be novel and surprising but not completely incomprehensible.” (Malone, 1982).
Another factor in the Gamification movement is the growing number of Generation Y cohorts (born during the late 80’s to the 1990’s) that are entering the workforce. Armour
(2005) of USA Today, explains that this new generation of worker “has been pampered,
nurtured and programmed with a slew of activities since they were toddlers, they are both
high-performance and high-maintenance.” These new entrants do not respond to some
of the traditional managerial techniques used by some companies. Dhawan (2012) suggests that the needs and desires of today’s Generation Y workplace are out of sync with
the current lifestyle desires of the Generation Y who need to function within those companies. “A BPW Foundation’s Gen Y study published in April 2011 also noted that by 2025
Generation Y will make up 75% of the world’s workforce.” Employers that continue to
maintain traditional workplaces may find recruitment, engagement, participation and retention an ongoing issue if they fail to make changes to the higher demand of Generation
Y’s workplace and lifestyle balance.
Ross (2012) articulates that “the spirit of deep play is central to the life of each person,
and also society, inspiriting the visual, musical and verbal arts; exploration and discovery.” Game players are engaged deeply in game-play making them feel balanced, creative and focused. Even children are gaming and learning computer skills well before traditional activities such as swimming and cycling. “Augmenting a business process with
game mechanics has led to ‘significant productivity improvements.’ These lessons support the notation that games can – and will – be important component of the workplace of
the future.” (Ross, 2012)
State Farm (2012), in a recent forum, recognized the importance of the benefits of Gamification in order to drive employee behavior. However, Gamification in terms of employee
motivation is also a factor of cost and the ability to translate wanted behaviors into functional requirements of a system. These behaviors are tied to both intrinsic and extrinsic
motivations of the employee. The challenge, according to State Farm (2012), is extracting
the features of the “game” to include in a technical platform that will change the behavior.
Gamification, a growing trend in many large organizations, has allowed technology to
move from everyday routine business processes to more non-traditional roles such as
motivation, training and collaboration. Through these game-like elements, Werbach
2
Meloni, W. and Gruener , op. cit., pp. 7
7
(2012) suggests that we can enhance employees day to day tasks with an element of fun,
leading to a better work experience for the employees and in return, generating improved
engagement from the employees.
2.2
Gamification Literature Review
This section provides an overview of the various literature and secondary data used in
this paper. While Gamification itself is not bound to technology, technology has allowed
organizations to deliver game-like elements through systems such as social media. Gamification, as well as game theory, is linked to a number of disciplines rooted in areas such
as sociology and psychology, which are used in the game-like elements delivered by
technology. The purpose is to motivate or engage employees to better perform tasks in
order to support organizational goals. Many of the concepts and data of Gamification
exist outside academic literature and therefore business literature is also used to support
the academic work. In this review the goal is to consolidate the various elements of Gamification and illustrate that the concept is functional and can be supported by an organization that uses a compatible business model.
Hilmarsson and Rikhardsson (2011) recognized that there has been much research in the
area of motivation and organizational incentives, stating that this resulted “in greater understanding of human motivation and a greater capability to motivate through organizational incentive systems.” Academic literature of Gamification frameworks is just beginning to come forward; in a recent article by Nicholson (2012) who states that the main
reason to gamifiy is to motivate the individual into doing something, Werbach and Hunter
(2012) convey that Gamification can be a powerful tool to apply to an organizations existing business practices. However, they state that “many of the best game mechanics in
business don’t even look like games to those involved. The essence of games isn’t entertaintment…it’s a fusion of human nature and skillful design.”
Gamification applications work best when focused on the users/employees, by using User
Center Design, where the individual user’s needs are the center of all the elements. Nicholson (2012) puts forth a definition of Meaning Gamification, which states “Meaningful
Gamification is the integration of a user-centered game design element into non-game
contexts”. It is important to note that, according to Werbach (2012), the non-game contexts signifies that a game is being played for some other purpose other than the game
itself, which means that it is being played for “some objective other than the success of
the game.” Most frameworks determine how Gamification operates in terms of badges
and leader boards. While function is important, the focus of this research is the framework
of the organization and the users. Developing a foundation is necessary before determining how Gamification will be delivered.
One of the first frameworks for Gamification was delivered by DiTommaso (2011). He
references that there are seven aspects of Gamification to be considered. Using literature to compare the various aspects of DiTommoso’s framework in Gamification with a
company that has successfully implemented Gamification will determine whether each
component is valid.
The seven areas that the framework addresses are:







Understanding the business need to gamify
Understanding your users
What are the goals and objectives?
Identify Necessary Skills and Actions
Identify the Game Elements
What are the desired outcomes?
Play & Polish (DiTommaso, 2011)
8
The main goal of adding Gamification to a workplace is to improve already existing systems. Mehta and Kass (2012) state that, “incenting behaviors which employees already
know they can and should perform, but which they might otherwise procrastinate about,
or ignore altogether.” This suggests that companies need to understand how their business is functioning before adding Gamification to their systems. According to the Gartner
Group (2011) the main business goals for Gamification “are to achieve higher levels of
engagement, change behaviors and stimulate innovations”. According to Burke (2011),
large constituency businesses cannot ignore Gamification because Gamification focuses
on increasing engagement with their stakeholders.
While organizations must recognize that Gamification is technology-enabled, Mehta and
Kass (2012) state that this falls under persuasive technology which Fogg (2009) indicates
has existed for approximately 15 years. In Fogg’s model, organizations use persuasive
technology to change the behavior of an employee, which requires an understanding of
what behavior requires change. Mehta and Kass (2012) express the importance of mapping the type of game to the behavior modification required. If Gamification is to be used
as persuasive technology, an organization must examine its strategic goals and align employees toward those goals. Gamification needs to specifically address behaviors that
move employees towards the goals of the company. Fogg’s (2009) eight step persuasive
technology is illustrated in figure 3:
9
Figure 3: Fogg’s Eight Step Model of Persuade Technology 3
Looking at Fogg’s (2009) eight steps of persuasive technology and DiTommaso seven
areas, we can establish that there are similarities between the two models. According to
Fogg, the first step is choosing which behavior to change, while DiTommaso focuses on
understanding the business. Fogg is more specific, while DiTommaso alludes to the importance of understanding what needs to be changed within the business. Fogg (2003)
suggests that computers can assume a active role in persuasive technology as shown by
The Functional Triad, illustrated in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Computer as tools in Persuasive Technology Fogg (2003)4
According to Nicholson (2012), users are in the center of the organization and Gamification needs to be user centered, which puts the goals and needs of the individual over the
organization by ensuring that “game design elements can be made meaningful to the user
through information, then internal motivation can be improved as there is less need to
emphasize external rewards” (Nicholson, 2012). DiTommaso (2011) offers a similar model of Persuasive Technology as represented by Fig. 5.
Fogg, B.J. (2009) ‘Creating Persuasive Technologies: An Eight-Step Design Process.’
[Online] Available at: http://www.varunkhanduja.com/8%20Step%20process.pdf, pp. 3
3
Fogg, BJ (2003) ‘Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to change what we thing
and do’. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers:San Francisco CA
4
10
Figure 5: DiTommaso’s Frame work for success.5
One of the newer models of behavior games are provided by Dignan (2011). Figure 6
illustrates the model in which Frang and Mellistrand (2011) claim is used “to describe
games that can make almost any activity more engaging and conducive to learning by
applying game dynamics to everyday experiences.” Looking at the DiTommaso (2011)
model, we see that “Fun, Satisfactions and Meaningful interactions” flow out of the
“Lenses of Interest.” The Dignan (2011) model complements the DiTommaso (2011)
model as both models focus on modifying behaviors. The Dignan (2011) model, when
describing a behavior game, starts at the outmost ring at the top with the “Activity”, which
is what we are trying to accomplish with Gamification. The “Player Profile” is the employees who you want to attract to the game. The last two are “Objectives” (short and long
term) and “Outcomes” (positive or negative), where meeting or not meeting the objectives
triggers an outcome.
The second “layer” of Dignan’s model is called The Skill Cycle. According to Frang and
Mellistrand (2011), this represents the period of time these behaviors are performed. Users perform an action and this action is interpreted by the black box (rules engine), then
returns feedback to the user. It is worth noting that Dignan’s gaming model separates actions from feedback, whereas Geotz (2011) shows feedback as a loop that contains four
elements: evidence, relevance, consequence and action. In Gamification, part of the goal
is to capture what the user is accomplishing within the Gamified system. In Dignan’s
game model, the black box would interpret these actions and provide evidence back to
the user in a meaningful way so that it is relevant to the user, who then looks at all the
various paths open to him, evaluates the consequences, and then takes action within the
rules of the game.
Rules can be known before the game begins or discovered through actions during the
game. The period of time is variable. The innermost layer of the model contains the building blocks. These, according to Frang and Mellistrand (2011) represent the skills of the
DiTommaso, D. (2011) ‘Beyond Gamification: Architecting Engagement through Game
Design Thinking’ [Online]. Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/DiTommaso/beyondgamification-architecting-engagement-through-game-design-thinking, slide 48.
5
11
players, the resources that are required and the obstacles or challenges in the game. In
Gamification we start with easy tasks, as users iterate through skill cyclesthey develop
skills and then the gamified systems offers more resistance (obstacles) as a player
learns. What creates the engagement of the game is that employees find a balance between having the correct skills and being matched to the right challenge. According to
McGonigal (2011), there are four shared traits that define all games and these traits are
also included in Dignan’s model shown in figure 6. The four traits are: goals (outcomes),
rules (Black Box), feedback, and voluntary participation (the outside layer of Dignan’s
Model).
Figure 6: Dignan’s Behavioral game model.
6
Mehat and Kass (2012) suggest that influencing behaviors occurs as a five stage model
(as shown in Figure 7) which they call the behavior-change lifecycle. The basis of this five
stage model represents the fact that “Behavior change often follows a stereotyped pattern
of stages and that different kinds of behavior-change challenges are key in each stage.”
Frang, K. and Mellstrand, R. (2011) ‘Enterprise Gamification of the employee development process at an Infocom Consultancy Company’ [Online]. Faculty of Production Management, Lunds University. Available at:
http://www.pm.lth.se/fileadmin/pm/Exjobb/Exjobb_2012/Frang__K___Mellstrand__R/Ente
rpriseGamificationOfTheEmployeeDevelopmentProcess_Mellstrand_Frang_V2.pdf .
pp.21
6
12
Figure 7: Five Stage Behavior Change Lifecycle. 7
Table 1 presents a summary of each stage shown in Figure 7, including the challenge
and the primary gaming mechanism needed to help affect change. While this model offers insight into the type of games that will modify the behaviors of the users, it does not
relate this to the business goals of the organization. Gamification must correspond to the
organizations business goals in order to succeed.
Table 1: Navigational Data-Entity Hierarchy (typical)8
McGregor (1960) specifies that there are two types of management styles; theory X and
theory Y. Theory X suggests that employees are lazy, dislike work and require constant
direction, whereas Theory Y suggests that employees enjoy their work, seek and accept
responsibilities and need space in order to develop their imagination and ingenuity. Organizations that subscribe to Theory X may find it difficult to make changes that will support Gamification, because such
Mehta, M. and Kass, A(2012) ‘Scores, Badges, Leaderboards and Beyond’ [Online].
Available at: http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/AccentureGamification-Sustainable-Behavior-Change.pdf, pp. 3
7
8
Mehta, M. and Kass, op. cit. pp. 7
13
An organization that will likely be autocratic and top heavy with management. Organizations that wish to move to Gamification need to be aware of their unique culture and
community, Gamification is meant to enhance systems that already exist and will not
change an organization’s culture and community. Gamification relies on allowing employees to succeed and fail; in a culture where failure is punished heavily, employees are not
likely to participate.
The second part of both the Fogg and D’iTommaso models suggests that the priority after
establishing the organizational structure is examining the audience; those that will participate in the game. DiTommaso indicates the need to understand employees, whereas
Fogg (2012) tells us to find a receptive audience. Depending on the culture, finding a
receptive audience may not always be possible; organizations need to know what motivates their employees. According to Hilmarsson and Rikhardsson (2011), “Motivation is
the mental force that drives the actions of cognitive beings. In a human context, motivation can be either internal or external.” This motivational theory is known as SelfDetermination Theory, which according to Ryan and Deci (2000) was first presented in
1985, they state that with intrinsic motivation, employees will participate or do something
because the activity is interesting and enjoyable, whereas extrinsic motivation suggests
that users participate because it eventually leads to some reward. For example, a
paycheck is an extrinsic motivation, whereas Gamification is based on intrinsic motivations, which are non-monetary rewards.
Over the next few years, organizations will avoid challenges if they address the question
of how to motivate and engage employees in the workplace, rather than remaining with
the traditional management methods of reward or punishment. According to Dignan
(2011 p. 1), one of the major issues with motivation within organizations is that the average employee is bored. The question is whether the cause of the employee’s boredom is
rooted in the employee’s environment or within the employee. Two symptoms that
Dignan (2011, p. 2) has identified are the Lack of Volition and the Lack of Faculty. The
lack of Volition “is the will to do something; the internal motivation and internal drive to
see it through”. An employee with a lack of volition is bored and unmoved, typically feeling disconnected from the tasks he is performing. Lack of Faculty, is where an employee
does not understand the task, which causes them to feel anxiety that can lead to despair.
According to Vassileva (2012), motivation plays a key role in Gamification. Figure 8 illustrates some of the classical motivational theories. “Classical Economics approaches the
issue of motivation by assuming that people are rational agents who act to maximize their
utility (payoff) in a world where behaviors have certain payoffs (negative or positive). Thus
to make people behave in particular way, one needs to create an appropriate system of
incentives (rewards) for the desirable behaviors” (Vassileva, 2012, p. 179). In DiTommaso
(2011) model one of the key components of Gamification is Self Determination Theory
(SDT) which “argues that human beings seek out (and continue to engage in) activities if
they promise (and succeed) to satisfy 3 intrinsic motivational needs.” Game designers
will use motivational theories to create approaches to motivate each participant.
14
Figure 8: Basic View of Motivation (Vassileva, 2012) 9
Borgatti (2001) provides a basic view of motivation. In Figure 9, he shows a very simple
flow of how motivation functions. In order for a person to fulfill a need, they must engage
in behavior that will lead to satisfaction of that need. While not shown, there can be a
reward between Behavior and Satisfaction. Motivation is circular, once satisfied, a person can choose to change the need/want, or it can intensify the original need/want. One
of the most well-known theories of motivation is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Typically,
this is shown as a pyramid, with physiological needs at the bottom, progressing through
safety, belongingness and esteem, and finally, self-actualization. Essentially, the theory
states, according to Borgatti (2001), that a person cannot move up the pyramid unless
each subsequent need is met.
Figure 9: Basic motivational model10
Gamification also is built upon the optimum flow theory; the idea is to create a “state in
which people are so intensely involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter;
the experience itself is so enjoyable that people will do it even at great cost, for the sheer
sake of doing it.” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p. 4) Flow, as seen in Figure 10, is the balance
between the complexity of the task and the skill level needed to accomplish the task. According to Deshpande, and Ghani (1994) there are two main characteristics to flow, the
first is total concentration on the activity and second is the enjoyment that is derived from
performing the activity. One of the vital objectives in Gamification is to change behavior.
Xu (2011) states that for behavior to change, three elements have to be present: Motivation, ability and trigger, “which must converge at the same moment for a behavior to ocVassileva, J. (2012) ‘Motivating participation in social computing applications: a user
modelling perspective.’ User Model User-Adap Inter, Vol. 22, pp. 177 – 201.
9
10
Borgatti, S.P. (2001) Introduction to Organizational Behavior. Available at:
http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/ (Accessed: 8 June 2012)
15
cur.” (Xu, 2011) Games can be used to trigger optimum flow and to alleviate that feeling
of boredom that some jobs may conjure, which is why organizations consider gamifying
the user experience, whether users are external or internal to the organization.
A problem with motivation is that not all people who are willing to play games are motivated in the same way, as indicated by Dixon (2011) in the work of Richard Bartle, who
characterized 4 different player types. Player types are: socializers, achievers, explorers
and killers. Each player type is differentiated by motivations, behaviors and playing styles.
Dixon (2011) also tells of the work of Yee whose model “of player motivation has three
main components and 10 subcomponents:
Achievement: Advancement, Mechanics Competition
Social: Socializing, Relationship, Teamwork
Immersion: Discovery, Role-playing, customization, escapism”
Not only does Gamification have to incorporate different motivational theories, but also
how users will play the game. The methods of reward (motivation) for behavior will have
to match playing styles as well. Zicherman as quoted in Reeves and Ryan (2009), states
that, “Good Gamification design seeks to understand and align an organization’s objective
with a player’s intrinsic motivation. Then, through the use of extrinsic rewards and intrinsically satisfying design, move the player towards their goal.” Reeves and Ryan (2009)
put forth four key motivational factors for those who play:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Achieving goals or just enjoyment of the game
Structure and guidance or the freedom to explore the environment
Control or connect with other players
Acting in self-interest or social interests
Figure 10: Flow Theory11
Xu, Y. (2011) ‘Literature Review on Web Application Gamification and Analytics.’[Online] Available at: http://csdl.ics.hawaii.edu/techreports/11-05/11-05.pdf. pp. 10
11
16
Dignan (2011) makes a connection between games and the neurological responses of
the brain. Berridge, as quoted in Dignan (2011) specifies that our brains have “Hedonic
hotspots located in a small part of our brain known as the nucleus accumbens.” These
areas affect our pleasures and desires by altering our chemistry, such as releasing dopamine to regulate our motivation and desires. As dopamine levels are reduced, according to Panksepp as quoted in Dignam (2011), a wanting sensation can be triggered, and
will seek to find the reward that fulfills that craving. This provides evidence that games
not only have psychological component, but also a physical component that can affect
those who participate in game or game-like scenarios in the workplace.
Xu (2011) also developed another profiling model called Persuasion Profiling; this concept refers to the building of the psychological triggers that work best for an individual.
The concept is to develop a method of delivery for the trigger that will persuade a user to
behave in a certain manner. Based on Cialdinis, six principles of persuasion which are:






Principle of reciprocation: People feel obligated to return a favor.
Principle of scarcity: When something is scarce, people will value it more.
Principle of authority: When a request is made by a legitimate authority, people
are inclined to follow / believe the request.
Principle of commitment and consistency: People do as they said they would.
Principle of consensus: People do as other people do.
Principle of liking: We say yes to people we like.
(Xu, 2011)
Swallow (2011) states, “Once you understand your business goals and your users, you
can begin to design goals and objectives while thinking about long-term and short-term
user goals.” DiTommaso’s model addresses the framing of goals rather than studying
the organization and employees. This seems to be missing from Fogg’s (2009) Persuasive Technology model, which would indicate that the technology aspects of Gamification
are more important than framing the goals and objectives.
Short and long term goals need to add value to the users, if users do not perceive value
in the goals or objectives then the motivation to play will be low. Reeves and Read (2009)
tell us that play in the work environment can be valuable as it has the ability to engage
users and influence their behaviors, which is very similar to consumer experiences.
“Converging work and play allows for engagement by the same media sensibilities, great
pictures, meaningful interaction, compelling narratives, and constant feedback”, (Reeves
and Read, 2009). Setting both short and long-term goals for what Gamification is going
allow users to accomplish is more important than the technology that it is going to be
supplied upon.
DiTommaso in Swallow (2011) suggests the next step is to access the skills that are
needed by users. Organizations need to recognize that there are three skills that are
needed for gameplay: physical, mental and social. These areas represent skills such as
typing (physical), pattern recognition, memory or spatial logic (mental) and social interactions with others game players (social). This is similar to Dignan (2011) and the Lack of
Faculty, which explains that users will not play our games if they don’t feel they have the
skill sets to play. DiTommaso (2011) states that skills that need to be developed should
have long learning curves and should be broken down into smaller arcs and nested together, as well as being measurable.
Games are complex in nature, choosing the right elements to include in a game is an art.
Schell (2008) tells designers that they must look through what he calls various lenses of
game design. When considering the addition of game play, designers must determine
what experience they want users to have, what is essential to that experience and how
the system or game can best capture that experience. “Decisions about rules, look and
feel, timing, pacing, risk-taking, rewards, punishments and everything else the player ex-
17
periences is the responsibly of the game designer.” (Schell, 2008) In Figure 12., Schell
(2008) presents the map of game design from his book, which describes the various
lenses of game design. There are many elements involved in creating a game that will fit
into an organization’s environment.
Costikyan (2002) notes that, “A game is an interactive structure of endogenous meaning
that requires players to struggle towards a goal.” The meaning of “endogenous” for the
purpose of game playing is that there must be value contained within the system to encourage play. One example is in-game currency, in a game such as Monopoly; the Monopoly Money is only valuable within the context of the game. This could also pertain to
rewards such as retailer loyalty points; the more real money that the consumer spends,
the more loyalty points are earned, which can only be spent at that retailer. In an organizational structure, this is often implemented internally for employees; when an employee
performs a desired behavior they are rewarded with points that can be redeemed for
items within the system.
Regardless of what game is being played, Dignan (2011) outlines ten qualities that a
game must have in order to be successful as a gamified system: users must be able to
enter the game willfully, players cannot be passive in a game, but they cannot be made to
play. Also, games are formal closed systems, this corresponds to Fullerton, Swan and
Hoffman quoted in Dignan’s, (2011) definition of a game where “A game is a closed, formal system that engages players in structured conflict that resolves in an unequal outcome.” Therefore, a game contains rules, conflict, winning or losing reward and punishment, and well defined goals to allow players to accomplish them within the system structure.
Hunicke , LeBlanc and Zubek R. (2004) suggest in-game design. This breaks the game
into three distinct components that are called “MDA”. Figure:12. shows that “MDA” represents Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics. These components are abstracts of the various elements of game design.
Figure 11: MDA12
For the purposes of Gamification, the mechanics of the game itself is not as important
inside a Gamification framework as the dynamics of how the user interacts with the system and the aesthetics which elicit an emotional response from the user. Hunicke , LeBlanc and Zubek (2004) explain “that thinking about games as designed artifacts helps
frame them as systems that build behavior via interaction.” As mentioned earlier, they
discuss games as viewed from the player perspective, which helps to encourage experience driven play versus feature driven play. The terms “fun” and “gameplay” are avoided,
instead they use a more focused vocabulary to describe the game. LeBlanc in Hunicke ,
LeBlanc and Zubek (2004) offers these eight taxonomy of game play which describes the
aesthetics from a player’s perspective. These Taxonomies are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sensation – Game as a sense-pleasure
Fantasy – Game as make-believe
Narrative – Game as drama
Challenge – Game as an obstacle course
Fellowship – Game as a social framework
Discover – Game as uncharted territory
Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M. and Zubek R. (2004) ‘MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research’ [Online] Available at:
http://www.aaai.org/Papers/Workshops/2004/WS-04-04/WS04-04-001.pdf. pp. 2
12
18
7. Expression – game as self-discovery
8. Submission – game as past time
Depending on the goal of the organization, games can have multiple aesthetics. According to the authors, there is no ideal combination of game play taxonomies grouped together that can achieve an organization’s goals. Goals must be evaluated on an individual
basis to determine which ones would work best in order to reach these goals. It is important that the dynamics of the game correspond with the aesthetics of the game to provide the optimal environment in which the player can develop the desired behaviors of the
organization. The mechanics of the game in the MDA model are the “mechanisms afforded to the player within the game context.” (Hunicke , LeBlanc and Zubek, 2004) In
Bunchball (2012) they show the relationship between Game Mechanics versus Human
Desires.
Table 2: Human Desires vs. Game Mechanics13
The MDA model would be relevant to DiTommosa and Fogg’s models, after determining
the organizational goals, studying the potential players, and stating the problem. The
components of the game must address each player and the behaviors that organizations
wish to teach or modify. All three models are iterative or as DiTommosa (2011) asserts,
to “play and polish” and Fogg (2009) states “test & iterate.” Iteration is compatible with
the MDA model as well, which suggests the use of multiple passes in order to focus the
game.
According to Amabile and Kramer (2011) the principal motivator for games is progress,
which is referred to as Progress Theory and is based on the idea that people are more
likely to be motivated through a series of small wins. DiTommaso (2011) describes this
as part of SDT, in which competence is an integral part of what he refers to as the Path to
Mastery, making use of “Nested, short-term achievable goals that lead to success of the
overarching long-term goal.” These goals need to be clear, if goals are not clear, according to Amabile and Kramer(2011) engagement in the work they are doing will be low, as
“they’re unlikely to see the small tasks that they do as wins.” Another aspect of Progress
Theory is that there must be some autonomy in accomplishing these goals.
13
Bunchball (2010) Gameification101 [Online]. Available at:
http://www.bunchball.com/sites/default/files/downloads/gamification101.pdf . pp. 9
19
Employee Empowerment allows employees to determine how they perform their tasks,
and it will allow them to “recognize their own achievements” (Amabile and Kramer, 2011).
According to DiTommaso (2011), “Choice, Control and personal preference lead players
to deep engagement and loyalty.” By giving them the correct feedback, employees can
make the best use of this autonomy. Along with autonomy, self-efficacy plays a role in
employee empowerment. Previously, lack of faculty was examined and it was suggested
that people may not believe they have the skills in which to perform a given task or behavior. According to Parker (2011) “Self-efficacy, a person’s own belief in their competence and potential impact, is critical in influencing new behaviors and learning new
tasks”; self-efficacy determines how much effort people will put into initiating new behaviors, how they will face barriers and challenges over time, and their persistence in attaining long-term goals.
Gamification must strive to create a strong environment for self-efficacy; Parker (2011)
states there are four main areas that help build higher self-efficacy. First, through performance and accomplishments, accomplishing goals is undoubtedly one of the most rewarding in terms of self-efficacy, this supports DiTommosa’s (2011) path to mastery as
discussed earlier. Another is through vicarious experience; when colleagues experience
achievement, it allows the player to feel as though they are also capable of achievement.
Reeves and Read (2009) explain that if one user can do it others can as well. Another
way to build self-efficacy is through Social Persuasion, which is described as “Sincere
peer-to-peer conversation, not only about the desired outcomes, but about each individual’s role and capability of accomplishing new behaviors.” (Parker, 2011) Lastly there is
the aspect of Positive Emotional Input, which happens when players have a positive connection to a goal or objective. The goal here is to associate positive experiences with the
new behavior, thereby decreasing a sense of anxiety or stress.
One of the significant aspects relating to the game is incentive, according to Read and
Reeves (2009,p. 8) incentives help users achieve the desired behaviors/goals. These
incentives must be of value to the players, in DiTommosa’s (2011) model, the incentive is
simply feedback. Feedback in gamified systems can occur through multiple channels,
including point systems similar to those used in consumer-driven marketing. Leveling up
also allows the player to earn higher reward points. Badges are often used; these are
very transparent to the user community displays reputation. In terms of gaming, reputation is usually valuable to players. Transparent feedback, such as badges, can trigger
social persuasion because a colleague has a certain badge, or it can trigger positive emotional input through achievement. Read and Reeves (2009) infer that the problem with
traditional forms of feedback in the workplace is that they are infrequent, are often ineffective and difficult to achieve. They also identify that in many instances Gamification helps
to create a sense of purpose within the user community; this is one aspect that is frequently missed by management.
Beresford (2011) makes a critical statement: “Gamification is about value not output.”
What this suggests is that games should be used to “track and motivate value creation
not output.” (Beresford, 2011) In knowledge-based companies, this is an important concept when designing a strategy for incentives (rewards). For example, if a company provides rewards based on only the quantity of posts, players may post more, however, the
quality of those posts may not be of any value to the company. Using what Beresford
(2011) calls the Reciprocity Mechanic, a poster would also be rewarded for the number of
interactions his post might receive, such as when it is read or commented on, or shared
throughout the site. The three conclusions Beresford (2011) gives us are: awarding points
for output is typically wrong, in order to Gamify, a social networking platform is required to
facilitate the tracking of metrics, and when designing the Gamification, organizations must
determine what the highest value to the organization is, and ensure that a reward is created that matches that value.
20
Figure 12: Game Design Map14
.
14
Schell, J. (2008) The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses. Burlington MA: Morgan
Kaufman Publishers. Available at: http://redwood.colorado.edu/jkb/atls5519/Docs/The-Artof-Game-Design---A-Book-of-Lenses.pdf. pp. 463
21
Chapter 3. THEORY
3.1
Theory
In order to develop a theory for a working model of how Gamification works within an organization it was necessary to examine the broader definition of Gamification and the underlying theories associated with sociology, psychology and human-computer interaction.
Technology has allowed organizations to look seriously at bringing game-like elements to
their various technology platforms such as social media sites (like Facebook) that exist on
their internal networks. These sites may have external facings as well, bringing together,
the organization and its employees as well as external elements including vendors and
customers.
As Gamification is not a well-established paradigm in business, locating academic works
was challenging and thus required research into the basic theories of motivation as seen
in the literature review as well as gaming theories. By applying these concepts, the goal
was to create a general organizational model to help organizations identify how Gamification can be applied within their organization
After researching through the available literature on gaming theory and various motivational theories, questions were developed in order to interview Gamification experts
whose businesses have implemented Gamification processes successfully (such as
SAP), as well as experts in an organization that is considering Gamification but has yet to
implement it within the organization, as well as a company that works in the field of Gamification delivery.
Additionally, a survey component was included, however due to limited response, conclusions can only be inferred. Yin quoted in Maxwell (2008) that “qualitative research simply
requires a broader and less restrictive concept of “design” than the traditional ones.” Using the tools and research available, the goal was to develop a working Gamification
Framework/Model that could be applied to organizations.
The starting point of the paper was DiTomasso’s (2011) seven steps, which were generic
and did not offer specifics on the results of implementing Gamification within an organization. Gamification consists of various theories and models with its roots in psychology
and sociology, though also delves into the sciences of anthropology and game design.
These tools are the underpinning of how organizations can take their business goals and
influence users (internal or external) to align their own personal motivations to those
goals.
Motivational theories such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Deci’s Self Determination Theory provide an understanding of what motivates people to do something. The various gaming theories that illustrate the idea of player types are also a component that
must be considered when developing a Gamification model. Using such theories to determine what users’ needs and goals are, in order to understand why they participate or
would participate in a technological setting that offers game like qualities, is essential.
Concepts such as Csikszentmihalyi’s flow theory, whichstate that the skill level of the users must match the challenges that are offered or users could become bored or disinterested, also must be considered.
While game theory is not within the scope of this paper, the work of Schell (2008) suggests that it is important to look at games through many different lenses as illustrated in
the game design map in figure 13. There are various aspects of games that must be considered to ensure that the games remain interesting and viable to those using the system.
At the same time, companies must always keep in mind what the outcomes are to these
games in relation to current business goals. These outcomes must be kept in sight at all
times, as this is key to giving users a sense of purpose, which is key to engagement.
22
Chapter 4. ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
4.1
SAP
According to sap.com (n.d.), SAP was founded in 1972 by IBM employees who wanted to
bring “software that processes data when customers ask it to rather than overnight batches”. It is predicted that SAP’s total revenue will exceed 20 billion Euros by 2015. Currently, SAP employs almost 56 thousand people worldwide. According to EnterpriseGamification.COM (2012), since 2006, SAP has applied gaming mechanics on its SAP
community network. Gamification at SAP enhances user participation and engagement
by the use of recognition program points, these points are rewarded for contributing to the
community by participating through its blogs, forums, contributing to the company wiki, as
well as submitting whitepapers and documents. Herger (2012) indicated that at this time
the game systems are embedded into their “Community Network on Jive or standalone
apps (like Roadwarrior)”, however in the future they will be embedded directly into SAP
applications.
According to Herger (2012) Gamification works best when a company already has an active community. The primary goal of Gamification for SAP was to engage users. The resulting effect at SAP helped employees solve problems by allowing engaged users to
share information faster; it created clearer learning paths and as a result led to a higher
satisfaction rate among SAP’s user community. Shared information leads to a more engaged community, which in turn leads to more contributions and the contributions are of a
higher quality. While the main business goal may be to engage users, the secondary
benefit as seen by Herger (2012) is that this leads to a higher ROI (Return on Investment).
Herger (2012) also suggests that one of the ways Gamification fulfills the company goals
is through an “opportunity to socialize with co-workers, employees from 3rd parties and
with customers.” In Implementing Gamification for SAP, according to Herger (2012), the
steps that SAP followed began with analyzing the status of the company, then creating
goals in which Gamification could address and the final step was to understanding the
players, which facilitated the design.
4.2
NTT Data
NTT Data is the sixth largest IT Delivery Company in the world. In a September 2012
press release, NTT Data was rated 206th of the top 500 innovative companies in the world
by Information Weekly Magazine, “for its use of social Gamification in its collaboration
platform for employees” (Jantzen 2012). According to Meraj (2012), NTT Data is taking
Gamification seriously as an organization; they are now realizing what Gamification can
do for the organization. At this time, there is a very simplistic Gamification platform available to NTT Data Employees who use the internal social media site: Socially.
By using Socially, users can join groups, write blogs and create microblog-type posts.
These posting are rewarded with Karma Points. However, there are no rewards associated with Karma points. Desired use of Gamification requires these rewards to be earned
through achieving levels and when the user attains a specified number of points, they
may spend the points on virtual or real goods.
While using both DiTommaso’s (2011) and Fogg’s (2009) models, the organization’s
goals for the future in terms of Gamification are to increase collaboration between employees and to increase employee engagement. Unlike SAP, NTT’s Data Collaboration
site is limited to internal use only, however this is not a limiting factor for the future, where
interaction between vendors and customers is possible.
23
At NTT Data, there is an issue concerning employee engagement. The employees find it
difficult to be noticed by management. Management distributes rewards, recognition and
promotions within the organization. According to Werbach (2012), Gamification allows
companies to collect information about the users who participate in the Gamification system. Potentially, management in the future can use Gamification to provide statistics that
will allow them to track what employees are doing and identify which employees are the
top performers and what employees are doing to achieve success. For example, Gamification can be used to track and monitor online training programs. Managers would be
able to monitor how employees are progressing through online training programs and
identifying those employees who are achieving success, as well as being able to monitor
those who are either procrastinating or having problems. Having the ability to engage
employees in training and being able to have quicker feedback both to the users and to
management will allow companies like NTT Data to train and monitor employees for use
in future resource planning within the company.
In recognition of the fact that Gamification is growing segment in information technology
NTT Data has created what they call a “Center of Excellence”, which is the creation of a
group that brainstorms various Gamification strategies. This group is not only investigating how to leverage Gamification internally at NTT Data, but also the possibility of selling
Gamification as a solution to other companies.
4.3
Capgemini
Another company that was a source of study was Capgemini. Similar to NTT Data,
Capgemini.Com (n.d.) has 120,000 employees across 40 countries. Sinclair (2012) noted
that Capgemini currently has over 42,000 employees using Yammer, which according to
Microsoft (2012) is an enterprise wide social media platform which they annouced in June
of 2012, when they purchased it from Yammer, Inc for 1.2 billion dollars . The organization identified two business goals that they believe could be applied via Gamification. The
first goal requires engaging users in eLearning opportunities in the organization, and secondly, to add Gamification to their marketing campaigns to “accelerate the virality of these
campaigns within Social Media” Sinclair (2012). The pilot project for Capgemini consisted
of a series of eLearning opportunities on digital transformations, social influence and
cloud computing.
According to Sinclair (2012) “engagement within the organization is the number one driver for me leading the implantation of Gamification.” In terms of investment, they had a
budget allotment of twenty-thousand dollars to determine if Gamification impacts on
eLearning opportunities offered by Capgemini. Badgeville is often paired with Yammer in
order to bring Gamification to the enterprise social media site as a pilot project. Rewards
offered to employees include points for participating in the training programs as well as
badges; there is also the use of a leader board, which is updated weekly with the highest
scores. The four top scorers every month are then voted on by their peers and are given
the opportunity to participate as one of the faces of their annual marketing campaign. In
terms of motivation, Sinclair (2012) insists that it works, “Because it pulls on the competition, self-expression and status levers to build engagement.”
The success of the pilot was indicated immediately. During the pilot there was a 400%
rate of increase over previous participation levels in the eLearning strategy. With the
Gamification implemented, over 12,000 employees took part in the eLearning opportunity
over six weeks. Prior to this pilot program, the participation numbers were only that high
if the course was mandatory, with a time frame of six months to complete the required
course. Werbach (2012) explains in his online Coursera course on Gamification, that one
of the big advantages of Gamification to an organization is the ability to keep quantifiable
statistics. For Capgemini the pilot in eLearning allowed the management to quantify the
success of their top performers in eLearning. Being able to quantify results are crucial to
businesses and Gamification facilitates the collection of data from their employees.
24
Sinclair (2012) identifies that there was an already strong community of 41,000 using
Yammer when a limited model of Gamification was introduced. Sinclair (2012) felt that
Gamification was responsible for helping to accelerate a desired behavior. The Capgemini pilot project affirms Herger’s (2012) claim that Gamification requires an active community site on which to build. Capgaemini’s is now looking to expand Gamification within
their organization.
4.4
Gametize
Schreiber (2012), who works for a Gamification startup company, noted that Gamification
has been studied frequently, while alluding to Coonradt’s (2007) work in the 1970s on
Gamification. In Schrieber’s (2012) view, the difference between this earlier work on
games in the work place and Gamification is that “digital technology now makes it so easy
and inexpensive to do gf (Gamification).” Capgemini was able to pilot Gamification for a
modest investment of twenty thousand dollars, concluding that Shrieber is correct in that
evaluation. For a reasonable investment, according to Schrieber (2012), Gamification
can “give feedback, offer rewards, show progress, connect people, that companies of any
size can implement."(sic)
One of the insights offered from Schreiber (2012), is that the technical implementation is
not the challenge
in implementing Gamification. The challenge is creating what
Schreiber (2012) refers to as the ‘script’;the creative side of Gamification. Understanding
the company and the users, and ensuring that the ‘game’ works for the company will bring
success to the implementation. In terms of collaboration, Schreiber (2012) states that "It
allowed a degree of interactivity among the team that would have been hard to replicate
in traditional meetings, especially since we are very busy and scattered in different cities
and time zones.” Therefore, companies such as NTT Data should consider Gamification
as a collaboration tool which is not currently being addressed in Socially, their Gamification platform.
4.5
The Players
4.5.1 Demographic Results
The survey conducted consisted of several demographic questions to determine the
Gamification audience within organizations. According to the Department of Labor Statistics quoted in Then (2012), women represent 25% of the IT workforce. In Figure 14,
women who responded represented 27.59%, this closely represents the industry statistics. Figure 13, shows that the 20 – 29 year olds and 30 – 39 year olds responded equally at just over 37%. Figure 14 illustrates how many years the respondents had been
working. The data indicates that the respondents are in the early stages of their careers.
25
27.59%
Male:21
Female:8
72.41%
Figure 13: Survey Results Male to Female Respondents
3.45%
20.69%
37.93%
20 - 29: 11
30 - 39:11
40 - 49: 6
50 - 59: 1
37.93%
Figure 14: Survey Results Age breakdown
26
10.34%
13.79%
< 1: 4
1 - 2: 9
20.69%
3 - 5: 7
31.03%
6 - 10: 6
11 - 15: 3
24.14%
Figure 15: Survey Results Years Worked
4.5.2 Analysis of the Survey Questions
20 out of 29 respondents participated in games in the workplace, where offered. Of the
employees who played games, 16 were male (76.2%) and 4 were female (23.8%). According to Werbach (2012), statistically this the results should be closer to even, with
men only slightly higher at 53.7%. Considering the limited sample size it is doubtful that
any conclusions can be drawn in regards to the statistics offered by Werbach.
Another aspect of Gamification is the feeling of being part of the organizational community. One of the goals in implementing Gamification in an organization is to enhance an
employee’s positive feelings towards the community or culture of the organization. Out of
the 29 respondents 18 (62.1%) said they felt as though they were part of the organizational community. While Herger (2012) expressed that part of the role Gamification plays
in enhancing the community, 11 (37.9%) of the respondents indicated this is not the case.
Meraj (2012) indicated that one of the key aspects of moving NTT data to Gamification
was to enhance the global community; NTT Data does have a social media site with limited Gamification which was works well for those who use it, however, it does little to encourage new participation. Comparing those respondents who feel like they are part of
the larger community, 16 participate in Gamification, while 2 of them do not. This does
support the notion that those who participate have a greater feeling of community. It can
be extrapolated that in a larger sampling of data, a correlation would be found. Assuming
that is true, it can be concluded that those who participate in Gamification in the workplace do indeed feel part of a larger community. It is necessary to develop a method to
engage those users who are reluctant to play into a standardized model of Gamification
so that they can also feel as though they are a part of the organizational community.
Feedback loops are an essential part of Gamification as indicated in Dignan’s Feedback
Loop (Figure 3). In the survey, participants were asked if they felt they had a sense of
accomplishment when participating, of the 20 respondents who play games, 14 responded that they felt a sense of accomplishment. When comparing this to the conclusions of
Coonradt in Krogue (2012), who supports the notion of more frequent feedback, we can
conclude that Gamification that provides frequent and continuous feedback to the participants can lead to a higher rate of accomplishment under the right circumstances than the
more traditional yearly management review cycles that occur in the workplace.
One of the goals that Meraj (2012) indicated was to give employees a better sense of the
NTT brand and a better connection with the company as a whole. Of the 20 respondents
27
that play games 17 felt more connected to other employees across the organization.
Based on the small sample size, no definitive conclusion can be drawn. However, it is a
reasonable indication that Gamification does allow employees to feel more connected to
others in the company.
In terms of determining how Gamification motivates people who use the game, each of
the participants of the survey were asked to evaluate pairs of motivation factors in terms
of how they saw themselves. The results are in Table xx.
What Motivates you the most?
# Responses
Achievement of Goals
Enjoyment of the experience
Structure and Guidance
Freedom to explore
Control of others
Connect with others
Self Interest
Social Interest
1
2
3
4
5
4
7
6
8
4
1
2
3
4
5
2
6
2
6
13
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
4
8
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
4
10
5
4
Table 3: Motivational pairs.
In an organization that desires increased collaboration through Gamification the two fundamental elements of connecting with others and experiencing the freedom to explore are
very strong in the participants. Alternatively, the participants seemingly have a normal
distribution in the self-interest/social interest categories; this would suggest that participants are motivated both by insuring their own success as well as the success of their coparticipants. In the achievement of goals/enjoyment of the experience category, more
participants may have shown a normal distribution however the middle ranges indicate
that participants want to achieve goals and enjoy of the experience.
28
Chapter 5. METHODS AND REALIZATION
5.1
Methods and Realization
A combination of techniques was employed to write this paper on Gamification. Primarily,
qualitative methods were used. One of the issues Maxwell (2008) raises, is that “the activities of collecting and analyzing data, developing and modifying theory, elaborating or refocusing the research questions and identifying and dealing with Validity threats are usually going on more or less simultaneously, each influencing the other.” Gamification is
currently a fluid subject; it is constantly changing and evolving.
Quantitative Data was collected through the use of a survey that was designed on Google
Documents. Mario Herger of SAP sent out and supported a link to solicit employees to
participate in the survey. A link to the survey was also posted to Gamification forums
such as ‘Masters of Gamification’ on Linkedin, as well as the Gamification facebook page.
The intention of designing a framework was to support Gamification in an organization
like NTT data. In recognizing that the technology already exists to deliver Gamification in
most modern organizations, it was also recognized that not all organizations can fit Gamification into their existing structure, as the building blocks, such as concise organizational
goals, may not exist. in the organization.
The model framework presented at the end of this paper is a theory on how Gamification
works within an organization. Since this is a theory it can only be validated by experts
who have implemented such a framework. The first iteration of the model framework only
included users within the organization itself, to validate the model it was sent to Mario
Herger of SAP who’s comments in an email is as follows:
Here is my comment: I think you cannot limit workplace gamification only to employee inside an organization. I at least look at three different entities:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The employee
3rd party-employee (like vendors, contractors, etc.)
Professional community members (=customers, partners…)
(Customers)
(Public=non-customers)
All those entities interact and give feedback to each other. If we leave the "customers" out, I
would see 2. and 3. As something that you have to consider in your model. (Herger, 2012)
As a result of this email, a second model framework was developed to show the effect of
adding 3rd party employees and professional community members to the new expanded
model. In using a generic model, we could further extend outside users such as customers
and public as suggested, as the model should allow further feedback loops and users to be
added as needed.
29
Chapter 6. RESULTS AND EVALUATION
6.1
Results and evaluation
Based on the ample literature in gaming, there are many common aspects to Gamification, which can be applied to understanding a framework for enterprise level Gamification.
There are many platforms available to implement Gamification, although, only a clear
concise understanding of the requirements will determine the success of a Gamification
model. A successful framework must be interactive, as there is an inter-relationship between users and the game at all levels; this must include feedback. Through study of
various gaming and motivational models and an interview with Herger (2012), the following model (Figure 17) was developed. This diagram illustrates a model framework showing Gamification as an integrated framework that fits within the organization.
Figure 16: Gamification Framework Model First Model Framework
When considering the design of a Gamification framework, the needs of the organization
must be at the foundation of the process. Gamification functions when there is a clear
strategy toward a well-defined, concise strategic goal that is defined collaboratively by
human resources, IT, and management. A clear understanding of the business, including
short and long term goals, must be understood before any implementation of Gamification
30
within the organization. The organization must understand what Gamification is and its
potential impact on the organization, as a result, any implementation of Gamification
should work closely with a Change Management team in order to ensure a high rate of
acceptance. As seen in Figure 17, employees are part of the organization. It is worth
noting that the game layer typically exists within a social media site that is provided by the
organization to be used and shared by employees. The Dark Green Circle represents
feedback.
The game must provide feedback to those who use the system. According to Geotz
(2012), feedback will “provide people with information about their actions in real time (or
something close to it) then give them an opportunity to change those actions pushing
them toward better behaviors”. Feedback also must provide this information back to the
organization (decision makers) in order to compile data (metrics) for analysis and the determination of whether their goals are being met.
Goals represent, the center of the model, straddling both the organization who must decide what the short and long term goals are, but also the employees, who must work towards those long and short term goals. Traditionally models are shown as linear models;
however linear models do not show the true nature of Gamification within the organization.
Gamification is an enhancement to organizational processes; it must continually be monitored to ensure that employees are reaching short term goals, which ultimately deliver the
longer term goals of the organization. These long term goals, once reached, be continually under review for change, creating the need to introduce new short term goals. As
goals are met, they are constantly fed back to both the organization and the employees,
which allow the organization to monitor and change the goals for both the organization
and the individual. This type of model would support Woods’ (2012) perspective on Gamification in which the goal was to achieve goals through metrics, those goals according to
Werbach (2012), are part of Gamification.
When comparing the model in Figure 6 to some of the analyses, we can demonstrate that
it is crucial there is an inclusion of achievements and enjoyment in the model. The integration of achievements and enjoyment for the users are through the goals and game
feedback within the game. This framework will support Dignan’s (2012) model of gaming
and each of the 10 areas can be placed into the framework to ensure success of any
Gamification platform.
While the above model is adequate, it is limited to internal users of the organization. Herger (2012) was asked to validate this model and he suggested that a more generic model
would include both internal users (employees and 3 rd party contractors) as well as, potentially, external users (professional groups and customers). While the long term goal of the
organization would remain the same, separate short term goals are needed for each of
the user groups. In Figure 18, the users have been segregated into three distinct groups
in order to reflect a more generic model as suggested by Herger (2012).
The group of “internal users” contains direct employees of the organization but also may
contain contract and 3rd party employees. Often employees of NTT Data are engaged in
this way with other companies. The second group, external users, could be in the form of
professional bodies or partners. The third group contains organization’s customers. In the
case of SAP, their system successfully unites all three groups, allowing each to interact
through the social media site. In this way, collaboration directly between technical staff
and customers allows for a high degree of innovation as well as shortening development
cycles for fixes because of the direct access to customers within SAP.
31
Figure 17: Expanded Model Framework Organizational Gamification
Further discussion with Nigam (2012) who is the CEO of Inspiring Lab, a Gamification
consultancy, who states via email, “I was just wondering as in this model you mentioned
that employees and managers will be getting feedback from the system, so shouldn't it be
there two separate circles, like another one for managers separating them from employees, and both embedded in the organization as both have different purpose for the
game.” Internal users can be broken down even further into Management and Employees, additionally; Management can also be broken down into strategic areas such as HR,
Business and IT. While the overall business goal may remain the same for each functional management area, the type of feedback that would be significant to each may be
different, concluding that viewing Gamification as a strategic long term plan that will add
value to the company by improving competitiveness and product/service delivery to the
customer.
32
Chapter 7. CONCLUSIONS
7.1
Lessons Learned
This project posed many challenges. Foremost, the lack of participation of employees for
the SAP survey was a barrier. This led to a smaller than optimal sample size, and unfortunately, this affected the extrapolation of results and could not provide a reliable range of
accuracy. Additional studies will be necessary due to the lack of available data.
The challenge with Gamification frameworks is that, while based in scientific areas such
as psychology and sociology, it is a subjective field of study. Developing an academicallybased functional framework with all the necessary elements is challenging because the
framework ultimately has to correspond to the circumstances in which it will be implemented, as well as the specific organization where it will be used.
The definition and description of Gamification is neither static nor distinct. Huotari and
Hamari (2012) have proposed a new definition of Gamification in which they characterize
that it is “a process of enhancing a service with affordances for gameful experiences in
order to support user’s overall value creation.” This aligns with the definition of Gamification by Nicholson (2012) who suggests that user-centric design is necessary for success
with Gamification. Zichermann (2011) supports the notion that under the right circumstances extrinsic motivation can be converted to intrinsic motivation only if the extrinsic
motivator has value or meaning to the person.
7.2
Future Activity
Gamification will continue to grow, for external uses such as Social Marketing Media,
which can make use of Gamification in mass marketing. Companies that are unwilling to
invest in Gamification will be at a disadvantage in attracting and retaining future employees as older employees retire and companies will require to replace their human resources with a younger and very different demographic. It would be desirable for companies to include the Implementation of Gamification frameworks as part of their strategic
plan over the next decade. Companies such as NTT Data would strongly benefit from
implementing Gamification strategies in their Human Resources (HR) departments. Gamification use for basic HR functions such as training new staff and cross-training employees and would be exceptionally valuable in orientation for new staff. Gamification has
proven that training cycles can be greatly reduced by using Gamification.
Another area is Collaboration, rewarding users for ideas, suggestions, responses, tapping
into ideas that this area can potentially tap into both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations.
For instance, at SAP, those who contribute because they enjoy it can reward participants
with a number of their own points for contributing good ideas and responses to their suggestions and blogs. Using extrinsic rewards to motivate those who would not normally
have intrinsic motivation to do so, would over time, change extrinsic motivators into intrinsic motivation for the new behavior (better collaboration). Future Gamification activities for
companies such as NTT Data could potentially model Gamification platforms, allowing
them to be more competitive in the marketplace over time. At this time, NTT Data has no
plans to extend the model to external entities. Although like SAP, NTT Data deals with
many external companies and customers. Giving direct access to those external to the
company would lead to a better model for NTT Data. Providing internal employees direct
access to those who are external would ultimately save time and reduce delivery times of
projects.
33
7.3
Prospects for Further Work
Gamification, being relatively new to workplace applications requires further study to determine the possible negative effects. Nicholson (2012) states that there is a danger of
moving an employee’s intrinsic motivation to extrinsic motivators and could cause problems for the organization. Companies that blindly implement Gamification thinking that
extrinsic rewards alone are enough to motivate employees may experience difficulties in
practice. A discussion of these difficulties, by Zichermann (2011), includes using realworld monetary rewards that eventually can remove a person’s intrinsic motivation.
Companies such as SAP use other types of in game rewards such as badges, leaderboards and points. Zichermann (2011) concludes by stating, “The introduction of carefully
selected extrinsic rewards, built around a design that speaks to intrinsic motivational
states (sometimes not the ones most closely aligned with the behavior we seek to
change), is the most powerful design model we have today.”
Wu, as quoted in Cameron (2011) states that, “The two strategies that make Gamification sustainable are if the gamified behavior generates long-term intrinsic value to the user or if the extrinsic rewards serve as reinforcement to the users’ intrinsic motivation.”
Sierra, as quoted in Morgan (2012), identifies the danger in rewarding behaviors that
should be intrinsic in nature, such as collaborating or helping other employees. These
types of activities should be rewarding and valuable on their own without the need of
some sort of reward. This suggests that in future Gamification studies, determining and
measuring employee’s intrinsic motivations while looking at the effect of the extrinsic motivation that Gamification offers. The question whether extrinsic motivation reinforces intrinsic motivation or prolongs intrinsic motivation, eventually leading to dissatisfaction that
leads employees to quit. NTT Data has a large, diverse workplace encompassing different regions of the world. Viewing Gamification from a cultural aspect may also be significant in terms of the types of motivations that are desirable in different cultural regions. A
one size fits all solution across a common social media (or system) that can fit the needs
of all employees may not be possible when considering cultural differences, requires further study.
Another prospect for future work is in the area of Social Business, Delloite (2012) states
that this is a new technology trend in which “Leading enterprises today are applying social
technology like collaboration, communication and content management to social networks
– this connected web of people and assets that impact on a given business goal or outcomes”. Gamification is a natural lead into this type of business evolution in which businesses recognize that it is people who sit at the core of their success (or failure). Pentand
in Delloite (2012) calls this work “connection science”, which is the study of how “relationships and personal interactions shape society and businesses.” It is these business relationships that may have a huge impact on how organizations do business both inside and
outside of the organization.
34
REFRENCES CITED
Amabile, T. and Kramer, S. (2011) ‘The Progress Principle: Using Small Wins to Ignite
Joy, Engagement and Creativity at Work’. Boston, MA:Harvard Business Press
Armour, S. (2005) ‘Generation Y: They’ve arrived at work with a new attitude’ [Online].
Available at: http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-11-06-gen-y_x.htm# (Accessed: 27 June 2012)\
Beresford, T. (2011) ‘Gamification is about value not output’[Online]. Available at:
http://gamificationofwork.com/2011/10/gamification-is-about-value-not-output/ (Accessed:
20 July 2012)
Borgatti, S.P. (2001) Introduction to Organizational Behavior. Available at:
http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/ (Accessed: 8 June 2012)
Bunch, C. (2012) ‘Gamification: Findings & Recommendations.’ State Farm Creative Services: Bloomington, IL.
Bunchball (2010) Gameification101 [Online]. Available at:
http://www.bunchball.com/sites/default/files/downloads/gamification101.pdf (Accessed:
10 May 2012)
Bunchball (2012) Enterprise Gamification: The Gen Y Factor [Online]. Available at:
http://www.bunchball.com/sites/default/files/white_papers/bunchball_gamification_at_wor
k.pdf (Accessed: 11 May 2012)
Burke B. (2011) Innovation Insight: Gamification Adds Fun and Innovation to Inspire Engagement. [Online] Available at:
http://my.gartner.com/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=260&mode=2&PageID=3460702
&resId=1879916&ref=QuickSearch&sthkw=Gamification (Accessed: 29 June 2012)
Cameron, Y. (2011) ‘Gamification: It’s About Strategy, not luck’ [Online]. Available at:
http://nextgeninsights.com/2011/12/08/gamification-its-about-strategy-not-luck/ (Accessed: 12 October 2012)
CapeGemini.com (n.d.) ‘Introduction to Capegemini’ [Online]. Available at:
http://www.capgemini.com/about/capgemini/ (Accessed: 15 October 2012)
Chorney, A. (2012)’Taking the Game out of Gamification’. DJIM, Volume 8, Spring.
Available at:
http://ocs.library.dal.ca/ojs/index.php/djim/article/viewFile/2012vol8Chorney/518 (Accesssed: 6/21/2012)
CNN (2012) ‘Global 500’ [Online] Available at:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2012/full_list/ (Accessed 24 July
2012)
Coonradt, C. (2007) ‘The Game of work: How to Enjoy Work as much as Play’. Gibbs
Smith Publisher: Layton Utah
35
Costikyan, G. (2002) ‘I have no words & I must Design: Toward a Critical Vocabulary for
games.’ [Online] Available at: http://www.costik.com/nowords2002.pdf (Accessed: 11 July
2012)
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990) ‘Flow: The psychology of optimal experience.’ New York,
New York: Harper & Row
Dabbish, L. and Von Ahn, L. (2008) Data Generated as a side effect of game play also
solves computational problems and trains AI algorithms. Communications of the ACM,
August, Vol. 51, No. 8, pp. 58 – 67. DOI: 10.1145/1378704.1378718.
Deloitte (2012) ‘Tech Trends 2012 Elevate IT for the Digital Business: Social Business”
[Online] Available at:
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/Services/consulting/technologyconsulting/technology2012/7778d8e8dde25310VgnVCM2000001b56f00aRCRD.htm?id=us_furl_cons_tt12_soc
bus_013112 (Accessed: 8 November 2012)
Deshpande, S. and Ghani, J.A. (1994)’Task Characteristics and experience of Optimal
Flow in Human Computer interaction”. Journal of Psychology, Vol.138, Issue 4. July, pp.
382 – 390
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. and Nacke, L. (2011) “From Game Design Elements
to gamefulness: Defining ‘Gamification’ ”. MindTrek’11, 28 – 30 September, 2011 Tampere, Finland. ACM 978-4503-016-8/11/09. [Online] Available at:
http://www.itu.dk/courses/MOSP/F2012/papers/deterding11.pdf (Accessed: 9 May 2012)
Dhawan, E. (2012) ‘Gen Y Workforce and Workplace Are Out of Sync’ [Online] Available
at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/85broads/2012/01/23/gen-y-workforce-and-workplace-areout-of-sync/ (Accessed: 27 June 2012)
Dignan, A. (2011) ‘Game Frame: Using Games as a Strategy for Success’. New York,
New York: Free Press, a division of Simon and Shuster Inc.
DiTommaso, D. (2011) ‘Beyond Gamification: Architecting Engagement through Game
Design Thinking’ [Online]. Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/DiTommaso/beyondgamification-architecting-engagement-through-game-design-thinking (Accessed 9 July
2012)
Dixon, D. (2011) ‘Player Types and Gamification’ [Online]. Available at:
http://gamification-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/11-Dixon.pdf (Accessed: 5
July 2012)
Dorling, A. and McCaffery(2012) ‘The Gamification of SPICE’ [Online]. Communications
in computer and information Science, Volume 290, Software Processes Improvement and
Capability Determinatio, Part 8, pp. 395 – 301, Avaialble at:
http://www.springerlink.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/content/p501062662171212/fulltext.pdf (Accessed on: 1 October 2012)
Enterprise-Gamification.com(2011) ‘SAP Community Network’ [Online]. Available at:
http://enterprise-gamification.com/index.php/en/social-media/40-sap-community-network
(Accessed: 24 August 2012)
ESA (Entertainment Software Association) (2012) ‘Essential Facts about the computer
and video game industry’ [Online]. Available at:
http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2012.pdf (Accessed: 1 October 2012)
36
Fogg, B.J. (2009) ‘Creating Persuasive Technologies: An Eight-Step Design Process.’
[Online] Available at: http://www.varunkhanduja.com/8%20Step%20process.pdf (Accessed: 29 June 2012)
Fogg, BJ (2003) ‘Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to change what we thing and
do’. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers:San Francisco CA.
Frang, K. and Mellstrand, R. (2011) ‘Enterprise Gamification of the employee development process at an Infocom Consultancy Company’ [Online]. Faculty of Production Management, Lunds University. Available at:
http://www.pm.lth.se/fileadmin/pm/Exjobb/Exjobb_2012/Frang__K___Mellstrand__R/Ente
rpriseGamificationOfTheEmployeeDevelopmentProcess_Mellstrand_Frang_V2.pdf (Accessed: 27 September 2012)
Gartner Group (2011) Gartner Says by 2015, More Than 50 Percent of Organizations
That Manage Innovation Processes Will Gamify Those Processes.[press release],12
April, available: http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1629214 (Accessed: 03 May 2012)
Goetz, T. (2011) ‘Harnessing the Power of Feedback Loops’ [Online]. Wired, 9 June,
Avaiable at: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/06/ff_feedbackloop/ (Accessed: 7 December 2012)
Herger, Mario (2012) “Interview,” Email Message to Harry Jacobs, 20 August
Herger, M. (2012) Email, 15 November, Mario.herger@gmail.comHilmarsson, S. T., and
Rikhardsson, P. (2011) ‘The Evolution of Motivation and Incentive System Research: A
literature Review’ [Online]. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1965646 (Accessed: 3
July 2012)
Huang, W.H., Han, S., Park U, and Seo, J.J. (2010) ‘Managing Employees’ Motivation,
Cognition, and Performance in Virtual Workplaces: The Blueprint of Game-based Adaptive Performance Platform (GAPP). Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 12,
No. 6. pp 700-714, December. DOI: 10.1177/1523422310394794.
Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M. and Zubek R. (2004) ‘MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research’ [Online] Available at:
http://www.aaai.org/Papers/Workshops/2004/WS-04-04/WS04-04-001.pdf (Accessed: 12
July 2012)
Huotari, K., and Hamari, J. (2012) ‘Defining Gamification – A service Marketing Perspective’. Proceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTreck Conference, Tampere,
Finland, 3 – 5 October. Available at: http://www.hiit.fi/u/hamari/2012defining_gamification-a_service_marketing_perspective.pdf (Accessed: 2 November
2012)
Jantzen, T. (2012) ‘NTT Data earns prominent spot on 2012 InformationWeek 500 list top
technology innovators across America’ [Press Release], 9 September.
Krogue, K. (2012) ‘5 Gamification rules from the grandfather of gamification’ [Online].
Forbes, 18 September. Available at:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenkrogue/2012/09/18/5-gamification-rules-from-thegrandfather-of-gamification/ (Accessed: 12 October 2012)
37
Liyakasa, K (2012) ‘Game On’. CRM Magazine, May, Vol. 16, Issue 5, pp. 28
Maxwell, J. A. (2008) ‘Designing a Qualitative Study’. In Bickman, L. and Rog, D.J. (2009)
‘The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods’ 2nd Edition, pp. 214 -254
Sage Publications, INC
Macchiarella, P. (2012) ‘Trends in Digital Gaming: Free-to-play, social and mobile games’
[Online]. Available:
http://www.parksassociates.com/bento/shop/whitepapers/files/Parks%20Assoc%20Trend
s%20in%20Digital%20Gaming%20White%20Paper.pdf (Accessed on: 1 October 2012)
Malone, T. (1982) Heuristics for designing enjoyable user interfaces: Lessons from Computers Games. Conference on Human Factors in computing Systems, ACM Press, pp. 63
– 68
McGonigal, J. (2011) Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can
Change the World, Penguin.
Mcgregor, D. (1960) ‘Theory X and Theory Y’ [Online]. Available at:
http://www.sanandres.esc.edu.ar/secondary/BusinessEconomics/Business/BY9%20Note
s%20Motivation%20McGregor.doc
Mehta, M. and Kass, A(2012) ‘Scores, Badges, Leaderboards and Beyond’ [Online].
Available at: http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/AccentureGamification-Sustainable-Behavior-Change.pdf (Accessed: 6/29/2012)
Meraj, Naureen (2012) “Interview,” Telephone Interview to Harry Jacobs, 25 September
Microsoft.com (2012) ‘Microsoft to Acquire Yammer’ [Online]. Available at:
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/Press/2012/Jun12/06-25MSYammerPR.aspx (Accessed: 15 October 2012)
Moore, E. A. (2011) ‘Foldit Game Leads to AIDS Research Breakthrough’ [Online]. CNET
News, 19 September. Available at: http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20108365247/foldit-game-leads-to-aids-research-breakthrough/ (Accessed: 22 June 2012)
Morgan, J. (2012) ‘The risks of ‘Gamification’ for the Enterprise’ [Online]. Available at:
http://www.jmorganmarketing.com/risks-gamification-enterprise/ (Accessed: 12 October
2012)
Nicholson, S. (2012, June). A User-Centered Theoretical Framework for Meaningful Gamification. Paper Presented at Games+Learning+Society 8.0, Madison, WI.
Nigam, A. (2012) “Comments on Model” Email Message to Harry Jacobs, 27 December
Parker, M. (2011) ‘Play with yourself. It’s good for the Planet’ [Online]. 2nd Degree network, 12 July. Available at: http://www.2degreesnetwork.com/groups/managingustainability/resources/play-with-yourself-its-good-planet_2/ (Accessed: 17 July 2012)
Reeves, B., and Read J.L. (2009) ‘Total Engagement: Using Games and Virtual Worlds to
Change the way People Work and Businesses compete’. Boston Massachusetts: Harvard
Business Press
38
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L (2000) ‘Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions
and New Directions’. Contemporary Education Psycology 25, pp. 54 – 67. DOI:
10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
SAP.com (n.d.) ‘Company Q&A’ [Online]. Available at: http://www.sap.com/corporateen/investors/investorservices/faq/index.epx (Accessed: 8/24/2012)
Schell, J. (2008) The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses. Burlington MA: Morgan
Kaufman Publishers. Available at: http://redwood.colorado.edu/jkb/atls5519/Docs/The-Artof-Game-Design---A-Book-of-Lenses.pdf (Accessed: 6 June 2012)
Smith, R. (2011) ‘The Future of Work is Play: Global Shifts Suggest Rise in Productivity
Games’. IEEE International Games Innovation Conference, 02 Nov – 03 Nov, pp. 40 43. DOI:10.1109/IGIC.2011.6115127
Schreiber, M. (2012) “Interview”, Email Messages to Harry Jacobs, 31 July.
State Farm Insurance(2012) Gamification: How will Service management ‘play along’?
LIG Discussion Forum, 14 March [Online] Available at:
https://wss.opr.statefarm.org/sites/wss001091/Shared%20Documents/Gamification_How
_Will_SM_Play_Along_-_040412.pdf (Accessed: 14 May 2012)
Suits, B. (1967) ‘What is a Game?’ [Online]. Philosophy of Science, Vol. 34, N0.2, June,
pp- 148-156. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/186102 . (Accessed 28 September
2012)
Sinclair, S. (2012) “Interview” Email Message with Harry Jacobs, 2 August.
Swallow, E. (2011)’Is Gameification Right for Your Business. 7 Things to Consider.”
[Online] Available at: http://mashable.com/2011/12/24/gamification-for-business/ (Accessed: 6 June 2012)
Then, P (2010) ‘Men and Women in Technology’. Available at:
http://www.snia.org/sites/default/education/tutorials/2010/fall/professional/PattyThenMen_and_Women_Technolog.pdf (Accessed: 29 October 2012)
Vassileva, J. (2012) ‘Motivating participation in social computing applications: a user
modelling perspective.’ User Model User-Adap Inter, Vol. 22, pp. 177 – 201.DOI:
10.1007/s11257-011-9109-5
Werbach, K.(2012) ‘Definition of Gamification’ [Online Via internal VLE]. The Wharton
School, University of Pennsylvania. Available Through Coursera at:
https://class.coursera.org/gamification-2012-001/lecture/index#close (Accessed 28 August 2012)
Werbach, K. and Hunter, D. (2012) ‘Game thinking can revolutionize your business’.
Wharton Digital Press: The Wharton School University of Pennsylvania: Philladelphia, PA
Woods, D (2012) ‘Gamification Grows up to be CEOs Best Friend’ [Online]. Available at:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danwoods/2012/05/14/gamification-grows-up-to-become-aceos-best-friend/ (Accessed: 3 October 2012)
Wood, L. (2012) Gamification Goes Mainstream. Computer World, 24 January. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9223627/Gamification_goes_mainstream (Accessed: 14 May 2012)
Xu, Y. (2011) ‘Literature Review on Web Application Gamification and Analytics.’[Online]
Available at: http://csdl.ics.hawaii.edu/techreports/11-05/11-05.pdf (Accessed: 25 May
2012)
39
Zimmerman, E. () ‘Gaming Literacy: Game design as a model for literacy in the twentyfirst century’ [Online]. Available
at:http://ericzimmerman.com/files/texts/Chap_1_Zimmerman.pdf (Accessed: 29 September 2012)
Zichermann, G. (2011) ‘Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in Gamification’ [Online]. Available at: http://www.gamification.co/2011/10/27/intrinsic-and-extrinsic-motivation-ingamification/ (Accessed: 12 December 2012)
40
APPENDICES
Appendix A. SURVEY QUESTIONS
Thank you for taking time to do this survey, Gamification is where your company provides
game like tools to assist you in your day to day job. This can take many forms, and typically is tied to a social media site. Rewards often range from gaining levels, badges,
points to which you can purchase real or virtual goods.and other reward types. As part of
this dissertation we are working to determine if Gamification has worked for you in terms
of job enjoyment and satisfaction.
What is your Name (optional)
Name of your Company/Organization?
What is your Gender? *

( ) Male

( ) Female
What is your Location? no address please, a city or geographic location is fine.
Select an Age Range *

( ) < 20

( ) 20-29

( ) 30-39

( ) 40-49

( ) 50-59

( ) > 60
How long have you worked with your current employer?

( ) < 1 Year

( ) 1 - 2 years

( ) 3 - 5 years

( ) 6 - 10 years

( ) 11 - 15 years

( ) > 20 years
Do you participate in any games at work? * Games that are associated with work systems such an internal social Media site? [Yes/No
Does these games make you feel part of a larger community? [Yes/No]
Are you aware of your company’s overall company's goals? [Yes/No
Does particpating in games at work give you a sense of accomplishment towards your
company's goals? [Yes/No
Do you feel more connected to the people within your organization while participating in
these games? [Yes/No
If Yes, how does it it make you feel connected, If No, why not.
41
Do you like to do things that give you a sense of achievement? [Yes/No
What type of activities give you a sense of achievement at work?
What motivates you the most? Q1
1
2
3
4
5
Achievemnt of Goals ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Enjoyment of Experience
What motivates you the most? Q2
1
2
3
4
5
Structure and Guidance ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Freedom to Explore
What motivates you the most? Q3
1
2
3
4
5
Control of Others ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Connect with Others
What motivates you the most? Q4
1
2
3
4
5
Self Interest ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Social Interest
What type of rewards motivate you the most? Check all that apply

[ ] Badges (rewarded for achieving a particular goal)

[ ] Points

[ ] Levels

[ ] Virtual Goods (possibly purchased with your points)

[ ] Real World Merchandise (such as cash or merchandise)

[ ] Leader Board Rankings
Does using system on company's computer systems at work give you that sense of
achievement? [Yes/No
42
If Yes, please explain why your company's current system does give you that sense, If
No, why not?
Do you work harder if there is some recognition attached to the activity? [Yes/No
What do you like about Gamification within your organization? What do you like about
Gamification within your organization?

[ ] The Sensation - How the game makes you feel

[ ] Fantasy - the element of make believe

[ ] Narrative - the game as an unfolding story

[ ] Challenge - figuring out the next step

[ ] Fellowship - a game as a social framework

[ ] Discovery - going into and learning new ideas or skills

[ ] Expression - How a game allows you to express yourself

[ ] Submission -How a game allows you to express cieved passage of time during work
hours

[ ] Anticipation - of the next reward

[ ] Pride in a accomplishiment

[ ] Gift Giving - sharing your reward with others

[ ] Surprise of what happens next

[ ] Triumph over a particular challenge or matstery of a new skill
What type of player do you see yourself as?

( ) Achiever - enjoy achieving goals and live the challenge

( ) Explorer - you enjoy learning and the plesure of discovery

( ) Socializer - interested in connecting with others

( ) Killer - love the competition a game has to offer
Anything you would like to add?
43