USING SERIOUS GAMES FOR IDEA ASSESSMENT
IN SERVICE INNOVATION
Feldmann, Niels; Adam, Marc T. P.; Bauer, Maximilian;
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
KARLSRUHE SERVICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE (KSRI)
www.ksri.kit.edu
KIT – University of the State of Baden-Württemberg and
National Research Center of the Helmholtz Association
www.kit.edu
Current challenges in service idea assessment
Ideation
Ideas
Concepts
Market
Success
Requirements for
new approaches
Ideas
Concepts
Cope with large idea portfolios1
Address hollow go-decisions2, 3
Tap the knowledge of staff4
High attractiveness for staff4
IT-supported assessment5
Sources:
1 e.g. Bjelland O. & Wood, R. (2009). An inside view of IBM’s ‘Innovation Jam’, MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(1), 32-40
2 Barczak, G., et al. (2009). PERSPECTIVE: Trends and Drivers of Success in NPD Practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(1), 3–23.
3 Cooper, R. G. (2009). How Companies are Reinventing their Idea–to–Launch Methodologies. Research Technology Management, 52(2), 47–57.
4 Feldmann, N. & Kohler, M (2013). Service Innovation Capabilities for Idea Assessment. In The Handbook of Service Innovation. Forthcoming
5 Schulze et al. (2012). Idea assessment in open innovation: A state of practice. ECIS 2012
2
December 05,
2014
Innovation Games Summit 2015
Karlsruhe Service Research Institute
www.ksri.kit.edu
Pre-testing a serious game in a real-life environment
8/2012: San Jose Budget Games
in the News
11/2012: Workshop @ KIT
1/2013: Pre-Study in an Eastern European branch of a German bank
Participants said . . .
27 ideas
8 players
Online version
3
December 05,
2014
Innovation Games Summit 2015
Karlsruhe Service Research Institute
www.ksri.kit.edu
Research questions to be addressed in a lab experiment
RQ1:
Do serious games contribute to responding to the challenges of
idea assessment in service innovation?
RQ2:
To what extent does the formation of teams in terms of
openness to experience influence the outcome of a serious
game for idea assessment?
Controlled laboratory experiment
4
December 05,
2014
Innovation Games Summit 2015
Karlsruhe Service Research Institute
www.ksri.kit.edu
Overall experiment design
Students
5
December 05,
2014
Innovation Games Summit 2015
Karlsruhe Service Research Institute
www.ksri.kit.edu
RQ1: Perception of system by participants (TAM3*)
1. Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU)
PEOU1 My interaction with the system is clear and understandable.
Construct
PEOU2
Interacting with the system does not requireAverage
a lot of my mental effort.
PEOU3 I find the system to be easy to use.
Perceived
Enjoyment
PEOU4
I find it easy
to get the system to do what I want5.12
it to do.
Perceived
Ease of(ENJ)
Use
5.81
2. Perceived
Enjoyment
ENJ1 I find using the system to be enjoyable.
Output
Quality
4.71
ENJ2
The actual
process of using the system is pleasant.
ENJ3 I have fun using the system.
Result Demonstrability
5.26
1.......7
Variance
1.......7
1.......7
1.26 1 . . . . . . . 7
0.95
1.......7
1.50 1 . . . . . . . 7
1.......7
0.88
3. Output Quality (OUT)
OUT1
The quality
the output
I get from the system Up
is high.
Mood
Level of
(before
- after)
by 7.6% during game (4.8 to 5.2)1 . . . . . . . 7
OUT2 I have no problem with the quality of the system’s output.
1.......7
OUT3 I rate the results from the system to be excellent.
1.......7
4. Result Demonstrability (RES)
RES1 I have no difficulty telling others about the results of using the system.
The Serious
Game
helps to increase
popularity
RES2 Conjecture:
I believe I could communicate
to others
the consequences
of using the
system. and
in idea
assessment
RES3 participation
The results of using
the system
are apparent to me.
RES4 I would have difficulty explaining why using the system may or may not be beneficial.
5. State your overall mood level
1.......7
regular
1.......7
1.......7
1.......7
1.......7
*Source:
Venkatesh, V. and Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39 (2), 273-315.
6
December 05,
2014
Innovation Games Summit 2015
Karlsruhe Service Research Institute
www.ksri.kit.edu
RQ2: Types of projects bought by varying teams
Number of funded radical ideas
Significance Test:
Budget invested in radical ideas
(# of radical idea as dependent variable)
•
HIGH teams selecting more radical ideas is
significant* (b=1.864, se=.779, z=2.39, p=.017)
•
All other teams do not show significant
differences
* Ordered Logit Regression
7
December 05,
2014
Innovation Games Summit 2015
Karlsruhe Service Research Institute
www.ksri.kit.edu
RQ2: Individuals’ investments in radical ideas
OLS regressions on budgets invested in radical ideas by each individual
Budget Invested in Radical Ideas
(1)
Independent Variables
Coeff.
SE
(2)
Sig.
Coeff.
SE
Sig.
Dummy: HIGH_treatment
13.544 5.014 .007 **
15.024
6.229 .017 *
Dummy: gender_female
-4.836 5.232 .356
-3.087
5.498 .575
Computer Playfulness
.688 2.540 .787
1.668
2.750 .545
Computer Anxiety
-4.948 2.503 .049 *
-5.306
2.534 .037 *
Perceived Enjoyment
.861 1.989 .666
1.243
2.031 .541
Openness
-.040
.188 .831
Neuroticism
.070
.140 .617
Extraversion
-.112
.129 .384
Agreeableness
-.078
.161 .629
Conscientiousness
-.328
.156 .037 *
It’s
not
enough
to
exhibit
a
high
openness
score,
participants
with .000
high***
Constant
63.825 16.149 .000 *** 89.575 22.334
openness scores need to be grouped in homogeneous high openness
R² = .063
R² = .094
teams in order to spend more money
on radical ideas.
N = 240
N = 240
8
December 05,
2014
Innovation Games Summit 2015
Karlsruhe Service Research Institute
www.ksri.kit.edu
Outcome, Implications & Further Research
Outcome & Implications
1. Contribution to
Further Research

 Attractiveness for staff
 Hollow go-decisions
 Benchmark serious game with
traditional decision methods
 IT-supported assessment
2. No contribution to
 Field study to compare lab to
real-life environment

 Copes with large portfolios
 Tap the knowledge of staff
3. Balanced outcome when played
by an average set of participants
 Explore further personality
dimensions (e.g. extraversion)
 Compare outcome and
perception of game when played
face-to-face vs. online
4. A wanted bias towards more
radical ideas can be introduced
9
December 05,
2014
Innovation Games Summit 2015
Karlsruhe Service Research Institute
www.ksri.kit.edu
Thank you !
Niels Feldmann
Dr. Marc Adam
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
Karlsruhe Service Research Institute (KSRI)
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
Institut of Information Systems and Marketing
Email:
Email:
niels.feldmann@kit.edu
marc.adam@kit.edu
Max Bauer
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
Karlsruhe Service Research Institute (KSRI)
10
December 05,
2014
Innovation Games Summit 2015
Karlsruhe Service Research Institute
www.ksri.kit.edu
Implications & Further Research
1
Interactions in Teams
2
Interactions in Teams
Compare interaction pattern of lab
experiment with pattern from reallife setups
Evalutate chat logs
of lab experiment
3
11
4
Real life test
Further Dimensions
Repeat experiment in real life
situation, compare to lab and
traditional decision methods
Explore the impact of further
personality dimensions (e.g.
extraversion)
December 05,
2014
Innovation Games Summit 2015
Karlsruhe Service Research Institute
www.ksri.kit.edu