DiGRA  2015  *  Luneburg  *  Germany

Towards a Taxonomy for Enterprise Gamification

Marigo  Raftopoulos  *  Steffen  Walz  *  Stefan  Greuter

Hello  ☺Marigo  Raftopoulos  

PhD  candidate:  Year  3  ¾  

Thesis  -­‐  How  organisations  play:  The  building  blocks  for  successful  enterprise  gamification  implementations    

RMIT  University,  Melbourne,  Australia  

GEELab  –  Games  Research  Centre  

Supervisors:    Associate  Professor  Steffen  Walz,    Associate  Professor  Stefan  Greuter  

Warning!  5 Death by PowerPoint Slides approaching…

The  Research  Gap

• Comprehensive  enterprise  gamification  taxonomy  did  not  exist

• Taxonomies  are  key  tools  for  enterprise  environments–  IT,  IS,  KM,  HR

• To  date,  focus  on  enterprise  gamification  centered  on  motivational  affordances,  not  on  holistic  enterprise  systems  and  processes

• Mixed  messages  on  definitions  and  descriptions  of  what  gamification  is,  what  it  does,  and  how  it  can  be  applied

• Common  language  &  terms  of  reference  specializing  in  enterprise  gamification

Purpose  of  the  Research

• Identify  how  the  market  defines  and  interprets  enterprise  gamification  by  evaluating  the  artifacts  they  have  created

• Locate  where  organisations  are  investing  in  gamification  projects  and  for  what  purpose  by  looking  at  self-­‐identified  cases  of  gamification  

• Identify  the  design  decisions  they  are  making

• Develop  a  classification  system  to  form  a  baseline  to  compare  (and  inform)  gamification  design  strategies  and  investment  decisions

• This  was  essential  to  the  next  phase  of  my  research  on  capabilities  and  competencies  required  for  successful  implementations  

Methodology  –  Grounded  Approach1. Initial  scan  of  self-­‐identified  examples  of  enterprise  gamification  (60)  

– Conceptualization  &  categorization  of  key  parameters  – Open  coding  to  explore  emerging  themes  (code  book)    

– 3  orientations,  5  key  elements,  over  40  sub-­‐elements  – Initial  60  examples  (Glaser’s  ‘theoretical  saturation’  point)  

2. Literature  review  

– At  the  mid-­‐point  of  the  project  – Data  source  on  taxonomies;  contextualize  the  data

3. Detailed  industry  survey  or  audit  (304  examples)  

– ABI/INFORM,  OneFile  Gale,  Google  Scholar,  Google  Search  (190k  hits)  – Filter  examples  to  set  criteria  of  ‘enterprise  gamification’  – Coding  of  examples;  analysis  of  results  

4. Develop  a  theory  of  the  taxonomy  inductively    

Foundation  built  on  serious  games  taxonomies

• SGs  are  already  well  versed  in  enterprise  systems  and  processes    – Solving  enterprise  problems  – Integrate  with  enterprise  systems  – Already  tested  and  validated  in  complex  enterprise  environments  

• Extensive  literature  review  to  evaluate  different  models    – To  contextualize  the  research  on  the  survey/audit  – Ongoing  discourse  in  this  domain  (incl  entertainment  games)

• Key  sources  for  SG:    Klabbers  2003,  Sawyer  et  al.  2008,  Djaouti  et  al.  2011,  Bedwell  et  al.  2012,  Pereira  et  al.  2012,  Ratan  et.al.  2009,  Zyda  2005,  Michael  et  al.  2005,  Alvarez  et  al.  2008,  Bergeron  2006,  Robinson  et  al  2013

• Gamification  schemas:  Deterding  et  al.  2011,  Kappen  et  al.  2013,  Hamari  et  al.  2014

Methodology  -­‐  Limitations

• Self-­‐identified  not  peer  reviewed  as  focusing  on  industry  interpretation

• Grounded  approach  is  interpretative  &  guided  by  researchers’  world  view  

– Pragmatist  research  paradigm,  design-­‐science  PhD

• Some  level  of  ambiguity  is  unavoidable  in  enterprise  taxonomies  

– Organisational  constructs  are  conceptual  &  contextual  – Ditto  for  games  studies  and  design

• Not  intended  as  a  substitute  for  business  acumen  or  creative  design

• Gamification  is  in  part  a  create  endeavor,  therefore  it  cannot  be  completely  codified

• Three  orientations  

– Market-­‐based  – Technology-­‐based  – Design-­‐based

• Five  key  elements  

– Primary  purpose  – Target  audience  – Technology  strategy  – Core  gameplay  – Key  game  mechanics

Enterprise gamification taxonomy elements

Primary purpose Target audience Technology strategy Core gameplay Key mechanics

Outline of Key Findings

Proposed Taxonomy

Enterprise  Gamification  Taxonomy

Market  based

Target  Audience5

Key  Purpose16  (6)

Technology  Based

Games  and  simulations

Mobile

Web Game  platforms

Enterprise  Platforms

Vendor  supplied

Self  built

Product  Modifications

2  

Playful  Experiences

2  

Design  Based

Core  Gameplay12*

Key  Mechanics10*

Orientations Elements Sub-­‐Elements

Market-Based Elements

Market-Based Elements

*  Distilled  from  a  list  of  17  different  items

Market-Based Elements

Technology-Based Elements

Secondary  technologies  often  used  in  parallel:  • Augmented  reality  • Virtual  reality  • Geo-­‐location  • Social  media  

Technology based elements   in close-up

Enterprise Platforms (46%)

46%  of  cases  were  identified  as  enterprise  platform  solutions  Equally  divided  between  vendor  supplied  and  self-­‐built  solutions

PHD  Media  gamified  collaboration  platform

SAP  CRM  application

Games & Simulations (25%)

25%  of  cases  identified  as  a  gamification  project  were  either  games  (19%)  or  simulations  (6%)

Playful Experiences (8%)

8%  of  cases  were  identified  as  playful  experiences  (i.e.  events,  scavenger  hunts,  gamestorming  &  other  physical  activities)  both  digital  and  analogue  that  also  offered  real  world  experiences

Product Modifications (20%)

20%  of  cases  identified  as  having  modified  their  product/service  offering  using  gamification  elements

BBVA  optimized  digital  service  offerings

Innovation  challenge  introduced  new  services

Design-Based Elements

Common Design-Based Elements

Core  gameplay    • Collection  (56%)    

• Territory  acquisition  

• Prediction  

• Survival  

• Building  

• Chasing/evading  

• Trading  

• Puzzle  solving  

• Social  

• Destruction  

• Racing  

• Spatial  navigation

Key  mechanics  • Points  (43%)  • Achievements  (badges/trophies)  (52%)  • Leaderboards  • Narrative  • Missions/quests  (29%)    • Currency  • Rewards  (35%)  • Social  • Experiences  • Progression

• No  new  or  novel  design  patterns

• Only  simple  forms  of  gameplay  and  game  mechanics  evident  – Practitioner  skills  and/or  organisational  readiness  – Availability  of  applied  research  limited  – Often  referred  to  as  “experiments”    – Still  early  days

• Reinforce  existing  organisation  constructs  and  management  paradigms

• Creating  new  constructs  and  paradigms  not  evident  (but  creating  new  processes  and  approaches  within  existing  constructs  is)  

• Reality  is  not  really  broken  after  all..

Reality Check

• Self  identified  examples  used  in  the  research    

– Lacked  analytical/design  rigor    – Marketing/public  relations  motivations  to  report  as  gamification  – Self  justification  bias  in  reporting

• High  level  overview  

– limited  deep  application  into  specific  enterprise  domains  (marketing,  human  resources,  training,  information  systems,  knowledge  management,  finance,  compliance)

• Taxonomies  are  human  constructs,  and  are  highly  contextual  and  open  to  different  interpretations  

Limitations

• Develop  gamification  taxonomies  specific  enterprise  domains

• Tie  to  motivational  affordances  and  psychological  outcomes  for  a  more  complex  taxonomy

• Detailed  framework  covering  design  orientations  (game  design  patterns)

• Convergence  of  other  forms  of  games  and  play  into  a  redefinition  of  enterprise  gamification  

Opportunities for Further Research

The  components  for  enterprise  gamification  that  have  become  apparent:  

• A  process  AND  an  artifact  AND  an  experience    

• Enhances  a  product,  service,  process  or  system  

• Affordances  for  gameful  experiences  through  games,  play  and  game  design  patterns

• Integration  of  design,  technology  and  organisational  capabilities

• Results  in  value  creation  for  organisational  stakeholders    

Towards a (re)definition?

All feedback welcomed and appreciated