Gamify a contact center

(1)

!

Master Thesis

Gamify a Contact Center

!

Chris van den Berg 10326898

Version 1.1

!

Amsterdam, 14 Juli 2014

!

Dr E. Peelen

Msc Business studies – Marketing Track University of Amsterdam

(2)

!

Master Thesis C van den Berg 10326898

!

Abstract ...3 1. Introduction ...4 2. Theoretical background ...8 2.2 What is gamification? ...8

2.3 How does gamification work? ...11

2.3.1. Generation Y ...11

2.3.2 Self Determination Theory and Work Motivation ...11

2.3.3 Player motivation ...14

2.4 Gamification Design Framework ...15

2.4.1 The MDA Framework ...16

2.4.2 Gamification Design Framework: Six steps to Gamification ...18

2.5 Game Elements ...21

2.5.1. Pyramid of gamification elements ...21

2.5.2 Primary elements for gamification ...25

3. Method ...27

3.1. Designing the framework ...28

3.2. Playing the game ...33

3.2. Statistic analyses ...37

4. Results ...38

5. Discussion ...42

6. Conclusion ...44

(3)

!

Abstract

Gamification is the use of game design elements in a non-game contexts and intents to increase engagement, create behavioral changes, stimulate innovation and solve business problems. (Burke 2012, Zichermann 2011) It is already being used in various applications such as marketing; customer engagement, education and training. In this study the functioning of gamification is investigated, as well as the development of a gamification framework and the effects of the implementation of gamification on human behavior. In order to examine whether behavior can be influenced by the use of gamification there was a lab situation created for which a contact center game was developed. The result show a significant difference in behavior after the implementation of gamification. This study therefore demonstrates that gamification has the potential to influence and control human behavior.

!

(4)

!

1. Introduction

Games are currently undergoing an exponential growth and are more popular then ever. (Sale & Zimmerman 2003) The games we see today are considered part of everyday life and identity under the majority of the world population. (Crawford et al. 2011) Especially participation in video games has become the fastest growing form of human recreation. (Ryan et al. 2006) The last couple of years the video gaming industry has grown from a targeted limited audience to mainstream, enjoyed by players at all ages and origin across the globe. (Przybylski et al. 2010) People have access to games everywhere, on their computer, console and cell phone. (Lenhart et al. 2008) They can play games single or multi-player or even massively multiplayer and there is always a game that fits within a certain time frame whether you have five minutes for a mini-game or want to take part in a rol playing game that goes on endlessly, twenty-four hours a day. (McGonigal, J. 2011) Especially young people are attractive to games. (Markey et al. 2014) The current generation also referred to as ’generation Y’, the people that are born around the early 1980s to the early 2000s, has grown up with technology, and especially video games, as a part of everyday life. (Burke & Hiltbrand 2011) Markey et al. report that playing video games are nearly universal among teens with 97% of American youth twelve to seventeen playing video games and 81% of adults aged eighteen to twenty-nine playing games. Games speak to these young people by the combination of fun, challenge, curiosity and competition that they experience during game play. (Markey et al. 2014) Research reported by Colin Sebastian, industry analyst, registered the global video game industry will generate 80 billion in revenue in 2014.

!

Despite the fact that the structure and rules of most games that we see today are the same as decades ago, the rise of the computer brought games to a much higher dimension. The computer offered new opportunities to even process the most complex rules with a dynamic presentation of sounds and graphics. Nowadays the future for video games seems more open than ever. In its current form, game designers develop video games that feed the desire for spectacle, allowing people to experiment with chance and participate in

(5)

!

complex strategic interaction and to simulate things that cannot (or are not desired to) happen in real life. (Egenfeldt et al. 2013) Games are mostly challenging but enforceable allowing the player to get frustrated in an enjoyable way, which has a very motivating effect. (Gee, J. 2003)

!

In addition to purposes as entertainment, games are also used for education and learning and for commercial purposes by the business environment. Games appear to be a powerful medium, it is therefore not remarkable companies integrate aspects of games more and more in the daily practice of work to encourage and motivate their employees. To describe this new way of deploying games the term ’gamification’ popped up. In 2011 Detering et al. defined the term gamification as: ‘The use of game design elements in non-game contexts’. (Detering et al. 2011) It has been an increasingly growing trend during the last couple of years and is likely to grow much faster in the near future. Aiming to increase engagement and stimulate desirable behavior it is considered one of the fastest moving technologies identified in Gartner Inc.’s Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies, shown in Fig. 1. (Gartner 2012) According to Gartner, the world’s leading information technology research and advisory company, by 2015 more than 50 percent of organizations that manage innovation processes will gamify those processes. Also predicting more than 70% of Global 2000 organizations have launched at least one gamified application. (Gartner 2011)

!

(6)

!

Fig. 1 Gartner Inc.’s Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies, 2012

!

Since game dynamics become more and more a part of everyday life and influence our behavior it has become an interesting area for research. It is noticeable, little research is found examining the effects of gamification. Thom et al. examined the effects of gamification carried out in an enterprise social network service. In this particular study the patterns of users activity where examined after removing a point-based incentive system. The results revealed that removal of the system had led to reduction of overall participation via contribution. Further research in other organizations and settings is needed to better determine the generalizability of the findings in this study. (Thom et al.) The main research question of this study is: does adding game elements have a significant impact on human behavior? Secondly it is also examined if showing statistics have a significant impact on human behavior. By making the statistics visible a direct insight of the real-time results can be given, this could make a person become aware of the consequences of their behavior.

(7)

!

For carrying out the research there has been chosen to use a contact center as a research group. Not only because within a contact center many information is already recorded and this makes the measurements easier to implement. But also because the problems that often occur in a contact center may likely be overcome by gamification, since the loss of engagement and job satisfaction is one of the main problems that occur in a contact center. (Lewig & Dollard 2003) Contact centers are making a rapid grow of about 40% per year worldwide. Even in contact centers that have their focus on quality above quantity, contact center work is in itself a demanding, repetitive and often a stressful job. This reflects in a high level of absenteeism. (Lewig & Dollard 2003) The experience of monotony is one of the most common reasons contact center agents quite their jobs. (Greber 2010) Also the predetermined script, that is used by many contact centers, results in agents having little autonomy and control over their work. The feeling of boredom and monotony is strengthened. Moreover the requirements for the agents to be innovative and proactive are often low, which yields a low work motivation. (Wegge et al. 2006) A lack of complexity of work is related to low engagement of the agents in the organization. (Greber 2010) According to Werbach & Hunter (2012) engagement has business value in itself. Getting employees to participate and engaged is important for building a long lasting relationship, which will create loyalty. (Zichermann & Linder 2010) 

(8)

!

2. Theoretical background

In this chapter a detailed overview of gamification is given. We will first look at what defines gamification and how it is compared to other related forms of play. On the basis of some successful examples it will be clarified how gamification can be used and what can be achieved through the use of gamification. Then, attention will be given to the psychological background. At last existing frameworks for the development of a game will be discussed.

!

2.2 What is gamification?

Gamification does not refer to a stand-alone game and only refers to those applications in a non-game context; therefore players are not constantly aware they are actually playing a game. (Detering et al. 2011) Although the word ’game’ is put first it only uses attributes of a game, such as game elements, game design, game mechanics, game dynamics and gaming psychology. Wherein primarily the use of game elements that are used to display scores are of great importance. Various terms are being used to describe gamification but are intended for something else. It seems to be often confused with other concepts such as serious games, toys or playful design. Games can be described with the definition: a form of play with goals and structure (Maroney, 2001) or as defined before a game is an artificial system of rules that defines a conflict and that represents some sort of system, conflict or idea outside the game. (Sale & Zimmerman 2003) The main purpose of games is to entertain. Especially serious games are often confused with gamification. In both their main purpose is not entertainment and they both use game elements in order to achieve a certain goal. Gamification deploys game elements in a real setting, such as a work environment, while serious games are designed to convey learning material in a real life setting by being played through. (Detering et al. 2011) In a serious game, the real situation is simulated as realistic as possible, for example in the form of a video game, role play or simulation. Playfulness has been considered desirable user experience or mode of interaction, and how to design for it. (Detering et al 2011) And toys can be described as objects to play with. To distinguish between these different terms Detering et

(9)

!

al. developed a model, shown in Fig 2, where a distinction is made between the main elements. (Detering et al. 2011)

!

Fig. 2 Detering et all. ‘Gamification’ between game and play, whole and parts

!

To further illustrate how gamification can be used, two influential examples will be discussed. The first example is called Nike+ and was introduced by Nike in 2010. Nike+ is a running application that records the distance and pace of a walk or run. By using Nike + runners can set goals, earn levels, points and badges, track their activities and get an insight of the progress they made. The application stores all the data on the Nike+ website where the position on the leaderboard is shown, achievements can be shared with each other and other runners can be challenged. It is designed to make fitness a social, fun and engaging experience. (Nike, Zichermann & Cunningham, Werbach & Hunter) Another example of a concept that uses gamification is Foursquare. Foursquare is a social network website, software for mobile phones and a game. The web and mobile application allows users to ‘check in’ at places and share their location with their friends. By checking in they can earn points and badges. Badges can also be collected by logging on venues with

(10)

!

special tags, at special times or within a certain time pattern. (Foursquare, Zichermann & Cunningham, Werbach & Hunter) In the early development of Foursquare it started the platform without gamification but in that form it added little value to its users. By letting users earn points and badges for checking in at special places or at a certain frequency the user keeps motivated to use the platform. Only one year after implementing gamification, Foursquare has more than 500,000 users, 1.4 venues, 15.5 million check-ins and 1,000,000 badges awarded to users. (Tumblr 2013)

!

Providing rewards for players as they accomplish a desired task seems to be the main strategy for gamification. Several studies have shown that the positive performance feedback will enhance the motivation. (Ryan 2000) Gamification aims to create a sense of fun in non-game contexts to make participation enjoyable and attractive. And ultimately get users ‘engaged’, a term that has been described by Zichermann & Cunningham as ‘Engagement is the period of time at which we have a great deal of connection with a person, place, thing or idea.’ Another similar word that is frequently used to describe engagement is loyalty. (Zichermann & Cunningham 2011) Loyalty can be seen as a result of engagement. The possibility to make something social, interactive and competitive is another important element of gamification. Which can be achieved by providing leaderboards or making the rewards for achievements visible to other users. Giving users the ability to move ahead of others, increase their rank and higher their status. (Zichermann & Cunningham 2011) According to Werbach & Hunter (2012) engagement has business value in itself. Getting employees to participate and engaged is important for building a long lasting relationship, which will create loyalty. (Zichermann & Linder 2010)

!

(11)

!

2.3 How does gamification work?

Gamification is about engagement and motivating people to do things by stimulating desired behavior. To understand how gamification works we need to understand what motivates people as well as a good understanding of player motivation.

!

2.3.1. Generation Y

The growth of gamification can also be ascribed to the growing number of Generation Y employees. Generation Y, the people that are born around the early 1980s to the early 2000s grew up in the era of information technology. As a result of the aging population, Generation Y will comprise nearly 75% of the wold’s workforce by 2025 according to A BPW Foundation’s Gen Y study. This growing new generation employees with its own view on the world brings new challenges for companies and employers. Dhawan (2012) notices that most corporate work processes are not in line with the lifestyle and behavior desires of Generation Y. Where the older generation employees worked to live, Generation Y seeks a job where they have growth opportunities, the feeling of satisfaction, in a way work defines who they are. Forcing companies to re-look their work processes and think about how their employees work.

!

2.3.2 Self Determination Theory and Work Motivation

There has been done quite some psychological research of how to get people motivated. (Werbach & Hunter 2012) Several theories have replaced each other over the past decades and a shift of focus is seen in psychology. Where in the past more attention was given to the negative aspects of human behavior, it is more and more recommended to focus on the positive aspects. (Broek et al. 2009) The Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is one of the most influential ‘cognitive’ theories. (Werbach & Hunter 2012) supporting the positive approach.

!

(12)

!

In the SDT three core intrinsic motivations are described which are considered crucial for personal development and optimal functioning. (Ryan et al. 2006, Broek et al. 2009). The first is Competence, which has to do with the ability of the person to achieve something. A sense of competence creates confidence and well-being which reflects in the employees work ethic. Autonomy, is responsible for making the person feel in control and able to function without pressure by for example giving them the possibility of making choices. At last Relatedness what will connect the activity to something meaningful beyond the person himself. For example by being a part of a team, employees can build positive relationships with others. According to Ryan & Deci gamification is founded on these same three pillars. (Ryan & Deci 2000) To understand the working of games, Ryan et al., aimed to find the psychological background and found that games satisfy the same human needs as mentioned in the SDT and independently predict enjoyment and future game play. (Ryan et al. 2006) Ideally every Gamification implementation should therefore be based on the attempt to engage these aspects of intrinsic motivation outlined by the SDT. (Werbach & Hunter 2012, Broek et al. 2009)

!

The SDT theory is a comprehensive theory of human motivation. By this theory many studies showed that people are not always motivated by rewards. Based on different reasons and goals to be activated to do something, the SDT distinguishes between different types of motivation. Ryan et al. state ‘Over three decades of research has shown that the quality of experience and performance can be very different when one is behaving for intrinsic versus extrinsic reasons’. It is shown that intrinsic motivation is an even stronger and more effective way to motivate people to act in a certain way. People are intrinsically motivated to accomplish a task not because they feel obligated, but because they find accomplishing the task enjoyable, challenging or important. Intrinsically motivation makes people more persistent. In contrast, are those who are extrinsically motivated, motivated to get the reward and not motivated for the task itself. Within this

(13)

!

SDT there is a spectrum of different motivational types, shown in Fig 3. (Ryan & Deci

2000)

Fig. 3 Self-Determination model

!

The three main categories are amotivation, extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation. At the right amotivation, which means there is no motivation at all. In the middle is the extrinsic motivation, which refers to doing something because it leads to an external outcome. The extrinsic motivation is represented by a broad category of motivators. The SDT claims within extrinsic motivation there is a spectrum from the most external to the most internal forms of extrinsic motivation. Where people will take an internal form of extrinsic motivation and make it their own, for example status. At the end there is intrinsic motivation, which is the most powerful form of motivation. The motivation is not provoked by an external reward but just because its fun. The activity is interesting and enjoyable for itself.

When desired behavior is stimulated by rewards, an external motivation, the internal motivation of the person can be replaced. That extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation was first described by Deci in 1971. Also a more recent meta-analyses from

(14)

!

2001 shows strong evidence for extrinsic motivation replacing intrinsic motivation. When a reward should be taken away the motivation of the person will also disappear. Authors however found if intrinsic motivation was never present in the first place it had no negative consequences for the intrinsic motivation. (Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 2001) The challenge lies in finding a meaningful connection between the interest of the person and the desired behavior. (Nicholson 2013)

!

Gagne and Deci (2005) stated many studies indicate that autonomous motivation such as intrinsic motivation or integrated extrinsic motivation leads to better performance, trust, commitment, satisfaction and well-being. Research has shown that with uninteresting tasks requiring a disciplined task engagement, autonomous extrinsic motivation can lead to the most effective performance. Also research suggests that an autonomous work motivation occurs in an environment where the work is challenging, interesting and given the opportunity to make choices. (Gagne & Deci 2005).

!

2.3.3 Player motivation

In addition to understanding work motivation a good understanding of player motivations is essential for the development of a well working gamification system. (Zichermann & Cunningham 2011) Also the research in games has shift its focus. Where previously research mainly was focussed on the negative effects of participating in games such as an increase in violence, lower psychological and physical well-being and social issues. (Ryan et al. 2006) More and more attention is given to the motivational qualities of games. Because in contrast towards the concerns of critics on the negative effects, players themselves find games an enormously entertaining, rewarding and satisfying experience. (Ryan et al. 2006) Today only little research has been done that focusses on what gets people engaged into gaming. Ryan et al. (2006) investigated if an existing theory of human motivation, the SDT can be applied to and account for player motivation in game contexts. They found several studies showing that autonomy and competence perceived within the game can be associated with game enjoyment, preferences and changes in

(15)

well-!

!

being before and after playing a game. The need for autonomy, competence and relatedness described in the SDT independently predict enjoyment and future game play. Przybylski et al., mentioned that video games motivate a remarkable amount of targeted behavior. For example they name World of Worcraft. This popular online game attracts more than 10 million players every week, spending over 225 million hours together collaborating, exploring and competing against one another in a virtual world. The reason so many people spend so much time on video games is that it is fun. The model for video game engagement that is presented by Przybylski is based on the Self-Determination theory. The results suggest that the broad appeal of games is based on ability to satisfy the psychological needs that a game can offer. (Przybylski 2010) Ryan et al. presented four studies to investigate the motivation for computer game play, and the effect of game play on well being by applying the Self-Determination Theory. They found a direct relation to how game play satisfied psychological needs. (Ryan et al. 2006) The challenge is to make the intrinsic motivation for the game overrule the extrinsic motivation for the work activity without the game.

!

2.4 Gamification Design Framework

A solid foundation is essential for the development of a gamified system. A well-structured design process that will lead to a gamification system is thereby of great importance. Without this design process, it is very likely that the preparation of the gamification system will fail. A balance must be struck between the emotional components such as fun and user experiences and the engineering measurable and sustainable systems in order to serve concrete business objectives. (Werbach & Hunter 2012: 85-86) In this chapter two existing systems will be described. These current systems are not standardized.

!

(16)

!

2.4.1 The MDA Framework

Developing a game is often difficult as it has many facets and requires technical skills in various areas, such as illustration, sound and storytelling, but also base mechanisms of game systems, the overarching design goals, or desired experiential results of gameplay. Developing a game is often done by people from different disciplines in the fields from creativity to scientific backgrounds who eventually congregate. In an attempt to bridge the gap between game design and development, game criticism, and technical game research, the MDA framework was developed. (Hunicke et al.2004) The MDA framework is the most frequently used framework for Game Design and Game Research and was presented by Hunicke et al. It was developed and thought as part of the Game Design and Tuning Workshop at the Game Developers Conference, San Jose 2001-2004 and is uzed to analyze games. The MDA framework standing for Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics is a formal approach for understanding games. The three levels of the MDA framework (Fig. 4) make it possible to conceptualize the dynamic behavior of game systems. Games are dynamic systems and understanding them will help to develop techniques for resumable design and improvement. It will help tune for desired behavior and control undesired outcome. ’The MDA framework allows us to reason explicitly about particular design goals, and anticipates how changes will impact each aspect of the framework and the resulting design/implementations’. (Hunicke 2004)

!

(17)

!

Fig. 4 MDA framework.(obtained: http://www.elliotmax.com/2011/11/30/the-a-in-mda/)

!

The mechanics refer to the functioning components of the game; they allow the designer to come up with the levers of the game, which will guide the player to the desirable behavior. It describes certain game elements that encourage players to do a specific action. Think, for example, rules, goals, points, badges, levels virtual goods, virtual environments and scoreboards. The Dynamics determine what each player is doing in response to the mechanics of the system and therefore interact with the player. Dynamics can only be provoked and cannot be directly influenced. Therefore it is also important to test if the desired behavior is generated with the mechanics at an early stage. At last the Aesthetics, which is the most difficult and most important part, is responsible for making the game fun. The aesthetics set the tone for the player. (Hunicke et al. 2004) It is about how the player feels during the action. (Zichermann & Cunningham 2011) For describing the aesthetics of the game Huncike et al. wanted to move away from the terms ’fun’ and ’gameplay’ to a more direct designation, using the words below:

Sensation - game as sense-pleasure Fellowship - Game as social framework Fantasy - Game as make-believe Discovery - Game as uncharted territory Narrative - Game as drama Expression - Game as self-discovery Challenge - Game as obstacle course Submission - Game as pastime

(18)

!

As there is no combination of aesthetic goals that guarantee a successful game, every game can pursue multiple aesthetic goals. They only help to describe a game. It also gives an insight of why different games appeal to different players.

!

2.4.2 Gamification Design Framework: Six steps to Gamification

The MDA framework, that was designed to develop a successful game, was used by Prof. Werbach as a foundation to develop a more defined roadmap for establishing a successful framework for gamification. Prof. Werbach the author of the book ‘For the win’ and associate Professor at the University of Pennsylvania where he teaches a gamification course for Coursera came up with a six-step gamification design framework, which helps organizations to apply gamification, step by step. The D6 design framework. (Werbach & Hunter 2012) consists the following steps:

!

1. Define business objectives

In this first step the purpose and goals of the use of gamification should be clarified. Because the system is going to be used for business purpose, the business objectives have to be defined. The gamification system is specifically designed to achieve its objectives. (Werbach & Hunter 2012)

!

2. Delineate target behaviors

Here the desired behavior is described. It is determined what is expected of the players and which behavior is desired. The metrics used for measurement will also provide the feedback for the user. (Werbach & Hunter 2012)

!

3. Describe your players

Not everyone plays games for the same reason and therefore not all players are the same. Knowing in advance what type of players are going to be used in the system is an important part of game thinking (Yee 2006) The system can be designed in such a way that it appeals to this group. To define the kind of players in a gamified sytem the Bartle

(19)

!

Model of Player Types is the most common model to help identify the different types of players. (Yee 2006, Zichermann & Cunningham 2011, Werbach & Hunter 2012) It is developed by Richard Bartle, a game researcher and designer, and can be used to define the requirements of a game and helping understand how players at a specific time in the game might respond. Bartle describes four characters divided in a two by two matrix of player types, shown in Fig 5. (Bartle 1996) The personality of the player will be classified based on a character theory in to four characters: Achievers, Explorers, Socializers, and Killers. (Bartle 1996, Yee 2006, Zichermann & Cunningham 2011, Werbach & Hunter 2012)

!

The achievers are people who want to reach some achievement. They are the players who prefer to gain concrete measurements like points, levels, to succeed in a game. The explorers are the people that want to interact with the world. They want to figure out new things of the game and see what’s possible by pushing the limits of the game. The socializers care particularly for the social experience. It is more important to them to interact with others then to achieve something. Being part of a community, teams, chatting with other players is what they prefer. And finally the killers, they are the people that want to impose themselves on other people. They not only want to win but also totally destroy them, making them often the most intense and aggressive respondents. (Yee 2006, Zichermann & Cunningham 2011, Werbach & Hunter 2012) It is important to keep in mind most people can be divided in all four categories at some times or another. (Bartle 1996) And games can also combine these elements.

(20)

!

Fig 5. Bartle’s Killers, Achievers, Socialites, and Explorers.

!

4. Devise your activity loops

A detailed description has to be given of the kind of feedback system that will be used. The system will consist of activity loops that will motivate the users, get them engaged and how to remain their interest. An activity loop moves the action in the gamified system forward, it provokes an action, which in turn elicits an action in itself, and so on. A distinction can be made between engagement loops and progression loops. Engagement loops relate to the actions a player performs, why he does it and how the system reacts to this. The progression loops ensure that the experience of the player changes parallel to the progress of the game. This can be achieved by changing the challenge and difficulty. As the level goes up, the player has developed in the game, and also the difficulty increases. (Werbach & Hunter 2012)

!

(21)

!

5. Don’t forget the fun

Very important part of the design is an explanation of the fun aspects that will give the system the ability to motivate the users and get them engaged. (Werbach & Hunter 2012)

!

6. Deploy the appropriate tools

As last the most relevant and effective game elements need to be selected to apply in the system. The use of the appropriate elements provides an effectively working system. (Werbach & Hunter 2012) Further description of game elements and their objective can be read in the next chapter.

!

The MDA framework and the D6 design framework have many similarities and use the same thinking process. The MDA framework provides a more comprehensive guidance to the thought process while designing a game, and game refers to all games in general. The D6 design framework offers a more specific description of the sequence of steps to be taken for the development of a game which can be used to gamify.

!

2.5 Game Elements

Detering et all. 2011 describe game elements as ‘elements that are characteristic to games - elements that are found in most (but not necessarily all) games, readily associated with games, and found to play a significant role in gameplay’. (Detering 2011) Game elements are the toolbox for gamification and can be combined in different ways to build up any kind of game. (Werbach & Hunter 2012) The number of game elements that can be use for gamification is extensive.

!

2.5.1. Pyramid of gamification elements

Prof. Werbach introduced also a framework for gamification elements named the Pyramid of gamification elements, shown in Fig 6. (Werbach & Hunter 2012) This framework explains the overall experience of the game on the basis of 3 levels: dynamics, mechanics

(22)

!

and components. (Werbach & Hunter 2012) The structure of the pyramid is constructed so that the elements in the lower levels are the way to make the elements of a higher level possible. Building the game up from small units. Within these 3 levels a total of 30 elements is described.

!

Fig 6. Pyramid of Gamification Elements. By Prof. Kevin Werbach

!

Game Dynamics are at the top of the pyramid and show us the big picture of the gamified system. Including the narrative and progress. These elements show which themes are revolved around the game and form the foundation of the game, shown in Table 1. Therefore almost every game contains elements of the dynamics section. (Werbach & Hunter 2012)

!

2.5.1.1 Dynamics

Element Description

Constraints Limitations of the game

Emotions How the player feels: happy, competitive, frustrated Narrative The storyline or coherent whole of the game

(23)

!

Table 1. Dynamics (Werbach & Hunter 2012)

!

Game mechanics are at the next level, in the center, shown in Table 2. These elements are more specific and can help determine how to engage players into the game and move the action forward. They stimulate the behavior of the player in the desirable direction. It is an elaboration of the chosen dynamics. The elements of the mechanics may be used to achieve the elements from the dynamics.

!

2.5.1.2 Mechanics:

Table 2. Mechanics (Werbach & Hunter 2012)

!

Components are at the lowest level, shown in Table 3. These are the most specific elements and may be used for the interface of the game. Here as well the different elements can be part of the mechanic elements.Not all available options for each element

Relationships The interaction with other players

Element Description

Challenges Task that needs to be solved

Chance Random elements

Competition Players competing to win Cooperation Players working together to win Feedback Shows how the player is performing Resource Acquisition Gain or collect useful items

Rewards Benefit that will be obtained for achievement Transactions Trading with other players or intermediaries Turns Alternating opportunity to play

(24)

!

need to be used in every game. The right combination and the most effective use of elements ensure the best experience. (Werbach & Hunter 2012)

!

2.5.1.3 Components

Table 3. Components (Werbach & Hunter 2012)

!

Achievement Specific objectives

Avatars Visualization of the player’s character Badges Visualization of an achievement

Boss Fights Difficult challenge at the peak of a level Collections Collecting certain objects or elements Combat A fight in which opponents are defeated

Content Unblocking An action a player must perform to get access to a certain part of the game

Gifting The opportunity to share something with other players. This can include anything

Leaderboard Visualization of the position of the player in a list. In the order of scores.

Levels Indicate progress, serve as a marker for players where they stand in the game

Points Feedback mechanism, which displays the progression in real time.

Quests A challenge within the game to win a reward

Social Graph The ability to see other friends and interact with them. Teams Group of players together trying to achieve a goal Virtual goods Assets within the game that can be used in the game

(25)

!

2.5.2 Primary elements for gamification

Not all of the above displayed elements have to be deployed in the gamified system in order to make it work. Werbach & Hunter advise in their book, ‘For the win’ to deploy the PBL features as a starting point. PBL representing: points, badges and leaderboard. But the limitations of the PBL have to be taken into account. In order to develop a successful gamified system there has to be moved beyond these elements. (Werbach & Hunter 2012) Gabe Zichermann and Christoper Cunningham describe in their book ‘Gamification by design’ seven primary game elements for gamification. Respectively points, levels, leaderboard, badges, challenges/quests, onboarding and engagement loops. (Zichermann & Cunningham 2011)

!

Points - Points are a feedback mechanism, which display the progression in real time.

Points can be used to represent anything. Providing an easy and quick feedback. They show the player which actions should be taken by rewarding them with points. By getting an insight of where the points are earned, where or how fast, the information can be used to enhance the game or the gamified system. Points often work for motivating players who like to collect or compete with other players. External display of progress in form of a leaderboard can be a meaningful marker of status.

!

Levels - Levels, same as points, also show the progression of the user. The level of the

player increases, as the player becomes better in the game. Levels are a good representation of how well the player performs in the game.

!

Leaderboard - Leaderboard is what drives the competition. It puts the players in order of

scores and shows the positions users have relative from other users.

!

Badges - A badge is mostly a graphic in form of a little shield that can be earned for an

(26)

!

in the game and is a great way to motivate the desired behavior. They often tend to be a status symbol and can be collected.

!

Challenges/quests - Challenges/quests are expeditions a player can enter. It is a small sub

game, which must be accomplished within the structure of the game.

!

Onboarding - Onboarding helps the player, who is a novice, into the system in a

systematic way. It is a crucial element and will affect the decision of the player to continue or stop participating in the game. The novice player may never fail its first actions and by letting him experience the feeling of winning he will be motivated to continue.

!

Engagement loops - The engagement loops describe how players behave, what they do,

why they do it, and how the system reacts to this. The engagement loops ensure the user continues to show certain behavior. It is of great importance the player receives immediate feedback, which will trigger it to further perform an action. By receiving immediate feedback the player knows what actions are rewarded and which therefore is expected of him. (Zicherman & Cunningham 2011)

!

When designing a gamified system the elements that will be used depend on the type of players that need to be influenced. Per system has to be determined which elements have the greatest impact and elicit the desired behavior based on the target audience and the objectives that are set. Using the primary elements to start with when designing a gamified system is a narrow view on game design but is highly optimized for gamification. (Zichermann & Cunningham 2011)

!

(27)

!

3. Method

The purpose of this study is to investigate how to develop a gamification framework and what are the effects of implementing gamification on human behavior. For carrying out this research, game elements were added in a work situation. For the choice of the game elements and the development of the gamification framework used in this study the D6 Design Framework from Werbach was used, as this framework is most suitable for practical implementation. For testing the game the work field of a contact center was used. Given within a contact center environment measurements and monitoring are already being done. Contact centers make use of Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s), which are instruments for measuring performance. The feedback system of the game can easily be linked to the KPI’s and a contact center seems to be an eligible and measurable research environment. Moreover the main problems that occur in a contact center such as a lack of engagement, experiencing monotomy, low work motivation makes a contact center a good environment for gamification to work effectively. The most reliable result is obtained when testing real-time in a real situation. Since linking the game with existing systems appear to be to complex and require considerable technical challenges testing in a real situation did not seem feasible. Therefore a lab situation was created in the form of a virtual contact center. The advantage of a lab situation is that the external influences from the workplace and organization are eliminated. KPI’s used for measuring in this study are the number of handled contacts, the Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI); indicator of customer satisfaction and the Operational Costs (OC); costs per answered question. These are the KPI’s most relevant used within a contact center.

!

Respondents

The respondents were approached through email and social media and thus located within the immediate circle of the researcher. Only respondents who did go trough the entire game are enrolled for the interpretation of the results. Eventually 20 respondents were included for analysis of the results, which according to Greenstone & Gayer, 2008, is a sample size of this size large enough for an experiment.

(28)

!

3.1. Designing the framework

Below will be described how the game is set up in the lab situation. To ensure external validity, the reproduction of a real life contact center is imitated as much as possible.

!

1. Define business objectives

The goal of this gamification framework is to provide real-time feedback to the player with regard to the results the player achieves on the KPI’s: number of handled contacts, CSI and OC. The CSI and the OC are two KPI’s that can be seen as two important KPI’s used as business objectives within a real life contact center.

!

2. Delineate target behaviors

During the game the player has to keep the CSI as high as possible at the lowest OC. It is difficult in a contact center to score perfectly on both KPI’s at the same time, therefore contact centers often choose one strategy: one contact center focuses more on CSI and the other on the OC. In this game the player has to choose which strategy he wants to use. To achieve this goal the player has to use the appropriate helplines for answering incoming questions. The helplines which can be selected in the game are the same as the helplines that are used in a real life contact center and will be explained later. The game is set up in a way it is not possible to score well on both KPI’s at the same time. This forces the player to become aware of the impact of their behavior on the KPI’s and forces the player to choose a strategy. Also the challenge lies in answering as many questions as possible within the time available, as contact centers want agents to handle as many customers as possible within their service. The rounds in this game are played in 180 fictitious minutes.

!

In a real life contact center the agent can constantly see a list of incoming questions with their topics. The agent can thus scroll through the questions to determine which questions he wants to answer. In this game the questions will be displayed in ten and the player may choose which questions, and in what order he wants to answer them. The incoming questions are divided in the categories easy, medium and difficult. The more difficult the

(29)

!

question, the more time it takes to answer the question. These time penalties will be subtracted of the 180 minutes fictitious time. To which category a question belongs will not be shown to the player.

!

After the selection of a question the player chooses one of the following three helplines to answer the question:

1] Answering the question without using a help line (effects: low OC, because the question can be answered quickly and only one employee is needed. Not 100% certain of a correct answer which has a negative impact on the CSI)

2] Handling the contact with use of the knowledge base (effects: highest OC because it takes more time to find the answer, advantage is that easy and medium questions are very likely to be answered correctly, and thus also increases the CSI)

3] Forwarding a contact (high OC because it takes more time and more staff, but most likely to answer correctly and thus increases CSI)

If the players chooses to answer the question without helpline he will be given three possible options to answer with. If the player chooses one of the other guides the correct answer will be shown for a few seconds. Here the player has a learning opportunity. When an answer in a real life contact center is sought, the agent will be able to remember the answer when the question is repeated. Answering questions will be repeated until there are no time units left.

!

The table below shows how the KPI’s are calculated. (Table 4.) The numbers used for calculation are fictitious. In order to make the performance of the player measurable, there is a fictitious score devised.

!

(30)

!

Table 4. Calculation KPI’s

!

For calculation of the KPI’s (table 4.) should be interpreted as following. The player chooses a question to answer. For the explanation we assume he chooses an ’easy’ question. Then he can choose between three guides to answer the question. In case he chooses to answer the question himself it will cost him ’5 time penalty’, the CSI will be multiplied by 0,99 and it will cost 10 OC. If he chooses to answer the easy question with the use of the knowledge base (KB used) he will loose 2 time penalty, CSI multiplied with 2 and 15 OC. In this way the processing of all scores can be read in table 1.

!

3. Describe your players

The players are asked to participate in a player type test to determine their player type to differentiate between the various types of players and the behavior that is coupled thereto. The player type test is a translation based on the Bartle Player Type Test (Bartle 1996). (Fig. 7). The outcome of the player type test is stored but will not ben displayed to the player. Due to the lab situation it is not possible to determine the type of players before start of the study. Therefore all four player types will be taken into account in the development of the game.

Question catagorie

Guide Time penalty CSI OC

Easy 5 0.99 10 Easy KB used 5 1 15 Easy Forwarded 5 0.98 20 Medium 10 0.95 15 Medium KB used 10 0.98 20 Medium Forwarded 10 0.98 25 Difficult 15 0.9 20 Difficult KB used 15 0.95 25 Difficult Forwarded 15 0.97 30

(31)

!

Fig 7. Screenshot Player Type Test

!

4. Devise your activity loops

The activity loops used in this game are points and badges. Because of the short-term nature of the game, the possibility to on-boarding and expansion of the game elements was not possible. Therefore there is chosen to make use of clear game elements which provide real time feedback on the performance and progression of the player.

!

Points

All four player types can be motivated by points. Points are calculated on the basis of: OC * CSI

The points earned with the recently and also the previously answered question are shown to the player. Therefore the player is able to compare his performance on the last questions he answered.

!

Badges

All four player types can be motivated by badges. The badges are earned by the player by performing the following operations:

• Easy question badge: for solving 1, 3, and 5 easy questions • Medium question badge: for solving 1, 3 and 5 medium questions • Difficult question badge: for solving 1, 3 and 5 difficult questions

(32)

!

• Knowledge base badge: for using the knowledge base in 1, 5 and 10 questions • Forwarding badge: for forwarding 1, 5 and 10 questions

!

CSI and OC

CSI is illustrated by a smiley which is calculated as following: • Happy smiley: CSI = 1

• Medium smiley: CSI = 0,99 or 0,98 • Unhappy smiley: CSI < 0,97

!

OC is illustrated by dollar signs which are calculated by • One dollar sign: OC = 10 or 15

• Two dolar signs: OC = 20 or 25 • Three dollar signs: OC = 30

!

5. Don’t forget the fun

!

Because all badges that can be earned are shown blurred in the table and light up when a badge is earned, the player is able to see his progress immediately.

!

(33)

!

3.2. Playing the game

!

Explaining the game

To achieve a realistic view the online contact center simulation game simulates the proceedings of a contact center agent in a contact center. The game is played in three rounds, in the first round the player has no insight into his progression as he plays the game, in the second round the KPI’s (CSI, OC, OC per customer) will be displayed real time to the player during as he plays and in the third round the game elements are added and the player gets a playful insight into his progress. There is chosen to play three rounds so it is not only investigated whether there are differences in behavior when adding game elements instead of using no game elements, but also if there are differences between showing the progression of the player real time and the use of game elements.

!

Role player

During the game the player will assume the role of a contact center agent working for a large petting farm in the Netherlands. The player is fictitiously working there for over 12 months and answers to general questions about the petting farm will be shown before starting the game to the respondent. The game consist of 26 different questions that can be repeated several times per round. It depends on the category how often one question can be repeated. The choice for the amount of repetition is based on practical experience. The computer places the questions in a random order.

!

Challenge

The challenge of the game is to achieve a good score on the measured KPI’s.

!

(34)

!

Round 1.

!

The game consists of three rounds. In the first round the game will be played without adding game elements. The player chooses a question and answers with one of three helplines available as seen in figure 8.

Fig. 8 Screenshot round 1

!

(35)

!

Round 2. Adding the statistics

!

In this phase the following KPI's will be displayed real time to the player: time, amount of customers, CSI, OC, OC per customer. The player will play the game in the same way as in the previous phase (Fig. 9). Only now the player has the ability to directly see his performance on the above mentioned KPI’s displayed in the bar on the right of the screen.

!

(36)

!

Round 3. Adding the game element: points and badges

In this last round the game elements: points and badges are added. In a bar on the right side of the screen is the number of points, badges, CSI an OC displayed (Fig. 10).

!

(37)

!

3.2. Statistic analyses

!

To investigate whether there are significant differences between the results obtained in the three different rounds of the game there will be made use of the repeated measures ANOVA for analyses of the results. The repeated measures ANOVA is an equivalent of the one-way ANOVA which compares two groups or more with each other. The repeated measures ANOVA compares related, not independent groups and since this study consist of three rounds in which the same respondents are being measured more than once on the same dependent variable this test seems suitable for analyses. For analyses the respondents in this study are the independent variable and the addition of the KPI’s and game elements are the dependent variable.

!

(38)

!

4. Results

The analyses focuses on the 20 respondents who have played all three rounds and therefore completed the entire game during the analyses period. Table 5. shows the characteristics of the respondents. The vast majority of the respondents are highly educated, the spread between men and women is fairly equal, the average age was 30 years and most notably in the data is that the respondents represented an approximately equal distribution across the four player types.

!

Table5. Sample characteristics

!

Characteristics Number of subjectives, N 20 Age, mean (+/- SD) 30.3 (+/- 7.41) Education WO, N (%) 12 (60%) HBO, N (%) 1 (5%) HAVO / MBO, N (%) 1 (5%) VMBO, N (%) 6 (30%) Gender Female, N (%) 8 (40%) Male, N (%) 12 (60%) Player type Achiever (.000 - 1.000), mean (+/- SD) .2783 (+/- 0.6238) Explorer (.000 - 1.000), mean (+/- SD) .2706 (+/- 0.5937) Socializer (.000 - 1.000), mean (+/- SD) .2833 (+/- .1299) Killer (.000 - 1.000), mean (+/- SD) .2233 (+/- .0.8029)

(39)

!

In table 6. the results of the choice of questions in level of difficulty, the actions (helplines that were chosen) and KPI characteristics are presented. On the basis of the results shown in table 6. it is noticeable, with regards too the difficulty level of the questions, that as the respondents progress through the different rounds there is a decrease in the choice of easy questions and an increase in the choice of medium and hard questions. There are also changes in the actions chosen to be used by the respondents, where the answering without a helpline increases and the use of the knowledge base decreases as the rounds progress. The questions that were forwarded decreased in the second round but increased again in the third round. The results achieved in form of the KPI’s show a decrease of the total number of points earned in each round as well as the customer satisfaction (CSI) and the operational costs (OC) when the respondent progresses in the rounds.

!

Table 6. Difficulty, Actions and KPI characteristics

Round Element 1 2 3 Difficulty easy, mean (+/- SD) 16.60 (+/- 3.60) 15.55 (+/- 3.19) 14.45 (+/- 3.30) medium, mean (+/- SD) 7.00 (+/- 1.45) 7.10 (+/- 1.55) 7.25 (+/- 1.58) hard, mean (+/- SD) 1.95 (+/- 1.23) 2.15 (+/- .93) 2.50 (+/- .946) Actions answer, mean (+/- SD) 17.55 (+/- 4.90) 18.10 (+/- 4.30) 18.85 (+/- 4.49) knowledge base, mean

(+/- SD)

6.20 (+/- 4.21) 5.65 (+/- 3.39) 3.95 (+/- 2.82) forward, mean (+/- SD) 1.8 (+/- 2.19) 1.05 (+/- 1.79) 1.40 (+/- 2.33)

KPI’s

total points, mean (+/- SD)

351.10 (+/- 28.51)

335.26 (+/- 27.06) 327.58 (+/- 26.42) csi index, mean (+/- SD) .619 (+/- .0757) .594 (+/- .0750) .561 (+/- .0618) oper. cost, mean (+/- SD) 359.00 (+/-

27.08)

(40)

!

In table 7. The significance of the results as seen in table 6, are shown in form of p-value. When comparing round one and two significant differences were found on the elements: total points earned, customer service index and operational costs. When comparing round one and three significant differences were found on the elements: choosing easy questions, answering without helpline, answering by using the knowledge base, forwarding questions, total points earned, customer service index and operational costs. When comparing round two and three significant differences were found on the elements: the use of the knowledge base and customer service index. In the compartment of all three rounds there were found significant differences on the elements: choosing easy questions, answering by using the knowledge base and on the KPI’s total points earned, customer service index and operational costs.

!

(41)

!

Table 7.. Significance in results

* p <= 0.01 : very strong presumption against neutral hypothesis ** 0.01 < p < 0.05 : strong presumption against neutral hypothesis *** 0.05 < p < 0.1 : low presumption against neutral hypothesis

!

Element 1 -> 2 1 -> 3 2 -> 3 Difficulty easy, p-value .345 .021** .326 medium, p-value .841 .638 .754 hard, p-value .507 .164 .297 Actions answer, p-value .493 .098*** .406 knowledge base, p-value .330 .008* .014**

forward, p-value .493 .098*** .406

KPI’s

total points, p-value .005* .004* .147 csi index, p-value .052*** .002* .021**

(42)

!

5. Discussion

One of the main contribution of this study is to examine the effects of the addition of game elementen on human behavior. The addition of game elements had a significant effect on the choice of answering questions related to the level of difficulty. It can be seen in the decrease of the choice of easy questions which suggest the player is motivated to not only choose to answer easy questions. But also more often chooses to answer a difficult question. A phenomenon often seen in contact centers is that the agents are always choosing to answer only the easy questions. The result of this behavior is that the customer with a difficult question has to wait unnecessarily long before his question is answered and the agents do not broaden their knowledge and thus develop less in their profession. Also observed is the addition of game elements is the significant effect on the helpline a player uses to answer a questions. Answering without helpline increased significant which suggest the player chooses more often to answer a question without using a helpline. The use of the knowledge base decreased which suggest the player required less often to use the knowledge base for answering a question. A significant decrease is also seen in the use of forwarding a question which suggests less questions are being forwarded when game elements are added. As for the KPI’s the results show that there is a significant difference in the total points earned, there were less points earned after the addition of game elements. It is noticeable that there is also a significant difference found in the CSI, to the detriment of the third round, in which the game elements are added compared to the first round without game elements. This suggest the customer service index decreases when game elements are added. These results should be interpreted with caution as the game is set up in such a way that answering a question without using a helpline gives the highest risk giving a wrong answer and thus has a negative impact on the CSI. This does not mean that the question is actually wrong answered. It is a design choice and should be taken to attention for further studies. Another explanation could be that the players as the game progresses get sloppier.

(43)

!

An other question that was investigated in this study was wether there is a difference in results when showing the progress to the player in the form of the KPI scores, as in round two, or when adding game elements, as in round three. The results show a significant difference in the use of the knowledge base which suggests players make less use of the knowledge base when game elements are added. In addition a significant difference was found for the customer service index which suggests the customer service increases when adding game elements. Again as said these results should be interpreted carefully and are caused by previously described design choices. The gradation of significance that was found in the results were less strong when only showing the scores on the KPI’s compared with adding game elements. But however both seem to be an effective tool for management to continuously stimulate the right behavior in a positive way.

!

Beside the above mentioned design choice that can cause biased results, there are a few other components that should be given attention when further research is indicated. Firstly, the player goes trough a learning process during the completion of the rounds. As the player progresses trough the rounds he also gets more advanced in the game and the game gets more and more easy to play. With the result that the player does not have the same start-position at round two or three as at the beginning of round one when he was almost completely blank. You could also choose to use different respondents each round so they all start with the same foreknowledge at each round. The game in this study is set up wide-ranging where the player could even choose what he felt was important to get a good score on: the CSI or the OC. In order to get a more direct link between the addition of game elements and the change of behavior, in a following study there could be determined in advance on what KPI should be scored. Part of the game was to determine the player type of the respondents. This data was recorded but was not used in the results. Therefore there could still be investigated what effect de different game elements have on the different player types.

(44)

!

6. Conclusion

In this study the effects of implementing gamification on behavior was investigated by designing a gamification framework for a contact center game and was carried out in a lab research where the workplace of a contact center was simulated. The results of this research show that after addition of the game elements, a significant difference in players selecting more frequently difficult questions to respond to and more frequently answering questions themselves without using helplines as the knowledge base or forwarding a question.

!

In this experiment the sample size was sufficient for the determination of the significant differences. Future work in other organizations and settings is needed to better determine the generalizability of the findings by using a larger and more diverse sample size. When one chooses to carry out an investigation like this lab research one could put the respondents in a more controlled environment like a classroom, in this case the respondents were able to complete the game at any location. Also a real telephone channel can be added and the respondents that are included should have experience in working in a contact center. In this case, the respondents were drawn form the immediate circle of the researcher. It is also recommended to carry out the study in a real situation. Gamification is still a relatively new concept, but since companies and organizations are increasingly interested in implementing gamification it is certain this study can serve as a useful foundation for further research to increase the knowledge of the effectiveness of gamification. This study demonstrated that gamification has the potential to influence and control human behavior and could therefore also be used to aim for achieving certain business goals.

!

Gamify a contact center

!

!

!

!

!

Master Thesis

Gamify a Contact Center

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Table of Contents

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

well-!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!