Understanding key factors for successful
strategic enterprise gamification
Masters Thesis for the Executive Programme in Management Studies University of Amsterdam 30 September, 2016 Author: EP Wiering, 10730915 Supervisor: J Kraaijenbrink Word count: 15.8772 Statement of Originality This document is written by Student Erwin Wiering who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
3 Table of Contents Abstract ... 6 1 Introduction ... 7 1.1 What Holle Bolle Gijs and waste reductions programs have in common ... 7 1.2 Gamification as a technology hype ... 8 1.3 What is gamification? ... 9 1.4 Gamification in a business context ... 11 1.5 Gamification as a strategic business opportunity ... 12 1.6 Academic interest in gamification ... 14 1.6.1 Academic interest is very recent ... 14 1.6.2 Results on effectiveness are mixed ... 15 1.6.3 Problem statement: knowledge gap on gamification implementation ... 15 1.7 Research Objective and Research Question ... 16 1.7.1 Methodology and Research Setup ... 18 2 Literature Review ... 19 2.1 Overall scope of academic publications on gamification ... 19 2.2 Leading theories on human motivation ... 21 2.2.1 Self-determination theory ... 22 2.2.2 Intrinsic motivation RAMP-model as a variation ... 25 2.2.3 The concept of Flow ... 25 2.3 Frameworks for gamification implementation ... 26 2.3.1 GameLog Model ... 26 2.3.2 Gamification as a Software Development Process ... 29 2.3.3 User-Centered Design Approach ... 31
4 2.3.4 A Socio-Technical Theoretical Framework for Enterprise Gamification ... 32 2.3.5 Conclusion on gamification implementation models ... 34 3 Methodology ... 37 3.1 Research strategy ... 37 3.2 Case and sample selection ... 37 3.3 Case and sample description ... 38 3.4 Data collection and analysis ... 39 3.5 Interview protocol ... 40 4 Results ... 42 4.1 Gamification Expert Cases ... 42 4.1.1 Expert Company A: Ludo ... 42 4.1.2 Expert Company B: Freshly ... 43 4.1.3 Expert Company C: Trigger ... 43 4.2 Field experience cases ... 44 4.2.1 A Dutch telecommunications company: two cases ... 44 4.2.2 An insurance company: recruitment and traineeship manager ... 45 4.2.3 A national bank: enterprise gaming manager ... 45 4.3 Analysis and exploration phase ... 45 4.3.1 Reasons for applying gamification ... 46 4.3.2 Connection with organizational goals and KPIs ... 47 4.3.3 Researching the gamification audience: behavior and motivation ... 49 4.3.4 Co-creation with the audience ... 52 4.3.5 In summary ... 55 4.4 Design and realization ... 56 4.4.1 Existing design versus tailor made solutions ... 57 4.4.2 Connection to existing systems: technical considerations ... 59
5 4.4.3 Favorability of an iterative design process ... 60 4.4.4 In summary ... 61 4.5 Evaluation and reflection ... 62 5 Discussion and conclusion ... 64 5.1 Conclusions ... 64 5.2 Discussion ... 66 5.3 Reflection on validity ... 69 5.4 Further research on gamification implementation ... 70 6 Bibliography ... 72 7 Appendix I – Interview Protocol Companies ... 78 8 Appendix II – Interview Protocol Experts ... 80 9 Appendix III – Overview of Cases ... 83
6
Abstract
Enterprise gamification - the use of game elements in a non-game business context - has promising potential and offers a potential strategic advantage. Many businesses have used and plan to use gamification, even though common and robust understanding of how gamification actually works is lacking both in academic and popular sources. In contrast with the rising popularity, many gamification implementations fail to achieve success. In this exploratory research, practical experience from gamification experts and managers that have used gamification internally, is combined with the nascent and developing academic theories and models. The overall goal of the research is to further the knowledge on how to successfully implement gamification and to strengthen the theoretical model, highlighting the key factors in the implementation process. Here, seven key factors that play a role in this implementation have been identified from practical case experience, which are either novel or not yet elaborately discussed in existing work. Finally, three major avenues for continued research are presented.7
1 Introduction
1.1 What Holle Bolle Gijs and waste reductions programs have in common
Holle Bolle Gijs, ‘born’ in 1958, is a trademark figure in the Efteling, Netherland’s most famous theme park. Struggling to keep their park clean from waste, with visitors leaving trash throughout the park and regular waste bins not fulfilling the task, the creative designer came up with Holle Bolle Gijs, a talking and waste eating statue. This statue continuously invites passers-by with the simple phrase ‘waste here’ as an incentive, and when waste is deposited in its mouth, it says thank you as a direct feedback mechanism. Speaking to the imagination and adding an element of fun to a mundane task such as throwing out trash in the proper place, Holle Bolle Gijs is able to transform the park visitor’s behavior to the desired outcome. Long before the actual term was coined, Holle Bolle Gijs is a prime example of simple gamification. A modern translation of the same principles is seen in numerous examples of waste reduction programs. For example, the 100-100-100 challenge is a successful project to stimulate households to produce less to no waste (ROVA, 2016). In the project setup, a 100 households are challenged to produce 100% less waste in a 100 days. The goal is not only to reduce the waste for that period of time, but actually to create an engaged audience that learns and adapts their behavior in the long run, achieving sustained results. This is achieved by providing the participants with a start package with a waste measuring scale, and connecting these households through an online platform, with weekly challenges, a notification board for sharing waste reduction tips, and the most visual element; a waste8 reduction tracker. This allows household to compare their reduction score to the project and to their local community (ROVA, 2016). Similar to Holle Bolle Gijs, the mundane or even unpopular act of optimizing one’s behavior to limit waste production is re-incentivized and coupled to a different type of personal motivation for exhibiting that behavior. This is done by purposefully adding a set of mechanics around the process of waste disposal and recycling. Specifically, these mechanics are elements that people regularly enjoy in gameplay behavior, where there are no higher level motives for engaging in that behavior other than joy. Examples include trying to score high on a leaderboard (waste tracker), engaging in social interaction with others (through challenges), and knowledge sharing behavior (tips platform).
1.2 Gamification as a technology hype
In recent years, gamification has become a bit of a buzz word and was predicted to become a ‘big’ thing in business. Gamification is commonly described as a hype that started somewhere between around 2004 and became more popular as of 2010. Game-like practices have been used for much longer, but reason for its recent rise is probably related to technological developments and increased social linkage through such technology (Arnab, Nalla, Harteveld, & Lameras, 2015). Gartner estimated that spending on gamification would add up to 5.5 billion USD in 2018 (Gartner, 2013). Many popular articles emphasize the promising potential of using gamification in business. Yet on the other hand, Gartner predicted that many gamification projects are likely to fail (Gartner, 2012) and in its technology hype cycle of 2014, it placed gamification in the downward slope op ‘through with disillusionment’ (Gartner, 2014). This suggests the technology is past its peak of high9 expectations on the one hand, yet still has to prove itself for serious productivity in the long term. In fact, Gartner has removed gamification from the 2015 and 2016 hype cycles. Yet, many organizations have used and continue to use gamification applications for various purposes. In line with its hype status in recent years, the term gamification has widespread use, yet a common definition and robust understanding of what is exactly entails is lacking. Both in popular as well as academic sources, authors are struggling to reach consensus, although progress is being made in the most recent sources. The remainder of this chapter will focus on defining gamification for the purposes of this research, place it in a strategic business context, and outline the research questions that will be investigated.
1.3 What is gamification?
Gamification applications are found throughout the fields of marketing, health, the workspace, education and public services. However, many authors and organizations use the term gamification as an umbrella term for projects or solutions that include some form of game or play element. It is useful to short consider the diversity of applications and forms that exist, and to define how gamification is understood here, offsetting it from other types of gameplay.10 A first attempt to understand the arena of gameful applications is by mapping various forms on the axes of gaming-playing and whole-parts, as seen in figure 1. The first axis distinguishes on the basis of a generally accepted concept in classical game studies, which states that “gaming and games – in contrast to playing and toys – are characterized by explicit rule systems and the competition or strife of actors in those systems towards discrete goals or outcomes” (Deterding S. , 2011, p. 11). In other words, on the gaming-end of the axis there is goal and intent, whereas play is a free open form type of behavior without a higher purpose. The second axis, simply put, distinguishes between full-fledged games and using parts of games, elements or characteristics, in a design purpose. Although defining what a game is is a study in itself, it suffices here to add that from a user perspective whole games create primary a continuous game experience, whereas applying game elements in design creates “experiential ‘flicker’ between gameful, playful, and other modes of experience and engagement” (Deterding S. , 2011, p. 13). For a more detailed discussion, Deterding (2011) discussed the broader connection between classic game studies and alternate forms. A third relevant dimension is the context of application in which the game (elements) are placed. Placed in non-game contexts, the purpose of the application changes from Figure 1 Overview of mapping gameful experiences on the axes of game vs play and whole games vs partial games (Deterding S. , 2011).
11 entertainment to a context dependent goal. A non-exhaustive set of examples of such goals include education, HR and recruitment, process efficiency, community building, sales, and customer loyalty (Raftopoulos, Walz, & Greuter, 2015). The difference in context application is denoted in figure 1 by placing the subset of serious games and gamification in brackets. Deterding’s work has led to the popular and commonly accepted definition of gamification as applying game-like elements to non-game processes (Deterding S. , 2011). Others add to this the purpose and intention of influencing human behavior in that process, to further signify the non-game context and the ulterior goals other than pure entertainment (Dale, 2014; Jacobs, 2013). This definition, including the purpose to influence human behavior was used in this research. However, Raftopoulos et al. (2015) offer an alternative definition that is discussed in section 1.5. It is discussed there separately, in light of the potential strategic value of gamification in a business context.
1.4 Gamification in a business context
Although gamification has found applications in many different fields, such as health care, education and public services, this research focuses on gamification in a business context. From a business perspective, the audience of gamification can either be the workforce (internal) or a company’s customers (external), yet in both cases with goal of creating a more engaged or more motivated target group (Dale, 2014). In particular, this research considers gamification with an internal focus. The term adopted for this research, in line with most of the literature, is enterprise gamification.12 Early gamification applications in a businesses are traditionally more focused on customer engagement. Examples include the the Nike Plus ecosystem. However, in the recent applications, the focus has shifted towards internal business goals, in the form of employee engagement and change management. According to a report from M2 Research, this shift is clearly seen in the year-by-year market share of Consumer vs Enterprise oriented solutions (figure 2), with up to two thirds of gamification solutions begin Enterprise focused in 2016 (Harbert, 2013). Figure 2 Gamification Market Share: Enterprise vs customer (Harbert, 2013).
1.5 Gamification as a strategic business opportunity
Organizations continuously strive to maintain a competitive advantage over others in reaching their business goals. In doing so, they have a subset of organizational goals that may include elements like customer engagement, customer retention, employee collaboration, employee performance and motivation, stimulation of innovation, optimizing work processes and so on. In the past decade, gamification applications have been developed to improve on such organizational goals.13 Ample indirect evidence for the strategic value of gamification exists in the field. Many companies have incorporated gamification in their business, and some have made the gamifying business their business in particular. There are several major gamification platform vendors such as Bunchball, Badgeville and Gameffective available. Founded in 2005, 2010 and 2012 respectively, these all are tech companies that effectively sell software platforms for variety of business applications, with gamification techniques built-in. Not only tech companies, but also management consulting companies such as CapGemini present gamification as a viable management solution and offer this as a specific strategic consultancy service. CapGemini’s Digital Customer Experience section focuses on enterprise gamification, to create long term business value by changing employee behavior and mindset, and to create a digitally mature organization (CapGemini, n.d.). All of these organizations regularly publish whitepapers, touting the benefits of their solutions, often promising double-digit figures of improvement in terms of engagement, efficiency or other business goals. There is however, also evidence that gamification solutions are not always effective. According to research by Gartner, 80% of all gamification projects are expected to fail, because of a lack of knowledge and poor design (2012). Equally, many authors on popular business outlets have suggested that gamification may not live up to its promises at all, despite the expected trend (Hollander, 2014; Lindahl, 2015). Thus, the promises and expectations about enterprise gamification are two-fold and warrant further investigation. Shortly returning to a definition of gamification, one paper considers an alternative approach, for enterprise gamification in particular, including a strategic perspective. It is
14 discussed here separately in light of that nuance, even though the definition was not used in this research. Raftopoulos et al. (2015) note that Deterding’s definition provides a limited perspective on how gamification can be used from a strategic perspective, and that this does not fit well with diverse business application areas. Instead they opt for the more holistic business-oriented definition by Huotari & Hamari (2012) that combines human factors and design. They define gamification as “a process of enhancing a service with affordances for gameful experiences in order to support user’s overall value creation” (Huotari & Hamari, 2012, p. 17) Noting that this definition is less precise, it does align more with strategic perspectives of value creation though stakeholder engagement, as discussed in literature on modern strategic goals (Raftopoulos, Walz, & Greuter, 2015; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo, 2008). In this research, Deterding’s definition was used to formalize the discussion with interviewees, and provided a clearer frame of references for most interviews. However, as will be discussed in the results and discussion sections of this report, interviewees in several cases have expressed a similar more holistic approach that is expressed in the alternative definition above.
1.6 Academic interest in gamification
1.6.1 Academic interest is very recent In line with the relatively nascent nature of the subject, a moderate level of academic interest in the subject is only as recent as 2011 (Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014). There is15 relatively little academic literature available and that the field is still developing. As Hamari et al. note, there is a lack of coherence in the type of studies that been conducted focusing on gamification (2014). Some authors have attempted to define what gamification exactly entails (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011), others have tried to create gamification frameworks for applications (DiTomasso, 2011; Fogg, 2009; Jacobs, 2013; Rojas, Kapralos, & Dubrowski, 2013), and there is a body of empirical case studies that investigate the effectives of gamification in greatly varied contexts and using a variety of methods (Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014). 1.6.2 Results on effectiveness are mixed As in popular publications, there is also a moderate level of academic criticism on the effects and benefits of gamification. Two review articles that try to answer the question ‘Does gamification work?’ come up with mixed results. Hamari et al. conclude that the positive effects of gamification are both context-dependent and rely on the qualities of the users (2014) and Dale concludes that achieving the touted benefits is really dependent on a successful design and implementation strategy, something which often fails (Dale, 2014). Like Gartner (2013) in their market analysis, Harbert suggests that the large majority of gamification projects in business are likely to fail, mostly due to wrong choices in design and implementation and possible a lack of appropriate advice for manager level staff in such businesses (Harbert, 2014). 1.6.3 Problem statement: knowledge gap on gamification implementation Whereas the body of research on the gamification mechanics and the overall effectiveness in a broadening range of applications is steadily growing, there has been little interest in the
16 the process of implementing gamification. Even though the authors mentioned earlier (Harbert, 2014; Dale, 2014; Gartner, 2013) suggest that a lack of success in using gamification is due to mistakes in implementation, there has been very little research into this process. Only four primary academic sources have been identified that focus specifically on the implementation process of gamification, beyond the design of specific game mechanics. Two of those works are theory-driven (Marache-Francisco & Brangier, 2013; Herzig, Ameling, Wolf, & Schill, 2015) and the third is both theory driven and empirically tested only in a single case study (Klevers, Sailer, & Günther, 2015) and the fourth is an empirically driven best-practice analysis of implementation methodology (Arnab, Nalla, Harteveld, & Lameras, 2015). Combined with the signals from popular sources, this clearly indicates there is a knowledge gap on how to properly and successfully implement a gamification solution in businesses.
1.7 Research Objective and Research Question
This research aims to explore the gamification implementation process in businesses that have adopted an internal gamification solution (whether successful or not), in order to identify key issues and variables that make enterprise gamification a success or failure. Similarly, the process for delivering successful gamification applications is analyzed from the perspective of several companies that consult and develop such solutions. The main goal is to match the practical field experience of companies that work with gamification with the early theoretical work on how to successfully implement such solutions. Ultimately, the research goal is to further the knowledge available on how to17 create successful gamification solutions and in particular to identify the key factors and variables that are important to creating a successful gamification solution. In this research, implementation is considered the process from the very first step of idea to use gamification, to the point were a solution is effectuated in practice. For this purpose, the gamification implementation process is considered as a three-phase process (figure 3), in line with the work of Klevers, Sailder and Günther (2015). In their work, discussed more extensively in the literature review, they distinguish between the phases Analysis and exploration, Design and Realization and Evaluation and Reflection (Klevers, Sailer, & Günther, 2015, p. 2). The main exploratory research question is: What are the key factors for successfully implementing an enterprise gamification solution? Answering this question based on practical experience has both theoretical value by creating additional insight to further develop the currently proposed implementation models (discussed further below), as well as practical value for direct translation into managerial advice for approaching the subject.
Evaluation and reflection
reflection on goals redesign methods of evaluationDesign and realization
game mechanics selections game elements selecions technical realizationAnalysis and exploration
problem description goal definition context and conditions behavioral description Figure 3. Simplified three phase gamification implementation model (Klevers, Sailer, & Günther, 2015).18 1.7.1 Methodology and Research Setup To answer this question, first the relevant academic literature on this subject is analyzed and discussed. The available models, information, and theories are summarized and together form the basis for a structured interview protocol. Using a case study design, interviews are held with business managers that have practical experience with gamification. Both the perspectives from companies that consult on and deliver gamification applications as well as companies that have internally used gamification solutions, will be combined. The next chapter consists of an extensive literature review, followed by a methodology section. In chapter 4 the results from the interviews are examined in light of the research question, followed by a discussion and conclusion.
19
2 Literature Review
This literature review on the implementation of gamification consists of three sections. First, it discusses the overall field of gamification in the academic literature. Considering the nascent nature of this field in academic literature, it is useful to consider to get an understanding of how the field is developing. Second, it considers the behavioral theories that have been linked to gamification applications, mostly focusing on human behavior. Understanding the more fundamental theories about human behavior helps understanding the overall goal and idea of gamification, beyond the explanation and definitions discussed earlier. Third, it discusses the frameworks for gamification implementation that have been proposed in academic sources. This existing work forms the starting point for the current research.2.1 Overall scope of academic publications on gamification
As discussed earlier, the academic interest in gamification is relatively new. In their review of empirical studies on gamification, Hamari at al. (2014) conclude that there is a clear increase in the number of academic publications, and the the same time they conclude that ‘there is a dearth of coherent understanding on what kind of studies have been conducted under the term gamification, with which methods, what kind of results they yield, and under which circumstances’ (Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014, p. 3025). One of the few things most publications agree on is the definition of gamification as given by Detering, which is that gamification entails applying enjoyable game-like elements to non-game processes with the intention of influencing human behavior in that process (Deterding S. , 2011; Dale, 2014; Jacobs, 2013; Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014).20 Subsequently, the majority of academic literature on gamification can be categorized into one of three categories. First, there are publications that focus on single cases, studying the effects of gamification in a variety of contexts and using a variety of methods. A large selection of these are reviewed by Hamari (2014). Second, there are publications that are focused on (and limited to) the discussion of game-mechanics and their application in a gamification solution. In practice, this means the evaluation of game components such as badges, leaderboards and challenges in relation to human motivation and behavior. While this is very relevant to understand for an optimal design, these sources are generally limited to a generic discussion of techniques or strongly focused on (technical) system design. Examples of most cited publications include the work Deterding in several publications and the work by Zicherman and Cunningham (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011; Deterding S. , 2011; Zicherman & Cunningham, 2011). The background for such publications is usually related to computer science or software development. The nature of precise game mechanics is not further discussed in detail here. Third, there is a number of works that originate from a psychology and human behavior perspective, which couple broader theories of human motivation to the goals and outcomes of gamification solutions. In the next section, these are discussed in more detail first, both to acquire a further understanding of what gamification actually does, and in light of their relevance for proper implementation. In summary, the majority of literature is rather technical and design centric, focused on how it works, and much less on when and why it works. From the perspective of the
21 implementation process as presented earlier, there is a strong focus in the academic literature on the Design and Realization step.
2.2 Leading theories on human motivation
As included in the definition of gamification, the ultimate goal is to influence human behavior. Influencing this behavior requires understanding it first. Most frameworks for implementation discussed further in this chapter explicitly mention understanding end user motivation and behavior as an element in the Analysis and Exploration phase, although there are no concrete guidelines in how to do so. For Ruhi’s model (2.3.4), the main focus is explicitly placed on influencing the human behavior through a technological solution, instead of placing the solution central in the model as the other frameworks do (Ruhi, 2015). Considering the overall objective of motivating and engaging people through gamified designs, it is important to understand the process of human motivation and behavior in great detail. In this section, two main theories on human motivation are discussed. First, Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is discussed (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000), and a variation on that theory in the form for the RAMP model is shortly discusses and finally Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of Flow is presented (Csikszentmihalyi M. , 1975), each with a short practical link to their relevance for gamification through behavioral motivation. Several more commonly accepted theories on human and employee motivation exist. However, in gamification literature, this connection is hardly made. Therefore only, the theories that have previously been brought in connection with gamification are22 presented here. Approaching gamification from alternative theories however, presents an interesting avenue for further research. 2.2.1 Self-determination theory Self-determination theory is a theory on human motivation that considers human innate psychological needs as a driver for self-motivation, and consider how motivation diminishes when those needs are not met (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 1985). In development since the 1970s, it studies to what degree humans act based on their self-motivation, their intrinsic motivation, and how this is influenced by extrinsic motivators. “The construct of intrinsic motivation describes [the] natural inclination toward assimilation, mastery, spontaneous interest, and exploration that is so essential to cognitive and social development and that represents a principal source of enjoyment and vitality throughout life ” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70). It reflects a natural state of behavior that humans exhibited, even in the absence of rewards (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Deci and Ryan’s research has led them to find that such intrinsically motivated behavior is dependent on supportive conditions, and three psychological are the basis. These three needs are autonomy, competence and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Autonomy reflects the needs to be the principal agent for decisions as a human being, or in other words a degree of freedom to determine one’s own actions. External situations of factors may limit autonomy, such as having a deadline for work. This can undermine self- motivation. Reversely, situations that give more autonomy have shown to increase self-motivated behavior (Zuckerman, Porac, Lathin, Smith, & Deci, 1978). A business example of this is the amount of free time Google gives its employees to spend on personal projects.
23 Competence is the need to control the outcome of a situation and to experience mastery in one’s actions (White, 1959). Effectively this means being able to do something well, and to experience becoming good at it. Feedback plays an important role in experiencing this mastery. Relatedness describes the need to feel belongingness and connectedness with others, a social attachment component (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Many of these elements have a direct connection to the issue of enterprise gamification, and the relevance here is two-fold: employees in a work setting exhibit certain behavior, which is driven by a mixture of intrinsic motivation (reaching a goals) and extrinsic motivation (getting paid). To influence employees towards a more preferred set of behavioral actions, the SDT-model can be used to understand the empirical case at hand. Secondly, the SDT theory provided many insights for understanding behavior in game type situations and provides for clues on how to properly gamify a situation. Deci and Ryan have presented a self-determination continuum, showing behavior on a scale from nonself-determined to self-determined, corresponding with a type of motivation and regulatory styles (not discussed here.) This can be seen in figure 4.
24 Figure 3 The Self-Determination Continuum Showing Types of Motivation With Their Regulatory Styles, Loci of Causality, and Corresponding Processes (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 72). Coupling the intention of gamification to this theory, it is important to note two things. Reconsidering the classic game, as discussed in chapter 1, the type of behaviors exhibited there are close to the fully self-determined type of behavior in the spectrum. Traditional game play has many linkages with the psychological needs discussed above, such as the creation and strengthening of social connections, mastery of skills, and people take part for no other reasons than enjoyment and satisfaction. This holds true for both classic offline game play such outside play and board games, as well as the modern variation of (online) video games. The second note, turning to the business angle, is that employee’s behavior is usually a mixture of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators and that the degree of self-motivation various on the context and situation. The implied goal of enterprise gamification is to move employees towards the more self-determined end of the spectrum, by subtly changing the context and experience to change type of motivation that is triggered.
25 2.2.2 Intrinsic motivation RAMP-model as a variation A non-peer reviewed adaptation of the SDT theory that has gained some traction in popular analysis of gamification is the Intrinsic Motivation RAMP model by (Marczweski, 2016). Here, the four motivational drivers are relatedness, autonomy, mastery and purpose (RAMP). With relatedness and autonomy similar to the SDT-model, mastery is closely related to competence and purpose is added as a fourth driver. Mastery here is described as the process of becoming skilled at something, and that it is important that increase is skill is proportional to level of challenge that one experiences (Marczweski, 2016). Purpose is described as the need for meaning to one’s actions. For it’s lack of peer review and serious theoretical foundation, it is considered a less qualified approach compared to the SDT-theory. However, as some of the interviewees in this report refer to it, it is mentioned here. 2.2.3 The concept of Flow The concept of mastery as discussed in the theories above is closely related to Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow, which is a motivational state where a person is fully emerged in the task, full of focus, and experiencing feelings of joy and a high level of gratification (Csikszentmihalyi M. , 1975). This is a mental state recognizeded often in video game play literature and is brought into connection with gamification as such, but has equal value for many other activities such as sports and craftmanship. The key concept of flow (and other mental states) is a representation of experiences that one can have during the perfomance of activities, and is based on the dimensions of ability and challenge. Flow requires a person to be engaged at the edge of their competency, which means that the
26 task presents a high challenge, and that it requires high level skills to perform that task. This creates a state of engagement that is perceived as a pleasant (Csikszentmihalyi M. , 1975). Csikszentmihalyi, in later work, discusses the applicability to the workspace (Csikszentmihalyi M. , 2003). In his book he discussed the preconditions for flow in the worksplace, which are (1) clear goals, (2) immediate feedback and (3) a balance between opportunity and capacity (Csikszentmihalyi M. , 2003). Furthermore he argues that workplace environments can be engineerd to increase the experiences of flow, which in turn strengthen intrinsic rewards and experience of joy in employees, ultimately leading to higher achieving organizations (Csikszentmihalyi M. , 2003). Again, the idea here is that gamification can be a means to that end.
2.3 Frameworks for gamification implementation
As mentioned, academic sources that focus specifically on the entire implementation process of gamification are sparse. Only few authors have suggested serious frameworks as a tool for creating successful gamification projects. The most encompassing model is presented by Klevers et al. (2015) which is used as a blueprint model for this research. Their work is discussed first, after which other frameworks are considered and placed in the light of Klevers’ model. 2.3.1 GameLog Model The GameLog model is an implementation model that explicitly incorporates the business context of a gamification application. Specifically, it focuses on enterprise oriented gamification. It originates from an effort to improve the logistical process of order picking in a supply chain process. As Klevers et al. (2015) note, gamification development is not a27 holistic game development in the traditional sense, but something that should focus on the integration of game elements and mechanics in business processes and a work context. Subsequently, “an implementation model is needed that on the one hand helps do develop game mechanics and game dynamics, but on the other hand focusses on the analysis of the possibilities to include the specific game elements into existing business processes and environments” (Klevers, Sailer, & Günther, 2015, p. 2) . In doing so, it is only one of two frameworks that explicitly incorporates the business context into gamification development. The model comprises of three phases, which are Analysis and Exploration, Design and Realization, and Evaluation and Reflection and is depicted in figure 6. Figure 4 GameLog model for gamification implementation (Klevers, Sailer, & Günther, 2015). In the Analysis and Exploration phase, Klevers et al . focus on a problem description, goal definition of the project and an analysis of the basic conditions. The first two focus on defining the context, business goals, both employers and employee behavior and goals. It is
28 suggested to connect this to existing key performance indicators (KPIs). The analysis of basic conditions refers to exactly documenting the work process and employee behavior. The goal for this step is to identify how gamification can be integrated without changing the work procedure, as the goal is only improve the existing process. Furthermore, this ultimately allows for employees to choose to participate in the gamified context or not. The Design and Realization phase, consists of two main steps. The first is the selection of game mechanics and game elements, based on the goals and wanted behavioral outcomes as defined in the first stage. The second step is the technical realization of the gamification application, which consists of determining the rules and concept of the game, building the technical system architecture and creating the software. As noted earlier in this research, the literature on game mechanics and elements is in more abundance, and an exhaustive list of options to consider is not an explicit part of the model. Klevers et al do note that the selection of gamification mechanics and elements should be tightly coupled to employee motivation. In their own application of the model, they do so through the Self-Determination theory from Deci and Ryan (Klevers, Sailer, & Günther, 2015), as discussed in section 2.2.1. The final phase is Evaluation and Reflection. As Klevers et al. note, “most development projects in the field of gamification conclude with the delivering of a functioning application” (2015, p. 5). As suggested, this is possible one of the reasons why gamification fails. Instead, in this model a redesign and feedback loop is included in the model to evaluate the results and improve the application towards desired results. This is done through the KPI’s defined earlier in the process based on the goal definition, as well as
29 other indicators such as drop-out rates or structured questionnaires (Klevers, Sailer, & Günther, 2015). 2.3.2 Gamification as a Software Development Process Herzig et al. describe gamification as a software development process. Much like Klevers et al, they define several process steps that have similarity, but in addition they identify various roles and stakeholders in the execution. The process model itself is more complex and more formal as a large business project, but this addition provides for additional insight into understanding the context of gamification applications. The model is depicted in figure 7 and is discussed below. Figure 5 Gamification as a software development process (Herzig, Ameling, Wolf, & Schill, 2015, p. 433)
30 The five roles identified in this model are the end-user (customers or employees), gamification experts, domain experts (profound knowledge of the relevant business processes and the end-user), business experts, and IT experts (Herzig, Ameling, Wolf, & Schill, 2015). The explicit role for gamification experts hint towards to complexity of getting gamification right, and that it is not an out-of-the-box solution. Aside from knowledge on design methodologies and tools, this expertise also includes a high level knowledge of relevant psychological models relating to behavior. In the gamification process, Herzig et al distinguish between several workflows. The two primary process elements are business modeling and requirements. These elements consist of determining the overall project goals with all stakeholders, and to specifically analyze the case in regards to motivation and engagement of the end users and to determine the metrics that define the project’s success (Herzig, Ameling, Wolf, & Schill, 2015). These steps are similar to Klever’s Analysis and Exploration phase. In line with Design and Realization phase, Herzig defines four process elements, which are Design, Provisioning, Implementation and Testing. Here, they explicitly relate the various business roles to the different phases, as different types of expertise are relevant in each step. First, gamification experts primarily define the game design together stakeholders. Subsequently, IT experts take over the defined concept to transform this into a materialized solution through provisioning (selecting resources and technical infrastructure) and actually building the software in the implementation phase. Finally, the solution is tested and refined, again with all user groups (Herzig, Ameling, Wolf, & Schill, 2015).
31 More explicitly then Klevers, Herzig defines a continuous phase of Deployment and Monitoring, when the development stage has been completed. From the operational software, user data is collected according the metrics in the requirements phase. This data subsequently allows for analysis with the engagement criteria and define process models, after which adjustments or further development of the gamification solution may take place (Herzig, Ameling, Wolf, & Schill, 2015). 2.3.3 User-Centered Design Approach Marache-Francisco and Brangier present a user-centered design approach to gamification, with a guide consisting of a process and a toolbox (2013). Their goal is to define a general process for gamification design, noting that the the earlier instances of gamification projects, the concepts used are still vague and organized and that ‘gamification is often downgraded to interface look and feel and point systems without questioning design practices’ (Marache-Francisco & Brangier, 2013, p. 126). Instead, their proposal considers the design factors intention, situation, task and users in an overall context analysis, prior to creating a gamification experience (figure 8). They consider a context analysis a prerequisite and the first of two phases for creating a gamification experience, with a focus of understanding the circumstances, intention and users of the project. For a full understanding of these contextual factors, they propose investigating intention, situation, task and users using ISO standards for User Centered Design (UCD) approaches, ensuring that gamification projects are based upon real data. Without adding further detail, they note several elements for each of these four context factors to investigate, such as type of goals and tasks for intent, social environment and motivators and pain points for situation,
32 and demographics, personality and cultural differences for users (Marache-Francisco & Brangier, 2013). Figure 6 The Gamification Process principles, according to Marache-Francisco and Brangier (2013, p. 127). For the second phase, the iterative conception phase, there are two main design steps. For the actual gamification design, a list of gamification elements (a game mechanism or a type of interaction) are displayed divided into three categories: task support, motivation and attractiveness. A decision tree model is presented to select the appropriate gamification elements, based on the goals and the contextual information. The second step consists of building and testing the gamification application in an iterative process (Marache-Francisco & Brangier, 2013). 2.3.4 A Socio-Technical Theoretical Framework for Enterprise Gamification Finally, a more theoretical framework is discussed that focusses on Enterprise Gamification in particular. Ruhi consider gamification as a technological intervention for influencing human behavior in the workplace, in an effort to reach organizational goals (Ruhi, 2015).
33 Although the first empirical research on this work is still ongoing, it provides a first serious theoretical model on explaining when gamification works. The research has a focus on the human psychology behind gamification techniques. Although it is not an implementation process framework as the three discussed earlier, the research does originate from the same knowledge gap identified in this research. As Ruhi notes in earlier work, there are many corporate scenarios known where gamification tools are being integrated with business processes of information systems to drive employee engagement and organizational outcomes in a strategic manner, yet little is known about “key success factors and best practices for gamification based interventions in the workspace” (Ruhi, 2015, p. 19). From this perspective, Ruhi proposes a theoretical framework for empirical testing, in which the focus is on how gamification can drive organizational outcomes, by motivating individual behavior through human psychology and technology platforms. Figure 7 Theoretical framework explaining how gamification drives individual human behavior (Ruhi, 2015, p. 20) In the model, presented in figure 9, Employee Engagement had a central role as the driving factor of intended behavioral outcomes (Gamification Use Intention) and a mediating role
34 between gamification solutions and it’s goals. Both the Game Mechanics and User Experience constructs are the technological elements of gamification in the model, which are the influencing elements for employee engagement. The Psychological Climate of the organization as an environmental construct; a contextual factor that shapes employee perceptions of the workplace. Lastly, Ruhi proposes the construct of Organizational Commitment as a result of both Employee Engagement and the User Experience, and as a mediator for employee’s intentions to keep using the gamified solution (Ruhi, 2015). Although not directly discussing gamification implementation, Ruhi’s model is the only framework that places a direct emphasis on the human behavior aspect and several psychological constructs that play a role in making gamification work. The overall suggestion of the framework is that understanding the human behavior and how this can be influenced is the key to making gamification a success. 2.3.5 Conclusion on gamification implementation models The frameworks in this chapter have little (Klevers, 2015) or no practical verification yet. Each of the frameworks originates from a different perspective (supply chain management, software development as an IT project, a user centered design approach and a gamification as a pure technological intervention for driving behavior) and place a different emphasis on how to successfully implement a gamification solution. The elements of these frameworks are summarized in table 1 below, following the three phase implementation approach of Klevers et al. (2015) This model is chosen because content-wise it most elaborately defines the contextual environment, and in terms of the implementation process steps, it presents
35
the most linear format, which will help in structuring and matching field experience later in this research.
36
Analysis and Exploration Design and Realization Evaluation and Reflection
GameLog Model
(Klevers, Sailer, & Günther, 2015) • Problem Definition • Organization goals • Employee Behavior • Work process analysis • Determining KPIs • Game mechanics selection • Game elements selection • Technical realization, (system architecture and software) • KPI feedback loop • Additional system metrics Gamification as a software development process (Herzig, Ameling, Wolf, & Schill, 2015) • Project Goals • Stakeholder Alignment • End user motivation and engagement • Determining metrics • Game design by experts • Resource selection and development by IT experts • Testing with end users • Continuous monitoring through user data • Evaluation against engagement criteria User centered Design (Marache-Francisco & Brangier, 2013) • Contextual analysis on intent,
goals, tasks and users • Game elements selection • Iterative design process A Socio-Technical Theoretical Framework (Ruhi, 2015) • Gamification Use Intentions (Goals) • Employee engagement • Psychological climate • Organizational commitment • Game Mechanics • User Experience Table 1 Identified factors in gamification implementation processes, in light of a three phase implementation model as discussed by Klevers et al (2015).
37
3 Methodology
This research is a practice-oriented explorative case study (Saunders & Lewis, 2014). Considering the nascent nature of the subject and the lack of verifiable theoretical models and hypotheses, the exploratory focus here is on extracting real world experience in gamification projects and to contribute to formulating a more precise theoretical framework for further investigation. As discussed by Yin (2013), this is a case study design that focuses on a contemporary phenomenon, which is investigated in it’s real world application. Multiple cases are used in an effort the find replicable and generalizable results (Yin, 2013).3.1 Research strategy
In this qualitative research, interviews will be conducted to find answers to the research questions. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with the management staff or managers responsible for gamification projects within their business. Additionally, experts working in gamification companies will be interviewed on their relevant views and experience. The interview protocol is based on early theoretical and limited practical work. Additionally, a grounded theory approach is applied here to analyze the data collected through these interviews (Glaser & Strauss, 2009). This means that the data collection and data analyses is the driver for new or additional theory formulation.3.2 Case and sample selection
Eligible professionals are selected using three methods: first, the author’s personal network is used, second online gamification business networks are used as a source, and thirdly the snowball method is applied by using referrals from earlier samples. Professionals are38 eligible when they have worked on a gamification project within their company and had a professional role that has insight into the entire project. In practice, it is expected that only management level staff will be eligible. Furthermore, professionals working as gamification experts will be interviewed. Similarly, it is required that these experts are responsible for an entire project and have insights on the relevant process steps as defined in the research questions.
3.3 Case and sample description
Using the methods above, eight professionals were selected for interviews, over the course of several weeks. Four of these professionals are categorized as Gamification Experts, and are working in companies that deliver gamification solutions as a B2B-service. These Gamification Experts work in three different companies. These companies each have their own approach and proposition, yet all ultimately deliver solutions that include gamification techniques and self-report as such. Four others are categorized as Professionals with field experience. In addition, one of the Gamification Experts has experience as an internal manager of projects in this previous function, and is therefore labeled in both categories. These professionals all worked on gamification projects within their company as a manager or executive level staff and had a high level of responsibility and a complete overview of the project. This category includes professionals from a large Dutch telecommunications operator, a large national bank and an insurance company. An overview is provided below and more detailed overview of the cases and interviewees is found in Appendix III.39
Category Name Company Description
G am ifi cati on e xp er ts Mr. Anderson
Ludo Founder and director of company focused on gamification in contact centers Mr. Brown Ludo Lead game architect in a company focused on
gamification in contact centers
Mr. Chris Freshly Co-owner and gamification specialist in a management consultancy company
Mr. Eaton Trigger Founder of a company focused on (employee) engagement through consultancy, design and technology
Both Mr. Drexler Freshly / National bank Gamification designer at Freshly and previously internal engagement manager at a large Dutch national bank Pr of es si on al w ith fi el d ex peri en ce Ms. Frederick Telecoms operator Project manager in a large Dutch telecoms operator, responsible for a large gamification project that did not succeed Ms. Gerald Telecoms
operator Project manager in a large Dutch telecoms operator, responsible for a gamification project with limited results
Mr. Hyde Insurance
company Project manager responsible for recruitment and traineeship management.
3.4 Data collection and analysis
For data collection, semi-structured interviews are used. Semi-structured interviews are specifically chosen, considering the explorative nature of the research. This type of interviews allows for covering all the relevant subjects as defined based on literature and expectations, yet on the other hand maintains the opportunity for identifying and discussing new issues (Flick, 2006; Mortelmans, 2013). The order of questions and discussion with the40 interviewee may vary, depending on the conversational structure and possible focus of the particular case at hand (Saunders & Lewis, 2014). How the final interview protocol is determined is discussed further below. The interviews are audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed. This is the first step in the four-stap data analysis based on a grounded theory approach as discussed by Mortelmans (2013). The second step is open coding (Mortelmans, 2013). This step is deductive analysis coding the textual elements in the data in relation to the concept that is researched, to create a first categorization of the data. Step three is axial coding. In this step, the coded elements from the previous step are reorganized into a higher level structure and where necessary, connections between different codes are made into larger categories information (Mortelmans, 2013). The main goal is to identify relationships between single elements of data. This creates a logical structure for data display, retrieval and analysis, in relation to the researched phenomenon. The fourth and final step is selective coding. The goal here is to highlight the overall relevant constructs in the data, to identify the key elements (Mortelmans, 2013). In data analysis, this is the final step before interpreting the data and formulating conclusions.
3.5 Interview protocol
The interview protocol for this research is found in Appendix I. The semi-structured interview is based on Klever’s three-phase model for gamification implementation and is structured as such (2015). The topics are determined based on the findings in the literature review and questions are in part be adapted from prior research (Arnab, Nalla, Harteveld, & Lameras, 2015) where applicable. The final interview protocol consists of seven sections:41 1. Introduction of the interviewer, this research and formalities regarding the interview 2. Introduction of the interviewee 3. Introduction of the company (for Gamification Experts) or a general introduction about the gamification projects within the interviewee’s company. 4. Detailed questions relating to the Analysis and Exploration phase. 5. Detailed questions relating to the Design and Realization phase. 6. Detailed questions relating to the Evaluation and reflection phase. 7. Reflective questions about gamification, outside of the project context.
42
4 Results
The results section of this research will generally be divided in the same sections as outlined in the literature summary, the model that was used to generate the structured interview in an effort to present an answer to the research question. Broadly, it will follow the basic logical time-pattern of running a gamification development project. During the analysis of the interviews, additional topics have been identified that are relevant to discuss. These will be placed in the relevant context of that defined structure. To create a basic context of the findings, first a broad sketch of the cases and interviewees is given in the section below.4.1 Gamification Expert Cases
Five of the interviewed professionals are qualified as Gamification Experts. They all work in companies that deliver gamification solutions as a business-to-business service. These five professionals work in three different companies, which shortly characterized below for context. 4.1.1 Expert Company A: Ludo This company is a small Netherlands based company with a primary focus on bringing gamification to the contact and call centers of other businesses. The interviewees for this company are both the founder and the main game architect. Coming from a background in IT and consultancy in contact centers, the founder realized that both many of the problems organizations struggle with and the conditions in which they take place are very similar and very suitable to be gamified. Together with partner from his business studies, he created the company Ludo, and created a technical gamification platform that can be adapted and repurposed for many solutions. Together with the technical platform, they created a 7-step43 model for the implementation of gamification in those contact centers. Their goal is to apply gamification for organizations to reach their business goals and the needs of their employees. 4.1.2 Expert Company B: Freshly Freshly is a management consultancy company that helps organizations with modern challenges related to renewal, change and rejuvenation, by deploying young entrepreneurial professionals instead of traditional senior consultants (Chris). One of their six core value propositions towards clients is the domain of serious gaming and gamification. Freshly expresses that gamification is a means, even a thinking philosophy, to find solutions to strategic business issues, and not and end in itself. Two separate interviews were held with experts from this company, one of which is a co-owner of the gamification proposition. The other interviewee is a gamification designer, who also has field experience in applying gamification in his previous function. 4.1.3 Expert Company C: Trigger Trigger qualifies itself as an engagement business, focusing in increasing performance through consultancy, design and technology. They deliver engagement solutions which use gamification as an enabling technology, from a consultancy approach (Eaton). Although they have their own in house gamification technology available, they are not a tech-driven company. Instead, they combine many different skills from psychology, behavioral sciences, creative design, UX design, game design, storytelling skills and technology skills to create encompassing engagement solutions (Eaton). From this company, the director was interviewed.
44
4.2 Field experience cases
Four of the other interviewees are were interviewed for their practical experience on working with gamification in their company. Here, the cases and projects in particular are shortly introduced. 4.2.1 A Dutch telecommunications company: two cases Two separate cases are included from interviews held with manager level professionals from the same company, a large Dutch telecommunications operator. The first case discusses an enterprise gamification project for which the interviewee was responsible. In her role as internal channel marketeer, a gamification project to intrinsically motivate contact center employees to learn how to cross sell across various product lines, was initiated, developed and implemented. This project suffered from many set backs, delays and difficulties during implementation, and was only run live for a very short amount of time (Frederick). For the development process, the expertise of an external company was hired. Effectively, this gamification project can be qualified as a failure. The second case is a project ran by another internal channel marketeer, with the purpose of increasing sales and reaching the sales targets. The gamified element here was to show successful sales by analogy of race game, where track progress was made with each sale. Challenge was created between teams by combining team sales into the race, and additional motivators were added in the form of achievements. During the period that this solution was deployed, the sales target were reached, although evaluation could not answer the question whether this gamification solution was actually helpful (Gerald). Similar to the45 first case, this project ran into a lot of issues during the development and implementation process, providing for valuable clues for this research. 4.2.2 An insurance company: recruitment and traineeship manager This case is based on an interview with a manager responsible for recruitment and the traineeship program management. Unlike the previous cases, this case does not discuss an gamification project as such. Instead, this manager incorporates separate elements that can qualify as gamification in his daily responsibilities. Further, his experiences with serious gaming in traineeship recruitment procedure was discussed in light of gamification goals. 4.2.3 A national bank: enterprise gaming manager One of the experts from Freshly also has experience within a large national bank that applies gamification internally. During his role in designing gamified applications for this bank, several projects were completed, focused on training and informing mortgage sales employees. Another example includes gamifying the internal helpdesk, making the process of getting a problem fixed more fun and more efficient. Further details about these cases will be outlined later, where necessary.
4.3 Analysis and exploration phase
This section focuses on the analysis and exploration phase for developing enterprise gamification solutions. The interview focused on several aspects relevant for this project phase. The four main subjects that were discussed in this regards, in line with table 1 (page 35) include: • Reasons for using gamification and initial problem statements • Organizational goals, including metrics and KPIs46 • Research into audience, focusing on behavior and motivation • Open question for other relevant factors: co-creation with the audience The latter generated additional insights that will be discussed here. For each of these main subjects, the most relevant case data will be discussed and generalized where possible. 4.3.1 Reasons for applying gamification Interviewees were asked to give a general description of the project(s) in their companies and to elaborate on why gamification was chosen as a viable solution. For the expert companies their vision on what role gamification can play was asked. As may be expected, the ideas of experts are nuanced and based upon a clear understanding of what gamification may achieve. Conversely, the managers from the field express different answers. As put by Frederick: All we had, was a sales target. That was all that mattered. And management really kept pushing. Someone from the management team had once worked on a project that generated more sales, so this was what we were going to do. Similarly, Gerald says: It happened gradually, I think. We knew we had to change something in the employee motivation, moving away from all the external incentives we had, and move towards intrinsic motivation. A colleague of ours once attended a seminar and we figured we wanted to do something with that in the future. He was the first one to create a game later, with a creative agency. Similar answers were found in the interviews with other managers, one that implicitly refers to the promise of gamification, in line with the hype status discussed earlier. The gamification experts however, present an analytical and nuanced approach:
47 We don’t do gamification projects. Gamification is not a goal. We see it as a philosophy to tackle business issues, strategic issues. We always try to research the question behind the clients question and with the way of design thinking that comes with gamification, we provide solution in which gamification elements play a role. We rarely ever deliver a full gamification system as such (Chris). Continuing , Chris sees clients that approach them with the question: “can you please gamify my process” as a risk, and sometimes turns those clients down. When there is no room to understand the underlying question, we can’t actually help you (Chris). In conclusion, from the perspective of companies that chose to adopt a gamification solution, there was a lack of clear project definition or problem statement to start with and gamification was adopted along the way as a solution. Conversely, expert companies have a stricter approach to exploring early on how exactly their expertise could be beneficial to companies. 4.3.2 Connection with organizational goals and KPIs Continuing on that perspective, expert companies all express the major importance of helping their client understand what is actually is they need. In line with Chris’ remark above, Anderson’s remark is representative for what others express: The first step is knowing what you want to achieve and that is very often missing from companies. They come to us and tell us they want gamification. We asked them what it is they want to achieve and the answer often is fun. We tell them gamification is just a means, we need to know what you want to achieve. As an organization, as a department, as a manger. What are the organizational goals (Anderson)?
48 Depending on the type of expert company, all of them have an in depth consultancy phase, to work together with clients in defining these project goals. Elaboration on this subject focused on the operationalization of this goal, and what is done to make it measurable in the form of metrics or KPIs. Again, the different answers from experts versus managers in the field signifies a different mindset or expectation towards gamification. On the managers said: I’d have loved to make the success of this project measurable. But with sales… you can’t have an A/B test. We spent some time with someone internally to see if we could make it measurable. But in the end, there was no business case for the project, no one but me cared about making it measurable. So it didn’t happen (Frederick). In this case, the only KPI used was the overall sales target, which ultimately provided no input in itself for determining the success of the project. Gerald expresses similar concern for a different project: We knew we had influence on sales, with everything that we do, but how to measure it? For this project, the only KPI we developed was the way our solution was accepted by employees, which we measured with a questionnaire in hindsight. We made our sales target in the end, but I cannot conclude it was because of our project… The experts agree that is it important to match their projects to the company’s existing KPIs, although Chris recognizes that it is sometimes difficult to determine the effect of our solution on an organization wide KPI. Eaton expresses the most nuanced opinion on this matter, looking for both KPIs that reflect on organizational goals as well as the internal project success:
49 “The KPIs that we would look at, would be a combination of the KPIs that relate to measuring the problem that we originally identified. If that was a revenue problem, it would be a revenue associated one, if it was a percentage of customers active on a loyalty system, you could define it that way, but we would also put in KPIs that measure the activity of the users on our platform” (Eaton). A critical note by Chris, is that existing KPIs may also conflict with the project goal, or maybe related to ‘old behavior’ that the client company actually wants to change. He concludes that linking with the companies’ KPI is important, but that they also challenge them in advance. In summary, there is a relatively large difference in the approach and mindset to what is important in the early stage of a gamification project, for experts compared to the companies that plan on using gamification. 4.3.3 Researching the gamification audience: behavior and motivation The core of gamification is creating a behavioral change by adapting or influencing the motivational grounds for that behavior. One of the most important aspect of this research is the different levels of depth used in the examined cases to understand the end users, employees, or hereafter audience. First, the viewpoint of manager is considered, which is then compared to the approach by experts. All interviewees were explicitly asked what or how they analyzed their audience, for both behavior and motivation specifically. For their sales target, Frederick expressed the generic goal of wanting to change employee motivation from extrinsic to intrinsic motivators. However, she also notes that they struggled to formulate what that meant for their audience. The overall idea of the project
