Gamified Logistics: A Deeper Look Into Preferred
Mechanics for Different Type of Stakeholders in Logistics
Industry
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER
OF SCIENCE
KEITHSEN CHUSNY
10883096
M
ASTER
I
NFORMATION
S
TUDIES
G
AME
S
TUDIES
F
ACULTY OF
S
CIENCE
U
NIVERSITY OF
A
MSTERDAM
July 21, 2016
1st Supervisor 2nd Supervisor Dr. Frank Nack Dr. Tibor Bosse
Gamified Logistics: A Deeper Look Into Preferred
Mechanics for Different Type of Stakeholders in Logistics
Industry
∗Keithsen Chusny
University of Amsterdam IS - Game StudiesAmsterdam, Netherlands
keithsen.chusny@student.uva.nl
ABSTRACT
This paper describes the possibilities of applying gamifica-tion into diverse areas in a logistics company. Since the field of logistics is huge with lots of stakeholders involved in it, four stakeholder groups: Customer, Driver, Customer Sup-port, and Terminal Handler are chosen as the main stake-holder in the experiment and from there, gamification strate-gies are developed based on the challenges each of them is currently encountering. The results of the experiment have shown that there are suitable mechanics for each group of stakeholders. To conclude the research, this paper will take an in-depth look about which game mechanics are deemed feasible for different stakeholders and there will be a reason-ing behind each on why such result can occur. Future work will also be explained for driving further this research.
Keywords
Gamification; Mechanics; Logistics
1.
INTRODUCTION
Logistics industry is playing a vital role in the transaction of physical goods in the world. A good and efficient flow of the business process is indeed demand-able i.e. from the state-of-the art machinery, rigid scheduling to worker pro-ductivity. The dependency on good coordination between different departments is highly vital to avoid disruptive flow of process.
Gamification is considered as one of the approach to solve the preceding challenges. Although many industries have started to implement gamification into their business, for logistics itself, it is still in an early phase of adopting gamifi-cation. One study performed by Hense et.al.[12] notified the possibility of increasing staff motivation, but this study was ∗(Produces the permission block, and copyright informa-tion). For use with SIG-ALTERNATE.CLS. Supported by ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full cita-tion on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or re-publish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.
WOODSTOCK ’97 El Paso, Texas USA
c
2016 ACM. ISBN 123-4567-24-567/08/06. . . $15.00 DOI:10.475/123 4
proposed as an overview on how gamification might affect staff motivation, specifically in order picking task. Another study outed by Mes et.al.[20] was about addressing complex issues that prone to happen in Rotterdam‘s harbor called Barge Handling Problem by implementing a management game.
This paper consider gamification as part of improving the overall business process in logistics. However, as gamifica-tion is still in its infancy with respect to logistics, it seems necessary to investigate which gamification mechanics suit-able for each of the domains within the logistics organization (in the context of this thesis it will be DHL Parcel). Thus, the paper will start by providing the literature study re-garding gamification and the theories behind user behavior. Moving forward, the methodologies used in order to study which mechanics are suitable also described followed with the gamification strategies generated from those findings. These gamification strategies are the ones used to capture the research results. To conclude, the results along with fu-ture work concerning on how to proceed further with the current study will be explained.
2.
LITERATURE STUDY
2.1
Gamification
Gamification has started to be a global trend[27]. It has been applied to wide range of fields each with its own pur-pose. Gamification, by the definition itself, is the use of game elements in a non-game environment to achieve de-sired outcomes from the user beyond pure entertainment [4]. According to ElearningIndustry, It is expected to reach the benefit of $1,707 billion in 2015 and $5,500 billion by 2018. Another report by Gartner[8] also indicates that by 2016, it will be an essential element for brands and retailers to drive customer marketing and loyalty. A considerable rea-son which causing this trend is partly because games have been available for over twenty years and to this time, approx-imately 26% of people aged over 50 are still playing games, a 9% increasement since 1999[14]. In the business fields, many studies found[21][19] that when applied in the training pro-gram or daily workforce, it can provide substantial amount of benefits such as improved motivation[22][12] to increased productivity[25]. An increasing number of companies that adopted this new approach suggested that gamification is far more accepted as a new and better approach than the conventional one.
become a booming trend across the industry. On its sim-ple premise, the concept of gamification is derived from an actual video game which specifically designed for entertain-ment. People play games to get an enjoyment out of it. This is due to the fascinating and beautifully designed game world coupled with exciting mechanics and concept. Thus, as what Deterding et.al. has stated[5], those mechanics can be parted out and put into the non-entertainment context to create the similar perception. From this ideal statement, it explains why gamification can tap into the affective do-main whereas the conventional approach of learning (with-out the use of gamification) only covers cognitive domain; as Kim stated “people are more motivated, engaged, and often achieve more in games than in the real world“[15, p.465]. Furthermore, Fogg made a conceptual framework[7] about behavioral model which entails three factors to make the in-tended behavior of a subject to occur: motivation, ability, and trigger. It is believed that gamification can help the company to achieve its desired goal through the use of game mechanics. Game mechanics itself is defined as elements in-side of the game environment which is crucial to partake in user engagement[14]. To name a few, several of the game mechanics that have been widely used revolving around the use of scoring system, achievements, good narrative, rewards system[12]. In addition, research pointed out other gamifi-cation methods. Those are discussed below:
Achievements
Achievements is one of the popular game mechanics when applying gamification[10]. According to Hamari[10], the components of an achievement are Completion Logic(how to get it), Titles(achievements’ name), and Badges(indicator showing the completed achievements[1]). Furthermore, ex-tra element is still kept being added to add new layer of challenge, such as rarity to notify which achievement is eas-ier or harder to get.
Avatar
A mechanic to let the user represent themselves in cy-berspace[3].
Appointment Dynamics
A type of mechanics where the player will be rewarded by doing certain actions at a certain time[15]. This technique, if applied well, can influence the player to to do various actions that is desired by the designer.
Challenge
Challenge is a mechanic where the player is given a set of tasks to accomplish[17]. An interesting and attractive design of challenge will help lure the user to have some sort of fantasy by believing they doing an adventure and there is a certain mission to accomplish.
Community Collaboration
Community Collaboration is the type of mechanic that accentuates the importance of collaborative sense. Through doing the task together, user can share and trade knowledge, reach the common goals faster, and increase social value between them[26].
Countdown
Adding countdown can force the user to keep concentrated and focused on doing the tasks [13] within the given amount of time. Auspiciously, since gamification provide a safe-environment for ‘experimenting‘, user that made failure on
his / her tasks can try again to be better in next occasion. Customization
Customization allow player to modify one or more com-ponents inside the game or system. It provides personaliza-tion for the players which can contribute in encouraging the player to feel more personal with the game or system[32]. Dashboards
Dashboards serve as the main display of the overall activ-ities that are happening around the player. If designed in an intuitive manner, the dashboard really useful on giving a quick recap about the state of the player in the game / system.
Feedback
Feedback serves as providing information about the result of player actions[32]. This way, player can understand in what state he is right now inside the game system thus also providing the opportunity to learn from it whether their ac-tions are in-line with the intended direction and not straying away from it.
Gifting
This mechanic is used to provide a sense of belonging be-tween each other, and also a good recruitment tool for the new players [32].
Leaderboard
Leaderboard is one of the most used mechanics. In the base of its premise, leaderboard is a ranking system that shows the (usually) scores between one player to another[17]. Therefore, it mainly serves as a comparison tool between one player to another[32]. According to Zicherman et al[32], there are two types of leaderboard : The no-discincentive leaderboard (users will always see them in the middle of leaderboard ) and the infinite leaderboard (leaderboard is tai-lored into several segmentations such as: daily, weekly, etc.). Levels
Level is an element that keeps the player informed about their progress[32]. In a common practice, to tip the aware-ness of the player that they are progressing between level to level is through the curvilinear difficulty scaling[32]. Points
Points usually awarded to the people when they com-pleted certain actions [17]. It is really helpful to align the behavior of user into the desired one and keep them in that state constantly. It functions feasibly when dealing with large group of people [32]. Points has a wide spectrum of substance depending on the decision of the designer: Score (to measure user performance), Experience Points (track the progress of user’s journey; stack it up to get a level up) and Virtual Currency / VC (a form of points that is re-deemable to get rewards).
Progression
Progression is used to encourage the player by letting him know how close they are on reaching the end of a process[32]. Usually, it can be displayed in thee form of ’progress counter ’ or ’progress bar ’.
Quests
Sometimes when players are presented on a new game or system, Quest provide as a guidance of the player journey inside the game system. It adds the depth of game structure
and making the player enjoy more on exploring the system. Reinforcement
Reinforcement (Rewards) is one of the core motivator in taking part on restructuring player behavior as it will retain the user to keep engaged and focus on finishing the tasks. There are several timeframe that can be considered when deploying the reinforcement: Fixed Ratio, Variable Ratio, Fixed-Interval Schedule, Variable-Interval Schedule[9]. Social
Social mechanic plays an important role for gamification as human can provide motivation to each other [11]. A proper design on putting the applicable social mechanic in the system can trigger a sense of relatedness between each other.
2.2
Users
In order to achieve the best effect from each of the applied mechanics, the designer needs to know for sure what kind of behaviors they want the users to express[24]. Understanding that will allow the designer to apply the suitable mechanics in order to influece the desired behaviors. There are sev-eral theories that support the idea of why gamification is a reasonable approach compared to organization process that still not adopting it. Theories such as extrinsic motivation, constructivism, zone of proximal development, cognitive ap-prenticeship, and self-determination theory showed that by focusing on certain condition, with the correct mechanics, gamification can show its potential. By using attractive aesthetics and incorporating various game mechanics, it can attract the user to keep engaged within the environment without getting bored easily. The remains part of this sec-tion briefly explain some of the theories that have particular relevancy with gamification.
1. Motivation
Motivation, in essence, is a drive in an activity that pushes the effort of an individual to achieve some-thing that they aimed for. Motivation is divided by two types: intrinsic and extrinsic.
Intrinsic motivation is the motivation that is driven because of internal elements[17]. Self Determination Theory[28] is a good example on how intrinsic moti-vation operates. This theory proposes that a person‘s motivation can come intrinsically based on three psy-chological needs: competence, relatedness, and auton-omy. Here, gamification can relate to every single of those aspects as follows: the users will always try to do their best so that they can gain highest score (com-petence); the use of avatar and other common objects will provide a positive transfer for the player (related-ness); and lastly, the freedom for user to explore and try different actions in order to find the best result from their actions (autonomy).
On the other hand, extrinsic motivation is the moti-vation that is driven because of external elements[17]. It is believed that every individual has a different ex-trinsic motivation. They are doing things because of expecting rewards in return. By implementing certain mechanics like badges or achievements, it can help to set a goal for the individual to achieve it; this is also relevant to the goal-setting theory[18], which also ex-plains that the more challenging the goal it gets, the
more motivated an individual will likely to improve their performance.
2. Social Comparison Theory
This theory, divulged by Festinger, asserts that peo-ple evaluate their abilities by doing a comparison with others[6]. He also stated that there is an “unidirec-tional drive upward“ which tells about how people al-ways want to improve their abilities, or simply put, they always want to be better than the others. 3. Constructivism
Constructivism tells us that people learned new knowl-edge and developed it by actively participating in the process of their learning[29]. Vytgosky also stated that learning process can take social context into account as one of their part. Thus, with gamification, people can partake in social activity which is also happened to be in a safe-environment (there is less major consequences of fear from failing in a virtual environment).
4. Zone of Proximal Development
When a learner is in a Zone of Proximal Development state[29], learner can get a valuable boost on complet-ing their task. At this point, there is a possibility for the reinforcement to be removed because the learner is expected to have already reached the intended po-tential and is able to complete the given task. 5. Experential Learning
This theory explains that the user gains new and valu-able knowledge by reflecting on past experience[16]. Through gamification, the user will be presented with various tasks and is expected to solve them in a more engaging way. Because it is so appealing that they will be able to gather and retain the information and facts easier and with longer persistence.
6. Social Learning Theory
According to Bandura[2], learning can happen through the process of observation of others. In gamification, user can try to learn from others that already com-pleted the challenge or gained the achievement. 7. Attribution Theory
Weiner[31] proposed a theory that determines a cause that leads to a certain behavior by people. By offer-ing a space of freedom in gamification, we can predict the behavior of the users and analyzing why that can happen.
3.
RESEARCH QUESTION AND RELATED
METHODOLOGY
3.1
Research Question
Based on the problem indicated in the introduction, the research question for this particular topic is as follow:
”What are the suitable gamification mechanics for different groups of stakeholders in logistic fields?”
Along with the main research question, the author has also created questions for the particular topic. The sub-questions are:
• What gamification mechanics are going to be used? • Are there any gamification mechanics that the
3.2
Methodology
In this paper, the research will be focused on DHL Parcel Benelux, one of the leading companies in the field of logistics across Benelux Region. There are several methodology ap-proaches that will be applied for this project that combine both the qualitative and quantitative approaches.
The first process is going to conduct a thorough litera-ture research for the creation of ’pool’ which consist of the gamification mechanics which are already available on the fields that will be used to determine which mechanics are the appropriate one for different stakeholders.
Next, 12 interviews were conducted with the top-level po-sitions that relevant with each of the group stakeholders. The interviews were focused on understanding the work pro-cess and identify the challenge that they currently faced with. It also helps on understanding what is the gamifi-cation goal for each of the selected stakeholders[30]. In the end, four group of stakeholders were selected: Customer, Driver, Customer Support, and Terminal Handler.
Moving forward, several gamification strategies were de-signed to tackle those challenges and from there, the game mechanics are implemented. The prototypes (no function-ality) were designed for android platform that served as a way to provide visualization to the stakeholders on what the final product might be. Each of these ideas will be described in the detail in the later section.
After each of the stakeholders‘ prototypes were developed, the gathering of quantitative data through the use of ques-tionnaire was conducted. The setup of experiment is done separately for each stakeholder groups. Since the places are not relevant on affecting the experiment results, it was con-ducted in different places. The process started with explain-ing the purpose of the research and presentexplain-ing the applica-tion in several instances. As each of these instances represent a mechanic, the explanation was conducted by explaining to them one by one in random order. This is to ensure that they understand and getting the idea of what does the me-chanic actually for. After all of the meme-chanics have been explained, the complete version (with all of those mechan-ics) were presented to them giving the idea on how it will intertwine with one another in the final version. All of this process were done with the author (the researcher) being in presence with each participants and in a side note, some of the participants are quite active on giving a verbal response during the experiment. To conclude, the participants were asked to sound their response through the use of 5 points likert-scale survey with 1 for being ‘not really want it‘ and 5 for ‘really want it‘. The survey itself was structured by asking them the general questions followed with questions regarding their enticement towards the mechanics.
The survey data will show which mechanics do the stake-holders want it to be included in the system and which are not. Along with that, several questions related to minor ad-ditions or changes to a certain mechanics were also asked for future work.
4.
BUSINESS PROCESS: CASE STUDY OF
DHL
In logistics, especially domestic shipments, the flow of business process is very rapid and undeniably complex. Ev-eryday hundreds of thousands of packages need to be deliv-ered as soon as possible in order to keep the satisfaction of
the customer. Not only that, in this competing industry, the viable and effective strategy need to be deployed to as-sure that the company can maintain their base customers intact. From the hand of the sender, a driver will bring it to the city‘s terminal which then going to be processed to the destination terminal and another driver will pick it up on the next day to be delivered to the receiver. However, the challenge arise during the sorting of the package itself since human error still plays part in it. In general capacity, the order usually will be in the receiver‘s hands one day after the sender has shipped the package day before. But what lies un-der its simple yet swift process is actually very complex and requires high-level of managerial capabilities. In process-ing the delivery, DHL has several terminals located across Benelux that passes the packages here and there overnight in order to be able to deliver to the addressee on the next day.
Based on the research question and in reference to the case study, this research selected four stakeholder groups: Customer, Driver, Customer Support, and Terminal Handler. It is also pivotal to study each of their activity pattern during daily work as it will help figure the behavior the designer wants to accentuate from the user while using the gamified system. The information gathered will be used to determine the possible game mechanics into the system to create an engaging yet meaningful gamification system. The elaborated description of each stakeholders are presented be-low:
Customer
The customer is the important part of DHL on running their business. Putting them in the first place and giving the best service is undeniably vital. Although, certain chal-lenge arise as how to make them more active while also in-crease their loyalty and gain more customers to benefit from DHL services. An improvement in their services is deemed acceptable. Although the customer is divided into two sub-categories: business and private, in this research it will be more focused on the private sector.
Driver
The driver plays an important part on DHL main services. They served as a bridge between the customer and DHL dur-ing the package delivery. However, certain challenges arise in this process such as the driver can be stuck in a roadblock that causes waste of time; Another challenge is sometimes they get an obfuscation on the status of the address, leading to an improper use of vehicle for the destination (using large vehicle to a small alley address).
Customer Support
The customer support serves as the backbone of DHL, having to handles all costumer inquiries, providing informa-tion and most of all, handling complaints. It is indeed a high intensity job, and pressures undeniably prone to hap-pen to these agents. In the current context, there is time inefficiency practiced by the agents while handling customers and adherence is still a challenge to tackle. Therefore, im-provements in these aspects are essential to a better DHL services.
Terminal Handler
Every packages that are going to be sent need to go the terminal on each location beforehand. During this phase, the sorting process began and it is up to the terminal handler to be able to perform their task well enough. Issue might
arise as the terminal handler put the package into the wrong terminal, which causing the customer to receive it one day longer. Another challenge is to speed up the sorting process in order to avoid the line getting overloaded.
5.
GAMIFICATION IDEAS
Based on the literature, challenges, and activity pattern that were gathered, there are set of game mechanics imple-mented across four gamification strategies for each stake-holder groups which will be elaborated below:
MyDHL - Customer
Figure 1: My DHL Customer UI
This application serves as a way to let the user create a new shipping order, check status of the packages, share to social media, and explore the city where they will also be granted with DHL Points by doing those actions. Some tweaks have been made for the user that act as the recip-ient, which are ‘Inform Driver ‘ and ‘Review Driver ‘. The former provide an ability to let the driver know regarding the availability of the recipient (e.g. not at home, send it to neighbor, etc.) thus providing benefit both for customer (getting DHL Points), and driver (less wasting time, and save emission) while the latter provides a way to give review about the driver behavior and performance towards the cus-tomer, thus shaping the behavior of the driver to be more professional. Another feature that also included is ‘Find DHL Parcelstation‘ which letting the customer to explore the city and find DHL Parcelstations along the way to be added into the saved list. Last, there is a Special Quest (Appointment Dynamics) mechanic that gives the customer a huge amount of DHL Points by doing certain action in an allotted time limit. All in all, the collected points itself can be used to redeem rewards related to DHL products. Doing so will influence the user into keep using DHL services or turn user into potential future customers.
MyDHL - Driver
Figure 2: MyDHL Driver UI
This application is designed specifically to stimulate the driver to become more proactive while also helping others
during the work. Asides from the basic capabilities like no-tifying whether the package has been delivered or not, an-other features such as Inform Road Condition which can be used to tell the others about the road condition of a certain area, Inform Address which serve as a way to update the core database regarding location status of a certain address (whether it is a residential or industrial address), and Inform Business Opportunity which serve as a platform to let the drivers do customer lead sales also being implemented as a way to improve collaboration with others. Doing those ac-tions will grant them score. For a social purpose, a friend list is also implemented and they can compare their score with the others via leaderboard mechanic and send duel to the others. To increase performance and productivity, Achieve-ment mechanic is also impleAchieve-mented along with the ability to track what is the average rating the driver has (in the form of stars) from their customer.
Using score as the main stimulator, influencing the driver to use features such as Inform Road Condition will aid the others about a certain road condition whether it is passable or perhaps they should find an alternative road. Using In-form Address also help the planner to avoid using incompat-ible vehicle during the delivery phase and help tremendously on saving wasted time and cost. Using Inform Business Op-portunity will help DHL to gain new customers into using its services. Putting leaderboard, achievement, and duel me-chanics also intended to stimulate the driver to maintain their performance at optimal point and progressively sharp-ening it. Last but not least, as this application is working in conjunction with the customer side, it helps creating a healthy collaboration between the driver and the customer (e.g. customer telling the driver that they are not at home will prevent the loss of valuable time for the driver and re-duce emission; having the customer give rating to the driver will contribute to shape a better behavior for the drivers towards the customers in the future).
Avoid The Vibrate
Figure 3: Avoid The Vibrate UI
Looking at the high-intensity of working activity required by the employees, the idea required a mix of of both digital and physical capabilities. It requires a smartwatch devices that will be wore by the worker. The idea is to put a sensor on each of the cage (on the ceiling) as a way to read the package that is going to be put via its label. In order to track their performance, a score mechanic is implemented. Therefore, if it is a correct cage, they will get a rise in the score while if they put into the wrong cage, it will trigger a vibration into the wearer‘s smartwatch and get a reduc-tion in score; another score reducreduc-tion can also happen when the sorting line (which called shoots) also being overloaded with packages. Several mechanics are also applied in
at-tempt to stimulate their performance; such mechanics are: time limit, leaderboard, incorrect checker and achievements. The time limit is put in place as a way to let the user take attempt to challenge themselves to beat the intended time while leaderboard is there to let the user check or compare their score with other colleagues. The incorrect checker is served as a real-time feedback to show the users how many times an error has occurred. A friend list mechanic is also included with the ability to let the user sending duel to each other. It serves as a platform to challenge other player, al-lowing the chance to see who is getting the higher score on each day. Another addition is an avatar system, in which it is implemented in order to represent the player (terminal handler) appearance in the game space. They can also cus-tomize their avatar in the avatar shop through the use of DHL Points, which will be given every day after finishing their task and doing duel.
The vibration and sensor system along with scoring me-chanic is implemented as a way to avoid the human error that can happen during the sorting process. The score and time limit are there to let them to try to work as fast as possi-ble in order to avoid the sorting line getting overloaded. An-other mechanics such as leaderboard, duel, and achievement are also put in place with intention to stimulate and increase their performance while the avatar system is in place to give the player freedom to customize their likeness according to their preference.
Customer Heroes
Figure 4: Customer Heroes UI
Customer Support agents engagement with the customer on the daily basis is nonetheless but important. Therefore some mechanics are applied in order to stimulate them on keep stimulated during handling customer‘s complaints and inquries while also doing a lead sales task. Those mechanics are: score, virtual currency, leaderboard, challenges, perfor-mance monitor, newsfeed, friendlist, and appreciation. The performance monitor is a mechanic that functioned as a way to track three main parameters regarding the agents‘ main activity: Customer Handling, Average Handling Time, and Adherence. The leaderboard, instead of presenting it with regular ranking order, it is presented with some spark of ‘racing game‘ in which they can pick their own avatar (in this case it is a car and cartoon character) and see who is leading the race based on their accumulated score. Another way to rack up score is through the challenge mechanic (Ap-pointment Dynamics element can also be found here) where they need to do certain task in order to obtain score and DHL Points. The challenge mechanic itself is divided into three categories: daily, friends, and community. daily lets the agent do the task given by their supervisor on daily ba-sis; friends challenge lets the agent to send challenge (duel)
to their friend and engage in a healthy competition on who is able to do better on the day; community challenge in-fluences all agents to collaborate together and do a unified task that if accomplished, will grant them a huge score and DHL points. Another mechanics that contributes to social elements are the inclusion of friend list, newsfeed, and ap-preciation. The latter is providing the agent (or the higher level) to send appreciation messages and virtual gift to the other colleagues or team members.
Several mechanics are put to use for increasing their per-formance. First, the score mechanic is used to track their curret performance while they can also track how well they are compared with the others by visiting their friends’ pro-file or see it through leaderboard. Speaking about the leader-board itself, the way it is displayed in unusual interface fol-lowed with the ability to customize their avatar is to ease their mind from the high-intensity work and keeping them engaged in a funnier way. Next, the performance monitor are used to keep them in track on giving the best perfor-mance they could in a monthly period. For the challenge mechanic, the division of three different categories is to give them opportunity to rack up score and DHL points in mul-tiple ways. This is intended to further increase their perfor-mance and try to perform as best as they could every day. Apart from the self-explanatory function of daily and friends challenges, the community challenge let the agent to collab-orate with each other in order to obtain the greater goods. Friend list, newsfeed, and appreciation mechanics are also included as another way to signify the social elements. This is intended to establish a stronger socio-culture presence in the work office.
6.
RESULT
The results garnered from the experiment will be explained in orderly fashion according to the four mentioned groups: Customer, Driver, Customer Support, and Terminal Handler. In general, the response from the 5-points likert scale will be described in three blocks: do not want (first and second bars), neutral (third bar), and want (fourth and fifth bars) and all of the figures can be seen on the appendix section. Please do note that since the stakeholders were us-ing the prototype version, some reservations (not choosus-ing first, third or fifth point in survey) are in presence.
6.1
Customer
For the customer stakeholder, a total of 31 respondents have been gathered. With a variety of age between 19 (min) and 55 (max) with mean of 32, participants have sound their reaction towards these mechanics as described in the com-ing section. In general, 80.7% of sample (9.7% really like it) like the overall presentation of the application. Several mechanics such as score, avatar and leaderboard are not presented in here since the application is designed as an individual-oriented.
Virtual Currency
The virtual currency (‘DHL Points‘) received a very good reaction. 87.1% elicited a positive response while only 3.2% of sample that is on the opposition. Explanation toward this particular popularity is because as a customer, they tend to like being able to collect things for any actions they did. As such it will also stimulate them to become more active on using the application and its features. As there is a
possibil-ity of different perception towards customers regarding the presentation of this Virtual Currency, a further study into this mechanic has found that most of the sample want to keep using ‘DHL Points‘ symbol instead of an actual cur-rency symbol such as euros symbol.
Rewards
A very high acceptance of this mechanic has been found as 90.3% with 41.9% really want this mechanic to be pre-sented. As the mechanic says, customer like to be treated with something in return after putting their trust on the services. This can also trigger impulse for the customers to stay loyal within the provided services.
Inform Driver
The ability to keep the driver updated is received very positive, noting that 100% of sample want this with 77.4% really want it.
Review Driver
67.7% of sample want this mechanic. The reasoning be-hind this result is customers can give their opinion towards drivers that deliver the package to them. Doing so will also help fabricate a good behavior from the driver towards the customers. Treat the customers well and in return the cus-tomers will stay loyal to the services.
Find Location
For this particular mechanic, 61.3% want the mechanic to be presented. By granting the customers with points, the customers are stimulated to explore the city and create their own adventure. For the people that do not want it, it implies that they are not really interested on exploring aspect.
Social Media Sharing
48.4% of sample still feeling neutral towards this me-chanic. A good reason for the result is because this is a particularly common mechanic that has been implemented in almost every digital-based application and its function is self-explanatory. Even with granting them points, some peo-ple might not really give a lot of attention towards sharing things to the social media and it will more likely give more attractiveness towards the social media savvy.
Special Quest
48.3% of sample want the ability to get higher amount of points by doing certain action in a given time while 35.5% still feeling neutral. The use of special quest expected to drive customer into doing an ‘extra mile‘ to the services. The inclusion of progress bar to show customers the current state on reaching the goal in real-time also received posi-tively (67.7% want it).
Achievement
While achievement mechanic is not present in the appli-cation, it is good to still studying whether they want the in-clusion of such mechanic. The result found that 71% want this mechanic to be included. A further look into the use of achievements is also showing that they want to have rarity (54.8%), show badges (54.8%), and titles (48.4%) from it. Summary
Looking at the result, it is safe to say that the customers conform to all of the mechanics with the exception of feeling neutral towards sharing to social media.
6.2
Driver
For the driver stakeholder, several constraints during the data gathering need to be considered such as time, schedul-ing suitable time, and also language barrier (need person
that is able to understand basic English in verbal and oral form). Thus, a total of eight person with age range between 28 (min) and 55 (max) with the mean of 38 years old par-ticipated in the survey. In general, 62.5% (with 12.5% really want it) want the presentation of the overall appli-cation. Several mechanics are not presented such as virtual currency, and avatar since their work required a real profile picture for customers’ review.
Score
Based on the questionnaire, 50% of the sample want this mechanic to be included, while 37.5% feeling neutral. Why this particular mechanic is deemed popular among the pop-ulation is because score is considered as one of the major component in gamification. Through score, the driver can check their current performance, and is stimulated to im-prove even further.
As score mechanic undeniably possess a vital importance, three of the newly implemented additions benefit from such mechanic. These features, namely ‘Inform Road ‘,‘Inform Address‘, and ‘Inform Business Opportunity‘ are all gain-ing a very positive response which will be described in the coming paragraph.
Inform Road
With 75% of sample want this to be included, it clearly shows that this is a highly requested features as this can aid the driver to save their time during delivery service.
Inform Address
A very good response is also showed for this particular fea-tures, as 87.5% of sample want this feature to be included since it really helps the driver to avoid using the wrong ve-hicle for future tasks.
Inform Business Opportunity
Both 50% of sample want it and others still feeling neu-tral. This is because the drivers have not seen the features in real-time practice, so at this point they only have the grasp of what it could be.
Leaderboard
Around 37.5% of the sample want this mechanic to be included, while 37.5% feeling neutral toward this. A plau-sible reason why this mechanic is vital is because it provides a good coverage of performance between drivers. Since the type of leaderboard used is infinite leaderboard, a further look into the presented categories showed that they prefer monthly more than any other (it accounts for 75% of the sample), informing that although they like to track their performances with each other,they are not really keen on knowing it on daily basis as it can put pressure on the work.
Stars
A mixed reaction appear in this mechanic, showing 37.5% of sample want this (with 25% of them really want it) while the same result also happened for the opposite side. The result implies that at the moment a few people still on the fence whether they want this features to be included or not, partly because they are not comfortable on seeing what the others judge towards them but for some people that like it thinks that this can be used to further improve their behav-ior towards customer. With proper incentives or stimulus, hopefully for the people who still feeling neutral or do not like it can alter their mind.
Friend List
37.5% of sample do not want this mechanic; the same amount goes for neutral side. A good reason why the drivers
do not want the friend list mechanic because they do not have yet seeing the real benefit for their work. It is clear that they are giving an opportunity to try using the duel mechanic but due to the nature of working alone during the day-job, the tendency of having a list of friends and challenging them might not on their agenda as of now.
Achievements
A mixed reaction occurred in this mechanic, noting 37.5% each for want it and neutral, while 25% do not want it. The reasoning behind this is that some people with tendency of achievers like to do this activity while some that do not want it can feel this activity as a time consuming.
Summary
It is found that they like Inform Address as the most fol-lowed with Inform Road, score, and Inform Business Oppor-tunity while mixed reaction still shown in stars, leaderboard and friends list.
6.3
Customer Support
For the Customer Support, several constraints have to be taken into account such as time, scheduling, and tight working schedule. Nevertheless, a total of 14 agents with age range between 25(min) and 45(max) with the mean of 35 have participated in the experiment. In general, 71.4% of sample like the overall presentation of the application.
Score
64.3% of sample want the score to be included. Further examination regarding the inclusion of combo system shows that 42.9% want it with the same amount also resides in the neutral side. Particular acumen behind this result is caused by the importance of score on measuring the current performance each of the agents have while doing their daily task, with the intention of them trying to improve their per-formance even further.
Leaderboard
A good reception also received for the leaderboard me-chanic, noting that 42.8% of sample want to have it with 21.4% on the contrary and the rest is feeling neutral. The use of ‘racing game‘ as the way of presenting contributes highly into making it one of the requested mechanic by the agents. Knowing that they have a high intensity job, this small gimmick can help ease the work pressure a bit. Fur-ther investigation regarding the leaderboard has also been conducted; for instance, most people like the current use of illustrations over a regular numbers display. Age can con-tribute to this result as people with younger generation pre-fer more aesthetic presentation than the older one.
Achievements
Result showed 64.3% of sample want it. A more thorough research has also been conducted by looking at three param-eters that are included: rarity, show badges, and show titles to study whether the agents also like to know the ‘value‘ of their acquired achievement. The result is positive, as the majority want those parameters to be shown to others (64.2% want rarity, 57.1% want badges, 64.2% want ti-tles).
A plausible reason why this mechanic is popular all-around is because these parameters hit right into their psychological spot. People has a tendency to feel special compared to oth-ers. Therefore, the rarity system is put in motion because creating the ambiance of being able to grab the hard-to-get achievements will give them a satisfying feeling and thus
stimulates them to keep doing a good performance. And from there, they would also like to show the others through badges and titles that they already have gotten the rare achievements.
Appreciation
Advocating emotion at work is beneficial[23]. This is also expressed by the result showing 50% of sample (with 21.4% really want it) want this mechanic to be present with 28.4% on neutral. The reason on why they want it is because by appreciating each other on a real-time basis, acknowledg-ing their performance on-the-fly can give a direct boost to their performance while working on their daily activities. For the people that do not really want this mechanic to be presented, it might be because they are not really comfort-able on having the thoughts that their activities is always being monitored. For gifting, some people that still feel neu-tral towards this is particularly because they have not seen the mechanic in practical example yet.
Challenges
A very good reception towards this mechanic is shown from 64.3% of sample want it. The result tell us that pro-viding the agents with challenges mechanic while also re-warding them with score and virtual rewards can alter their perception to do the required task with higher motivation in which it might not be the case in the conventional system. Also deeper insight showed that they like to collaborate with each other more (57.1%) to achieve a single, unified objec-tive and gaining huge rewards together whereas for the daily task, 50% of sample like it to have the chance to change it with another task they seemed fit to accomplish. By giv-ing them a freedom space to do their job, they will feel less pressured and more motivated on doing the job.
Virtual Currency
The inclusion of Virtual Currency (DHL Points) is also re-ceived well by the agents (based on 64.3% of sample want it). Letting them to purchase virtual items, agents are ex-pected to feel fun while working. This create a perception where they are doing their job not only to get a high score but also get rewarded by other means. As such, the points are going to be used for purchasing cosmetic customization which will be described in the next section.
Avatar
Avatar mechanic is also receiving a huge acceptance, showed from 50% of the sample want the mechanic. This means the agents can feel a pressure from their work and have a sense of fun in the work. The inclusion of avatar shop gives the agents freedom opportunity to customize their personas to their liking.
Friend List
The majority of the sample (64.2%) want this mechanic to be included. A solid reason on why this mechanic is also deemed important by most agents is because human in nature is live to socialize. Seeing how they are compared to the others is also motivating them to become better (based on the result on this particular parameter, the majority like the ability to compare performance with the others). Summary
Based on the results, it is safe to say that they like all of the presented mechanics with virtual currency slighty lead the preference.
A total of 10 people participate in this experiment with age of participants are between 20(min) and 50(max) with the mean of 29 years old. Several constraints are to be taken into account such as time, scheduling complexities, and the participant need to at least understand basic English ver-bally. However the result gathered can give a direction about what mechanics are suitable for them. In general, 60% of sample like the presentation of the overall application.
Vibrate
The approach to make them wear smartwatch turns out resulting in a mixed reaction. 40% of sample do not want it, while another 40% still feeling neutral about it. The reason why this mechanic is getting a high number of resistance is partly because this is a new approach that has not been tested in the field yet so they are still questioning how well it will perform. Another factor is the sense of being ‘always monitored‘ might create an insecure environment.
Score
Their resistance towards score mechanics are shown based on 50% of sample do not want it while only 30% that want it. This can be based on the nature of their work. Their work is a very intensive and the sense of being ‘monitored‘ through the score is making them not comfortable. Further look into the inclusion of combo into their score mechanic is also correlate the former result, showing that half of the sample (50%) do not want this mechanic; an explanation toward this is because adding combo can give a different perception into them to work even harder to avoid losing the combo and it might add tension to the work. Another factor is age whereas many of older generation of people do not want their work to be treated like a ‘game‘.
Leaderboard
A rather interesting result showed from the leaderboard mechanic as 50% of sample want to have it. A plausible explanation for the result is because they like having the ability to compare their performance. A further look into the infinite leaderboard showed that they prefer to see it on monthly basis (80% of sample) which mean they do not want to be compared on a frequent period. Therefore, in order to fully capture the potential of this mechanic, a good combination with mechanic other than score as the compar-ison parameter can be considered.
Time Limit
Even though it is not a mandatory requirement to be able to finish the job under the required time, only 10% of sample that want this mechanic to be presented, which showed that the mechanic is giving the feeling of added pressure to their already high-intensity task.
Incorrect Checker
Result shown (60% of sample want this) informs that they like to have a real-time feedback notify them about the performance of their work, thus keep on improving it.
Friend List
A result showed that 50% of sample feeling neutral to-wards this with 30% do not want it. The reasoning behind the result is because their work is high-intensive and time-sensitive, it would require an additional time on putting the effort to accord with social element. Further examination regarding the ability to send the challenge (duel) to the col-leagues also elicit the similar responses.
Achievements
Around 40% of sample want this mechanic to be included with the same amount also resides in the neutral side. A mixed result for this particular mechanic tells that they are not confident yet about the particular mechanic; partially because they have not yet seen an actual example. A fur-ther look into three different parameters related to achieve-ment found that they are most likely want to show titles into their profile (50%). Giving them title such as ”expert handler ” can boost their self-efficacy and thus increase their performance.
Avatar
Around 70% of sample want this mechanic to be included. Because of the high-intensity work they need to do, having a portion of game elements such as avatar can provide a less stressful environment and increasing social-competency.
Virtual Currency
An interesting result showed from this mechanic, indicat-ing 60% of sample want it. A plausible explanation regard-ing this result is mainly because they like beregard-ing rewarded for doing their job. Please take into account that the task they are doing can be felt redundant and having rewards in place can aid on easing those redundancies and keeping them motivated every day to perform it.
Summary
It is safe to say that the handlers want virtual currency, Leaderboard, and Avatar while they are still on the fence about Vibrate, Score, and Time Limit.
7.
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
7.1
CONCLUSION
The result showed that each of the stakeholders accept the possibilities of gamification and thus, there are mechanics that are suitable for each of them although there is exactly no single mechanic that can be applied to all four stakehold-ers, knowing that they have different views based on their role and behavior we want to elicit. For example, VC is generally accepted by all but Driver (it is the only stake-holder that does not have it implemented). The same goes for score which is accepted by all (leaving the customer out because the mechanic is not there) but TH. For this one, it is because TH is the only one who need to wear an addi-tional devices. Such thing can create a perception of always being watched thus generating insecurity which leads to re-duction in performance. This is in contrast with customers, where they mainly act as the ‘commander‘ by being able to monitor the package status while also getting rewarded by being proactive thus leading in a positive responses on almost all of the presented mechanics. Also, it is becoming apparent that rewards mechanic is generally accepted by all of the stakeholders and bear in mind that this particular me-chanic requires to be adapted according to each stakeholders characteristics as one can be given in-game or outside the game spatial (yearly incentives, etc.). To conclude, while the current results are already providing a good direction towards where the designer should take the approach when designing gamification system for each stakeholders, some reservations (not choosing ‘really want / really do not want‘ or still ‘neutral‘ in the survey) are still in presence.
7.2
FUTURE WORK
made in order of importance. To begin with, it is recom-mended to increase the number of participants since doing so can yield a more accurate results. Furthermore, the devel-opment of functionality-enabled application and doing a field test for several months with each stakeholders can determine where the direction of the current reservations will lean to. For the TH, it seems that the future gamification approach can be more focused on the social aspects and create a more subtler, non-intrusive approach (this is also recommended to keep in mind when designing for other stakeholders).
8.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank Dr. Frank Nack for his valuable guidance throughout the creation of this paper and Dr. Tibor Bosse as the second examiner. The same appre-ciation and thanks are also given to Jarno Houkes and Jur-gen de Haas from CGI along with Stephan Strang, Dirk de Ronde, Marcel Stoel, and many other incredible colleagues from DHL Parcel for providing the opportunity to do and assisting the completion of this research.
9.
REFERENCES
[1] Antin, J., and Churchill, E. F. Badges in social media: A social psychological perspective. In CHI 2011 Gamification Workshop Proceedings (Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2011) (2011).
[2] Bandura, A., and Walters, R. H. Social learning theory.
[3] Brunskill, D. Social media, social avatars and the psyche: is Facebook good for us? Australasian psychiatry : bulletin of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists 21, 6 (2013), 527–32. [4] Deterding, S. Gamification: designing for
motivation. interactions 19, 4 (2012), 14–17.
[5] Deterding, S., et al. From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments (2011), ACM, pp. 9–15.
[6] Festinger, L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations 7, 2 (1954), 117–140. [7] Fogg, B. J. A behavior model for persuasive design.
In Proceedings of the 4th international Conference on Persuasive Technology (2009), ACM, p. 40.
[8] Gartner. Gamification 2020: What Is the Future of Gamification? Tech. rep., 2012.
[9] Gray, P., and F. Bjorklund, D. Pyschology 7th Edition. Worth Publishers, 2014.
[10] Hamari, J., and Eranti, V. Framework for
designing and evaluating game achievements. In Proc. DiGRA (2011), vol. 115, Citeseer, pp. 122–134. [11] Hamari, J., and Koivisto, J. Social motivations to
use gamification: an empirical study of gamifying exercise. Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems SOCIAL, JUNE (2013), 1–12. [12] Hense, J., Klevers, et al. Using gamification to
enhance staff motivation in logistics. In Frontiers in gaming simulation. Springer, 2014, pp. 206–213. [13] Hsu, S. H., et al. Designing attractive gamification
features for collaborative storytelling websites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 16, 6 (2013), 428–435.
[14] Kapp, K. M. The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and education. John Wiley & Sons, 2012. [15] Kim, B. Harnessing the power of game dynamics why,
how to, and how not to gamify the library experience. College & Research Libraries News 73, 8 (2012), 465–469.
[16] Kolb, D. A. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT press, 2014. [17] Kumar, J. M., and Herger, M. Gamification at
Work. 168.
[18] Ling, K., et al. Using social psychology to motivate contributions to online communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10, 4 (2005), 00–00.
[19] Maan, J. Social Business Transformation through Gamification. 9–16.
[20] Mes, M., et al. A distributed barge planning game. In Frontiers in Gaming Simulation. Springer, 2014, pp. 214–221.
[21] Muntean, C. I. Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. In Proc. 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL (2011), pp. 323–329.
[22] Nah, F. F.-H., et al. Gamification of education using computer games. In International Conference on Human Interface and the Management of Information (2013), Springer, pp. 99–107.
[23] Neill, Olivia A, B. S. G. Companionate Love and Employee and Client Outcomes in the Long-. Administrative Science Quarterly (2000), 1–74. [24] Nicholson, S. A recipe for meaningful gamification.
In Gamification in education and business. Springer, 2015, pp. 1–20.
[25] Prakash, E. C., and Rao, M. Transforming learning and it management through gami cation. [26] Rampoldi-Hnilo, L., and Snyder, M. The business
love triangle- smartphones, gamification, and social collaboration. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 8005 LNCS, PART 2 (2013), 309–315.
[27] Richter, G., et al. Studying gamification: the effect of rewards and incentives on motivation. In
Gamification in education and business. Springer, 2015, pp. 21–46.
[28] Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist 55, 1 (2000), 68.
[29] Vygotsky, L. Imagination and creativity in the adolescent. Soviet Psychology 29, 1 (1991), 73–88. [30] Webb, E. N. Gamification: When it works, when it
doesn’t. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 8013 LNCS, PART 2 (2013), 608–614.
[31] Weiner, B. Attribution Theory. 203–215. [32] Zichermann, G., and Cunningham, C.
Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps. ” O’Reilly Media, Inc.”, 2011.
APPENDIX
Figure 5: Customer - Overall Experience result
Figure 6: Customer - Virtual Currency result
Figure 7: Customer - Replace Currency result
Figure 8: Customer - Rewards result
Figure 9: Customer - Inform Driver result
Figure 10: Customer - Review Driver result
Figure 11: Customer - Find Location result
Figure 12: Customer - Social Media Sharing result
Figure 13: Customer - Special Quest result
Figure 15: Customer - Achievement result
Figure 16: Customer - Achievement Title result
Figure 17: Customer - Achievement Badges result
Figure 18: Customer - Achievement Rarity result
Figure 19: Driver - Overall Experience result
Figure 20: Driver - Score result
Figure 21: Driver - Inform Road result
Figure 22: Driver - Inform Address result
Figure 23: Driver - Inform Business Opportunity result
Figure 25: Driver - Leaderboard Daily result
Figure 26: Driver - Leaderboard Monthly result
Figure 27: Driver - Leaderboard Friends result
Figure 28: Driver - Stars result
Figure 29: Driver - Friend List result
Figure 30: Driver - Duel with Friend result
Figure 31: Driver - Achievement result
Figure 32: CS - Overall Experience result
Figure 33: CS - Score result
Figure 34: CS - Leaderboard result
Figure 36: CS - Appreciation result
Figure 37: CS - Gifting result
Figure 38: CS - Challenges result
Figure 39: CS - Challenges Daily result
Figure 40: CS - Change Daily Challenges result
Figure 41: CS - Challenges Friends result
Figure 42: CS - Challenges Community result
Figure 43: CS - Virtual Currency result
Figure 44: CS - Avatar result
Figure 45: CS - Friend List result
Figure 47: TH - Vibrate result
Figure 48: TH - Score result
Figure 49: TH - Combo result
Figure 50: TH - Leaderboard result
Figure 51: TH - Leaderboard Daily result
Figure 52: TH - Leaderboard Monthly result
Figure 53: TH - Leaderboard Friends result
Figure 54: TH - Time Limit result
Figure 55: TH - Incorrect Checker result
Figure 56: TH - Friend List result
Figure 58: TH - Achievements result
Figure 59: TH - Avatar result
