The Key Determinants of Success for Internal Gamification Koen Philippaerts, Mick Stallaert, & Sebastian Duyvendak FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS Thesis submitted to obtain the degree of master in management MASTER IN HET MANAGEMENT Promoter: Prof. Dr. Croux Christophe Assistant: Reusens Peter Academic year 2015-2016
99
Embed
The Key Determinants of Success for Internal Gamification
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Key Determinants of Success for Internal Gamification
Koen Philippaerts, Mick Stallaert, & Sebastian Duyvendak
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS
Thesis submitted to obtain the degree of master in management
MASTER IN HET MANAGEMENT
Promoter: Prof. Dr. Croux ChristopheAssistant: Reusens Peter
Academic year 2015-2016
The Key Determinants of Success for Internal GamificationNowadays, managers face serious tasks, problems and challenges that require a fully engaged workforce.
However, it has been found that only thirty percent of employees around the world are engaged in their job.
Gamification –defined as the use of game elements and game-design techniques in non-game contexts- can
increase engagement by fostering employees’ intrinsic motivation. Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to identify
the key determinants for internal gamification to successfully enhance employee engagement. Following a
Ground Theory approach, five semi-structured interviews with gamification experts were analyzed and coded
into categories. Five categories of key determinants that contribute to a successful gamification design emerged:
clear objectives, user-centred approach, context alignment, evolving design and intrinsic motivation. These key
determinants were subsequently assessed by comparing them with the current body of literature on gamification,
resulting in a concise and coherent framework of managerial implications. In addition, this approach allowed to
identify discrepancies between researchers and entrepreneurs regarding their knowledge on gamification.
Koen Philippaerts, Mick Stallaert & Sebastian Duyvedak
Thesis submitted to obtain the degree of master in management
Promoter: Prof. Dr. Croux ChristopheAssistant: Reusens Peter
Academic year 2015-2016
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS
MASTER IN HET MANAGEMENT
Click to select a program
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our promotor Prof. Christophe Croux and PhD researcher Peter Reusens for their valuable feedback and guidance through the process of writing our master thesis.
In addition, we are grateful to Stephen Dale, Maarten Molenaar, Jeroen Van Eeghem, Mario Herger and Esther Oostrom for sharing their expertise and dedicating their time to help us complete this research.
I
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................. I
General Introduction...........................................................................................................4
1 Literature Study........................................................................................................8
1.1 What is gamification?.....................................................................................81.1.1 History & Terminology..........................................................................81.1.2 Conceptualization of Gamification........................................................91.1.3 Definition breakdown.........................................................................111.1.4 Related Terms...................................................................................15
2.1 Research Design.........................................................................................212.2 Data collection: semi-structured expert interviews.......................................22
2.2.1 Qualitative data..................................................................................222.2.2 Sample of experts..............................................................................222.2.3 Procedure..........................................................................................24
2.3 Data Analysis...............................................................................................242.4 Comparison between the experts and the current scientific literature..........25
4.1 Clear objectives...........................................................................................304.1.1 Realistic.............................................................................................314.1.2 Appropriate: focus on behaviour........................................................314.1.3 Measurable........................................................................................32
4.2 User centered approach..............................................................................324.2.1 Observation of the targeted employees.............................................334.2.2 Developing player profiles..................................................................35
The most extreme form, “intrinsic motivation”, occurs when employees engage in a game solely
because of the enjoyable nature of the game. In addition, people could be motivated by extrinsic and
intrinsic elements at the same time. To illustrate this with an example: a student might be highly
motivated to finish his or her thesis out of curiosity and willingness to learn (intrinsic). However, at the
same time, this student might also be motivated by the fear of having to sacrifice his summer vacation
(extrinsic). This example indicates that extrinsic motivation refers to performing behaviours as a
17
consequence of a separable outcome, whereas intrinsic motivation refers to performing an activity
because of the interesting or enjoyable nature of the activity (Mekler et al., 2015). Therefore, intrinsic
motivation can be defined as “the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and
exercise one’s capabilities, to explore and to learn” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70). Mekler et al. (2015)
argued that both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation could enhance the performance and engagement of
individuals and groups. However, only intrinsic motivation led to psychological well-being, enhanced
creativity and an increase in the quality of effort of individuals (Mekler et al., 2015).
Ryan et al. (2006) argued that playing games is enjoyable and intrinsically satisfying. Internal
gamification uses both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators to guide actions and behaviours of employees
(Lander et al., 2015). To capture the relation between the self-determination theory and gamification
we investigate how competence, autonomy and relatedness are related to game elements.
Need for Competence. Competence can be defined as developing skills over time. However, it is the
perceived competence that is important in evaluating gamification. Providing the player with real-time
feedback such as points, levels and progression paths allows him to track and thus perceive his
progression. When game elements offer useful information regarding the performance of players they
will contribute to a higher sense of perceived competence (Przybylski, Rigby, & Ryan, 2010). However,
it is important to emphasize that game elements that provide feedback should not become stand-alone
goals, but rather play a supporting role in fulfilling an intrinsic need for competence. If the latter is
satisfied, employees should then be capable of guiding their future actions based on this received
feedback, possibly resulting in higher performance.
Need for Autonomy. Researchers argued that perceived competence is closely linked to the need for
autonomy as players want to be in the driving seat while progressing in the game. Implementing game
elements that hand out rewards as informational feedback (rather than to control behaviour) and
provide non-controlling instructions could therefore increase perceived autonomy (Ryan et al., 2006).
Besides a sense of autonomy within a gamified system itself, players also want to control when, how
and how long to play without any external social or material pressures (Deterding et al., 2011).
Consequently, allowing the player to make their own choices and to incorporate their personal
preferences could lead to higher user engagement and thus to more highly motivated employees.
Need for Relatedness. The third intrinsic motivator is the longing for relatedness with others. When
people commonly participate in a system that attaches meaning to their actions, they will also share a
common frame of reference and will therefore feel related to each other (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Regarding internal gamification, it should be mentioned that employees are already part of the same
community, i.e. the company. This implies that a certain amount of relatedness among employees
already exists within an enterprise, which could further be nurtured by the proper use of game
elements. Enabling employees to socially interact, to share their achievements or their progression
path, are examples of how gamification could tap into this intrinsic need for relatedness.
18
1.2.2 Flow theory
Another theoretical concept that seems relevant within the context of gamification is 'flow'. In an
attempt to explain the psychological determinants of happiness, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) proposed a
theory of motivation based on the phenomenon of 'flow'. Csikszentmohalyi (1990) states that people
who are highly motivated can reach a 'state of flow', which he defines as follows:
“the state in which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to
matter; the experience itself is so enjoyable that people will do it even at great cost, for the
sheer sake of doing it” (p.4)
In flow theory, nine conditions that can foster a state of flow are presented. Each of these nine-
conditions can be explained by and linked to gamification (Csikszentmohalyi, 1990). First, “challenge-
skill balance” refers to the level of difficulty in a game. The challenges in a game should be set at the
individual skill level of employees. This means that it could become frustrating for employees when
they do not succeed in the game while trying hard. Secondly, “action-awareness merging” means that
employees in a flow state report that they perceive the situation as spontaneous. Thirdly, one of the
most important dimensions is to have clear goals. This will be further discussed in the goal setting
theory. Fourthly, concentration on the task seems crucial, as irrelevant information cannot disturb the
flow state. This implies that game design is crucial as it should keep the focus on the specific goals of
the organization. Fifthly, employees should have a sense of control in the game. As mentioned before,
free choices and personal preferences lead to higher user engagement. Sixth, when people attain a
state of flow, a total absorption in the activity itself occurs. The loss of self-consciousness is a
consequence as employees are not concentrated on evaluating themselves or others. Seventh, when
employees experience flow, the perception of time changes. Time seems to fly due to the enjoyment of
the task. Eight, the autotelic experience means that the experience is rewarding in itself. Finally,
offering clear feedback is crucial to guide future actions.
1.2.3 Goal-setting theory
The final theory that applies well to the motivational dynamics of gamification is the goal setting theory
by Latham & Locke. The goal setting theory argues that setting goals is motivating as it focuses
attention on goals and leads to increasing effort and persistence (Latham & Locke, 1991). Locke and
Latham (2002) found that motivation was most likely to raise when specific and difficult but attainable
goals were proposed. According to Landers and Callan (2011) gamification contains three forms of
goals: badges, levels and progress bars. More specifically, the relationship between goals and
performance could be determined by four moderators: goal commitment, feedback, task complexity
and situational constraints (Locke & Latham, 2006). These four moderators could offer a deeper insight
into why gamification could enhance the motivation of employees (Landers & Landers, 2015). First,
goal commitment means that employees should be committed to the proposed goals. How do
19
employees become committed to specific goals in gamification applications? Most games use points,
levels and leaderboards and the overall game design to motivate employees to play. Secondly,
feedback moderates the relation between goals and performance. The goal setting theory argues that
achieving badges (goals) should be accompanied by some sort of feedback to maximize the chance of
good performance. Thirdly, task complexity implies that goals should be difficult but attainable. Finally,
situational constraints are elements that influence goal completion.
20
2 Methodology
The purpose of this research is to determine key success factors by comparing relevant information
from gamification experts to the current scientific literature. Five semi-structured interview were
performed and analyzed. By applying the principles and guidelines of the Grounded Theory (Corbin &
Strauss, 1990), five main categories were determined that could impact the successful implementation
of gamification. Finally, these categories and relevant concepts were compared with the current
scientific literature. The used methods allowed the researchers to point out gaps between what science
knows on gamification and how businesses implement gamification.
2.1 Research Design
The research design of this thesis is built upon the Grounded Theory (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). This
theory offers a framework for qualitative research that provides enlightenment of gamification in a
realistic and grounded manner (Field & Morse, 1985). More specifically, Grounded Theory starts with a
bottom-up exploration and research on a social or psychological phenomenon instead of investigating
a theory. It has been argued that Grounded Theory is especially useful when investigating a relatively
new concept such as gamification. The purpose of our research is to describe and theoretically explain
the topic at hand by investigating a set of related concepts and categories in a qualitative manner
(Corbin & Strauss, 1990). The Grounded Theory can be applied to different forms of qualitative
methods. In this research, 5 semi-structured interviews with experts were performed to provide an
accurate answer to the previously proposed research questions.
The Grounded Theory proposes two key principles that guide the data collection and analysis. First, it
argues that all social phenomena are continuously changing. This point of view is reflected in the
research methods in which changing processes can directly influence the collected data. Secondly, it
argues that the choices people make are neither strictly deterministic nor nondeterministic. This implies
that people are able to make choices based on their perceptions. To summarize these principles, the
Grounded Theory proposes an interactionist perspective in which actors respond to a changing
environment and the consequences of their actions (Corbin & Strauss, 1990).
As mentioned before, the interactionist perspective is reflected in the procedures for the qualitative
data collection and data analysis. First, the phase of data collection is interrelated to the data analysis.
This means that early analysis of data can guide the selection of future data collection. In this research,
concepts or information gained in early interviews with experts could be used to gain more specific
information from the following interviews with experts. In general, it allows a more natural way of
gaining in-depth knowledge or information on gamification. In addition, this procedure allows us to deal
with new and salient information and allows for the important information of experts to be used as soon
21
as it is perceived. The second guideline of the Grounded Theory concerns the major units of analysis:
concepts on gamification. According to Corbin and Strauss (1990), the combination of incidents, events
and activities that were mentioned by experts could be labeled as different concepts. These concepts
on gamification gain importance in this research when different experts state their importance. In a third
phase, these concepts can be grouped in more abstract categories. These categories can finally lead
to the development of a theory or theoretical substantiated argument on gamification.
2.2 Data collection: semi-structured expert interviews
2.2.1 Qualitative data
This research uses semi-structured expert interviews as the main source of qualitative data.
Researchers have reported advantages related to both semi-structured interviews and expert
interviews (Bogner, Menz, & Littig, 2009). First, a semi-structured interview allows experts to propose
and discuss new concepts (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). This is vital in light of the Grounded
Theory approach: researchers learn and develop concepts and categories based on (new) arguments
of practitioners and experts. Secondly, semi-structured interviews offer the researchers a framework for
the interviews at hand. This is important because of the comparability and reliability between different
researchers.
2.2.2 Sample of experts
Selecting the right experts is vital in the Grounded Theory approach as they are valuable qualitative
sources that possess privileged knowledge and information on gamification. The content and meaning
of the term “expert” has been discussed by many researchers (Dexter, 1970; Meuser & Nagel, 1991).
This research defines “experts” in line with Meuser and Nagel (1991): “an individual who engages in
the development or implementation regarding to a specific topic”. It has been argued that expert
knowledge consists of three dimensions (Meuser & Nagel, 1991). First, technical knowledge refers to
specific and detailed information on a specific topic. In our research, the first dimension refers to
experts with profound theoretical knowledge on gamification. The second dimension consists of the in-
depth awareness of routines or “process knowledge” that an expert is involved in. To this dimension
belong experts who have implemented or used gamification in organizations. Lastly, explanatory
knowledge consists of the understandings of rules and beliefs. Most of the experts in this research
belong to more than one of the dimensions of expert knowledge.
One of the most important criteria for selecting experts was that he or she had a clear connection with
internal gamification. This means that the expert was either involved in the design, implementation or
controlling phase of a gamified application in an organization or that the expert had an in depth
22
knowledge of internal gamification. All participants were found on the Internet based on the relevance
of their professional work and were contacted by mail. Table 2 offers an overview and description of
the selected experts in this research.
Table 2: Description of the selected experts (Linkedin)
EXPERT FUNCTION EXPERTISE ON GAMIFICATION DIMENSION OF EXPERT KNOWLEDGE
Mario Herger
CEO at Enterprise Garage Consultancy
Wrote two books on gamification: "Enterprise Gamification - Engaging people by letting them have fun". His second book, "Gamification at Work - Designing Engaging Business Software", is the first book about gamification in enterprises.
Technical and process knowledge
Maarten Molenaar
Senior Game Designer at Frisse Blikken/Conference Speaker
At Frisseblikken, Maarten is a game designer who comes up with game-based solutions for organizations with modern challenges. He beliefs that the power of gamification can be used to support employees in their jobs, create change within organizations, engage customers with your company or can be a proper tool in any other situation in which engagement or behavior change plays a role. In a previous job, Maarten was lead gamification & service designer at Rabobank Netherlands.
Technical and process knowledge
Esther Oostroom
Manager Work and Media at Aegon Nederland
In 2014 Esther wrote a thesis on gamification: 'Gamification: the engagement game'. With this thesis she won the Andreas Award for Innovation in Corporate Communication. In addition, she developed and introduced Speeljetoekomst.nu in 2012. This digital platform used Gamification in order to motivate people to learn about their financial futures. In 2013 this online platform was rewarded with two Red Dot awards: Best of Best in interaction design and the Grand Prix in communication design.
Technical and process knowledge
Jeroen Van Eeghem
Operation Manager at Vision Deloitte
Jeroen develops and implements gamification applications in different organizations with a main focus on learning applications.
Process knowledge
Steve Dale Owner/Founder of Collabor8now Ltd
Steve Dale published two articles on gamification: “Gamification: Making work fun, or making fun of work?” and “Gamification: Managing Information”. In addition, He’s working on Knowledge Management and Information Management, but focussed on the relation between people (users), technology and business processes.
Technical and process knowledge
23
2.2.3 Procedure
The semi-structured expert interviews were performed by the three researchers. All the interviews were
performed on Skype in English or Dutch and were based on a specific list of topics on gamification.
The duration of all interviews was between 35 and 60 minutes. The recordings of each interview were
transcribed literally. All experts allowed us to use the gathered data for our research objectives.
2.3 Data Analysis
In this research, expert interviews were coded in line with the procedures proposed by the Grounded
Theory (Corbin, & Strauss, 1990). Three forms of coding were applied:
1. Open coding
2. Axial coding
3. Selective coding
First, open coding refers to the interpretive and analytic breakdown of received data. Incidents, events
and activities were labeled separately between interviewers and compared. The discussion between
the three interviewers led to the development of conceptual labels. For example, “feedback” and
“organizational culture” were two concepts that could label some incidents, events and activities in the
first interviews. In addition, categories of concepts were developed. For example, “organizational
culture” seemed to belong to the category “context alignment” of gamification applications within
organizations. One of the advantages of the Grounded Theory is that these concepts and categories
become the basis for new and in depth observations in following expert interviews. The phase of open
coding can be perceived as descriptive. It supports the researchers to become more aware of the
different dimensions of the research topic. Another advantage of open coding is that subjective and
bias is limited as the three researchers constantly discussed and compared categories and concepts
(Corbin, & Strauss, 1990).
Secondly, the process of axial coding refers to the process of further developing categories. More
specific, axial coding led, in this research, to hierarchical relationships between groups of concepts.
This enabled the development of five main categories and many subcategories. These categories were
at any moment verified or adapted based on new information or data received through continued
expert interviews.
Finally, selective coding refers to the development of a “core” category that relates to all categories and
subcategories (Corbin, & Strauss, 1990). In addition, relationships between the major categories were
investigated and described.
24
2.4 Comparison between the experts and the current scientific literature
In a next phase, the core categories and concepts mentioned by the experts were compared to the
current scientific literature. Despite the fact that gamification is still trendy and often unknown, the
academic interest keeps growing. However, it could be argued that a large amount of scientific articles
is describing the phenomenon rather than investigating it. The comparison between what experts and
the scientific literature knows on successfully implementing gamification is valuable for both managers
and future scientific research. This method allowed identifying gaps between what sciences know on
gamification and what business practices. Table 3 gives an overview of the concepts that were
mentioned in by the experts in the semi-structured interviews.
25
Table 3: Overview of the main categories and concepts mentioned in the expert interviews
Interviews*
Categories & Concepts 1 2 3 4 5
1. Clear Objective
Realistic
Appropriate
Focus on behavior
Measurable
2. User Centered Approach
Observation of the users
Employee differences
3. Context alignment
Supportive environment
Branch
Corporate culture
4. Evolving design
Iterative process
Long term
5. Intrinsic motivation
Game elements
Extrinsic rewards
Intrinsic rewards * 1= Esther Oostrom 2= Jeroen Van Eeghem 3= Steve Dale 4= Maarten Molenaar 5= Mario Herger
26
3 Results
This section explores the key determinants of a successful gamification design. In this regard,
participants were asked about their experience in designing and implementing gamified systems. The
posed questions gauged the expert’s successes and failures with gamification, as well as the potential
influence of several context variables such as business environment, corporate culture and employee
traits.
Table 4: Clear objectives and associated concepts
Associated concepts Explanation
Realistic Pitfalls: overoptimistic due to novelty; biased
success criteria
Focus on behavior Gamification = solution? Focus on human
(machine) interaction
Measurable Measure target behaviour: source of data;
metrics for success
Every expert stressed the importance of setting clear objectives before starting a gamification project.
Table 4 indicates the related concepts that emerged from the interviews. Two participants emphasized
that these objectives should be realistic and deemed optimism and bias among managers important
reasons for an unsuccessful gamification design (Herger, & Dale, 2016). Another important insight
coming from the interviews was that gamification is no cure-all solution but that it is only suited for
problems that involve behaviour. Hence, the objectives should specifically target those behaviours
that the gamified system intends to modify. Finally, most of the experts considered the measurability of
the objectives a preliminary requirement of a successful gamification design (Herger, Oostrom, &
Molenaar, 2016).
Table 5: User-centered approach and associated concepts
Associated concepts Explanation
Observation of the users Know your players, draw profiles
So how could this simple design of badges lead to an increase in engagement and satisfied
customers? First, call center agents receive recognition for the work they perform. Secondly, the
gamified application and (not) gaining badges offers direct feedback on how the agent performs. For
example, when an agent does not reach the badge “customer relation expert”, he receives feedback on
what behaviors he should perform to reach the batch in a next attempt. Thirdly, the goal setting theory
argues that by setting goals (gaining a specific badge) employees will become more persistent and will
increase their efforts (Latham & Locke, 1991). This increase in effort could directly lead to qualitative
(better call handling) and quantitative (more calls handled) call handling improvements. Fourthly, by
creating a community of people that compete (between teams) and collaborate (in teams) employees
will become intrinsically motivated to gain these badges. In addition, best performers and best
performing teams will influence other agents by having badges.
In order to create an intense experience for the call center, it is vital to frequently adapt the challenges,
and create new badges. Steve Dale argued in our research: “If you keep things exactly the same, it
isn’t a game”. The manager and designer should meet regularly to make sure the application works
optimal. They could look at different items:
1. How is the system of badges/challenges working?
2. What challenges are too difficult?
3. How often are employees looking at the challenges and badges?
In addition, the manager should look carefully for new initiatives to keep the gamified application
meaningful.
Additional reference
Reichheld, F. F., & Sasser, J. (1996). Zero defections: quality come to services, Harvard Bussines
Review 68 (5), 105-111.
62
Case Study by Koen Philippaerts (r0363465)
Case Study 1: Gallup’s work with a leading call centre in the US, employing 8,500 operators and
serving one million customers, powerfully demonstrates how customer service ratings influence
customer attrition and how disengaged call centre operators cost organisations millions of dollars. In a
customer engagement partnership with this call centre, customers were asked to rate their
experiences. Where customers rated their experience as “much worse than expected”, this equated to
a loss of 15% of customers – equating to $4,500,000 of business. Gallup then worked out how many
calls the most disengaged customers had to make to resolve their query. Customers who rated the
service as “much worse than expected” had to make three calls to resolve their query, while those who
rated the service as “much better than expected” only made 1.3 calls. The average cost per call was
worked out at $10, which means that a disengaged operator costs the company an additional $17 per
disengaged customer.
How do you as a call centre manager begin to address this shortfall?
The problem described above seems to clearly illustrate the financial consequences of disengaged and
unproductive call center operators. Research by Gallup (2005) revealed that the local manager is the
single most important factor in local group performance. According to Gallup, great managers succeed
in empowering and engaging employees. This in turn could lead to fewer dropped calls, a higher
satisfaction rating among customers and eventually higher profits (Gallup, 2005). Because managers
are deemed crucial in fostering engagement among employees, this case seems well suited for
gamification. In light of the results of the thesis, this paper will try to illustrate how gamification can
provide a possible solution for this particular problem.
First, the managers should clearly and specifically determine the objectives of the gamified system. In
this case, the overall objective consists of decreasing the number of calls each customer needs to
make in order to solve his problem. On one hand, decreasing the number of calls each customer has to
make would result in a higher customer satisfaction, which in turn would elevate the customer retention
rate. On the other hand, decreasing the number of calls would significantly reduce the call center's
costs. Clearly, both consequences would result in higher profits for the company. Keeping in mind that
these objectives should be realistic, the managers should analyze -for example by using statistic
techniques- the potential of gamification in light of the current and forecasted performance of the
company. This should enable him/her to realistically determine the specific percentages by which the
number of customer calls and the customer retention rate is desired to decrease and increase
respectively.
What it comes down to is that the call center operators (the employees) should be motivated to solve
the customer's problems more efficiently so that fewer calls are required. As the case points out, the
63
lack of engagement among the operators seems the main explanation for the current inefficiency. The
objectives of the gamified system should therefore target specific engaging behaviours that will
ultimately result in better overall performance. In this case, a manager could develop a gamification
design that encourages the employees to share their experience with customer's problems as well as
the way in which they have solved these problems. By targeting a specific behaviour such as
'knowledge sharing', the gamification design could create an environment that enables different
operators to learn from each other. In this case, a digital gamification platform seems appropriate to
enhance knowledge sharing among the operators in order to facilitate problem solving and reduce
response times. The gamified platform should be structured in such way that all of the information,
shared by and with the operators, is easily accessible to every operator. This could be achieved by
giving a well-ordered overview of different customer topics, the associated problems and those
operators with experience in solving these problems. In this way, employees can consult appropriate
solutions provided by colleagues in order to solve the customer's problems quicker and more
efficiently.
When determining objectives, the manager should make sure these objectives can be actually
measured. The proposed objective, enhancing knowledge sharing among the call center operators,
can be easily measured and therefore fits this criterion. For each operator every successful solution,
the time it took to solve the problem and the customer's rating can be registered and shared on the
platform. This data, apart from the fact that it enables the operators to consult all of their colleagues'
registered information, also has several clear advantages for the manager who designs the
gamification project. First, this data enables managers to gain insight in problems that seem more
difficult to solve and need to be addressed more thoroughly. In addition, managers have a clear view
on the strengths and weaknesses of the operators, which they can use to deploy the operators more
effectively. Finally, this data provides valuable information on how the operators are interacting with
the gamified system. Managers can use this information to identify possible areas for improvement
and to tweak the gamification platform in order to maximize success.
In other words, the following objective seems to be realistic, measurable and focuses on behavior:
Engage employees to share their knowledge in solving customer related problems trough a digital gamified platform in order to motivate employees, facilitate problem solving (by x percent), elevate
customer retention (by x percent), all of which will ultimately result in higher profits.
Having determined the objective of the gamification project, the manager should then further shape the
gamified platform in alignment with the corporate culture/structure in which it will be implemented as
well as with the individual needs and desires of its future players. To attain a thorough understanding
of these context and individual variables, the manager should schedule a certain period to observe the
operators within the company. This should enable the manager to gain insight in the traits and desires
of the players as well as the existing structure and culture the firm is characterized by. After revealing
64
these differences, the manager can design a gamified system that consists of those game elements
that seem most effective for engaging the identified player types.
With regard to context, a call center seems an appropriate environment to implement a digital gamified
platform. Since every operator already sits behind a computer, it seems safe to assume that the
gamified platform will not interfere with the existing structure or the daily work. With respect to the
individual differences between employees on the other hand, it is fundamental to select the right
combination of game elements in order to motivate operators to stay on task and gain expertise. The
game elements out of which the gamification design consists should create a meaningful, intrinsically
engaging and rewarding experience. Rewards, which are considered one of the most important types
of game elements, should be carefully selected by the manager in order to intrinsically appeal to the
different operators. For the sake of this example, it seems appropriate to discuss a compressive mix of
different types of rewards that each could motivate different types of players.
First the system could give points for each successful telephone call and positive customer rating. A
certain number of points could then be rewarded with a badge that indicates the type of problem or skill
the employee excels in. For example, employees could gain a badge for solving the customer's
queries the fastest or for receiving the most positive ratings. In this respect, the manager should keep
in mind that accumulating points or badges is not presented as the main goal, but instead as a means
to trigger intrinsic rewards, such as autonomy or recognition for their efforts. It could be argued that the
feeling of being recognized as an expert -stimulated by badges for example- in a certain topic or
problem is particularly motivating to Strivers; players who are triggered by achieving a personal best
score. Integrating every operator's achievements into a leaderboard, on the other hand, might be very
motivating to players who are driven by the competitive aspects of the gamified experience (Slayers).
In addition, the fact that each player engages in sharing valuable solutions on the platform, could
engage Socializers; players who value the social and collaborative aspects of the game design.
Finally, by structuring the gamified experience into different levels of varying difficulty, the application
could also appeal to players who value the learning experience and are engaged by progression
(Scholars) (Bartle, 1996).
The above illustrates how certain extrinsic rewards -badges, leaderboards and feedback- in the
gamified application can and should foster intrinsically rewarding experiences. To keep the call
operators intrinsically engaged in the long run, the gamification design should keep evolving on two
levels. First, on the level of the design process, the manager should constantly analyze the data
provided by the interaction of the employees with the platform in order to keep improving the system.
Second, the gamified experience itself should also be evolving in order to keep the operators engaged
and challenged. Useful suggestions with regard to an evolving gamification experience could include
the implementation of different levels that increase in difficulty. For example, an operator could
achieve a badge after receiving five positive customer ratings. The next badge for customer
friendliness, however, should not be given after 10 positive ratings but, for example, after 20 positive
65
ratings. By varying the perceived difficulty of reaching the next level, the manager could prevent the
operators from loosing interest.
All of the above seems to illustrate how a manager can implement a gamified platform that enhances
engagement among call-center operators by creating an intrinsically motivating experience. This
engagement could in turn decrease the number of calls each customer has to make in order to solve
his or her problem, resulting in more satisfied customers and higher profits for the call-center company.
66
Case Study: Sebastian Duyvendak
Gallup’s work with a leading call centre in the US, employing 8,500 operators and serving one
million customers, powerfully demonstrates how customer service ratings influence customer
attrition and how disengaged call centre operators cost organisations millions of dollars. In a
customer engagement partnership with this call centre, customers were asked to rate their
experiences. Where customers rated their experience as “much worse than expected”, this
equated to a loss of 15% of customers – equating to $4,500,000 of business. Gallup then
worked out how many calls the most disengaged customers had to make to resolve their
query. Customers who rated the service as “much worse than expected” had to make three
calls to resolve their query, while those who rated the service as “much better than expected”
only made 1.3 calls. The average cost per call was worked out at $10, which means that a
disengaged operator costs the company an additional $17 per disengaged customer.
You are asked to help the call centre’s manager in addressing this shortfall, what would you
advise?
First of all, the manager should extensively analyse the problem before thinking about a
specific solution. This analysis is very important to identify the underlying causes of the
problem and to develop appropriate solutions accordingly. The main problem here seems to
be the loss of customers as well as increased average costs per call, both due to disengaged
operators. According to theory about the service profit chain, disengaged employees play an
important role in customer satisfaction, influencing business results. In this example,
customers who rated their experience as “much worse than expected” equated to a loss of
15% of customers – equating to $4,500,000 of business. The manager should consider
solutions the appointed problems that are able to effectively deal with motivational and
behavioural problems. Internal gamification presents itself as a suitable solution because of
its potential to enhance employees’ intrinsic motivation by applying game elements and
game-design techniques in non-game contexts.
There are many factors to consider before designing a gamified solution, which require
careful preparation. First of all, the manager needs to think of a solution that will enable him to
positively influence the entire workforce of 8500 operators. One thing that all operators
commonly share is the software platform in which they operate. Therefore, it would be
67
advisable to gamify this platform by applying game elements and game-design techniques.
By targeting this commonly shared software, the manager has found a medium to transfer the
gamified solution to all employees. In addition, each gamified solution should start by
identifying clear objectives that further guide the gamified design. These objectives should be
realistic and measureable in order to evaluate the system. In this case, the manager should
clearly state by how much percentage customer satisfaction should improve, or by how much
percentage the average calls to resolve a query should decrease. Having found the
appropriate medium as well as the objectives that should be accomplished, the manager can
start developing an appropriate gamified system.
Successfully developing internal gamification on a software platform requires the selection of
an effective combination of game elements and game-design techniques that appeal to the
employees’ intrinsic motivation. However, without having extensive knowledge about what
motivates his employees, the manager will not be able to make a proper selection of game
elements. Therefore, it is adamant that the manager invests time and resources in observing
and questioning his employees for him to learn about their motivations. Only by having a
thorough understanding of employees’ primary motivations, suitable incentives can be
implemented that appeal to these motivations. Additionally, annual surveys regarding
employee satisfaction could be consulted as an extra resource. Having 8500 employees
implicates that employees can be motivated by very diverse incentives, meaning that a well-
balanced gamified system is required that appeals to all employees. Therefore, it would be
wise to include different game elements that appeal to all of the three basic intrinsic needs,
i.e. the need for competence, the need for autonomy and the need for relatedness.
The question arises what game elements to choose that can tap into these intrinsic
motivators. First of all, in order to appeal to the need for competence, operators should be
provided with real time feedback about their performance. In this regard, allocating points to
operators per query that they solve is a good start. Furthermore, enabling the customer to
rate the operator can also be used to recognize their performance. This way, operators can
track their performance and might become more motivated to hone their skills. In order to
reduce the average calls per customer to solve their query, additional rewards can be
provided to operators who succeed in resolving a query during the first call. While some
employees might be very motivated by these competence-affirming game elements, others
might be more motivated by their need for relatedness. To address employees who are
incentivised by the latter, the system should provide ways for social interaction such as the
sharing of accomplishments. The fact that all operators commonly participate in one gamified
68
design which attaches meaning to their actions, can further contribute to a sense of
relatedness among employees. To address employees who are primarily motivated by their
need for autonomy, some freedom of choice on preferred topics should be provided.
The game elements that have been selected based on the three intrinsic motivations should
be assessed against the organizational context. The manager should assure that certain
rewards provided in the gamified system do not conflict with existing reward structures in the
company. Furthermore, the system should not disrupt the existing business processes but
rather make those processes more efficient. In this regard, it’s a good idea for rewarding
operators for solving query efficiently. It is adamant for the manager to understand that he
should constantly monitor the system by measuring and interpreting the data. This way much
more information about what specifically motivates different operators can be gathered and
used to improve the system. Furthermore, the design should be evolving in itself as well. This
means that new challenges and rewards should be added as the system matures or as the
operator progresses.
FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICSNaamsetraat 69 bus 3500