See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/255708104

Process of Gamification. From The Consideration of Gamification To Its Practical

Implementation

Conference Paper · October 2013

CITATIONS READS

62 7,900

2 authors:

Cathie Marache-Francisco Eric Brangier

Amadeus It Group University of Lorraine - Metz
10 PUBLICATIONS 208 CITATIONS 229 PUBLICATIONS 1,781 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Cathie Marache-Francisco on 10 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Process of Gamification
From The Consideration of Gamification To Its Practical Implementation

Cathie Marache-Francisco Eric Brangier

PErSEUs ; SAP France PErSEUs (EA 7312)
Lorraine University ; SAP Université de Lorraine
Metz, France ; Levallois-Perret, France Metz, France
[email protected] [email protected]

Abstract— The trend toward software gamification is toolbox consisting of four elements in section 4. They will
increasingly important. But, it often implies the modification of introduce gamification core-principles, a context analysis
a few simplistic surface elements (colorful aesthetic, guide and user-centered principles (task support, motivation,
personalization, points, badges and leaderboards, etc.) without attractiveness). These principles are illustrated with
actually integrating gamification into the overall design.
definitions, charts and examples. Finally, the authors will
Gamification is often downgraded to interface look and feel
and point systems without questioning design practices. This offer a decision tree to help determine if gamification can
article proposes a design approach focused on gamification. improve a project. They will discuss the quality of this
This user-centered approach aims to identify the factors to be approach by analyzing interface examples that implement
taken into account in gamification design (intention, situation, gamification elements in section 5. In Section 6, the paper is
task, users). The authors introduce a design guide consisting of concluded and future work is described.
a design process and a toolbox. It aims at facilitating effective
gamification design by providing the means to overcome the II. KEYS CONCEPTS RELATED TO GAMIFICATION
difficulties encountered with interaction design process. The notion of the gamification loop developed by Liu et
al. [8] introduces a design process that consists of a
Keywords— Gamification; design process; user-centred design
challenge with winning conditions, a point system, a leader
I. INTRODUCTION board and rewards linked to sub-goal achievements (badges).
The authors also mention the modification of the user’s
The human-technology relationship has evolved social and network status as well as the need for a “game-
dramatically in the last 50 years, as the designers develop like” interface.
systems that are not only usable, but also persuasive and Several authors have emphasized the importance of going
funny. Recently, the term gamification appeared, defined by further than this kind of gamification design. For example,
Deterding et al. [1] as “An informal umbrella term for the Kim [3] explains gamification from a social game designer
use of video game elements in nongaming systems to point of view. She states that adding points, badges and
improve User Experience (UX) and user engagement” (p.2). leader boards is not enough to create a game-like experience
Gamification aims at improving the technology use by because they are only feedback elements. Game design is
applying in non-gaming or professional contexts video game about relying on intrinsic motivation through autonomy,
techniques. Very often, these techniques are based on the mastery and purpose. She insists that we need to understand
concepts of motivation, enjoyment, engagement, the social style of the users and their level of expertise, as
commitment, attractiveness, emotion, etc., which, once well design an engagement loop. She concludes that game
implemented, are expected to improve user and business elements are to be used according to specific user profiles.
performance (e.g., Zichermann and Cunningham [2]; Kim Three more articles can be mentioned for their interesting
[3]). According to Nicholson [4], meaningful gamification contribution to the gamification design definition. Werback
“is the integration of user-centered game design elements and Hunter [6] introduce gamification concepts and provide
into non-game contexts”. a list of gamification elements (dynamics, mechanics and
However, the concepts used are rather vague and components). Gamification design is separated into six steps:
unorganized. Indeed, at the beginning, gamification was “Define business objectives; Delineate target behaviors;
mostly communicated through what Robert called Describe your players; Devise activity cycles; Don’t forget
slideshareatture (live presentation or downloadable slides the fun!; Deploy the appropriate tools”.
[5]). Those practices are evolving (e.g., Werback and Kumar and Herger [7] call gamification design a "Player
Hunter [6]; Kumar and Herger [7]) and, following that Centered Design" that involves five steps: “Know your
trend, the objective of this paper is to brainstorm, rationalize player; Identify the mission; Understand human motivation;
and define a general process for gamification design. Apply mechanics; Manage, monitor and measure”. They
After defining gamification in section 2, the authors will define a template Persona, and game mechanics to be used.
present the gamification process in section 3 followed by a
They also insist on the need for ethical and legal design. For example, observations, interviews,
considerations. questionnaires, diaries, focus groups or personas. The
Finally, Robinson and Bellotti [9] offer a taxonomy creation of gamified interfaces should be based on solidly
defining the gamification elements to be used depending on established, real data, which can be collected directly from
the level of anticipated user commitment. users, or through indirect sources.
As mentioned before, gamification being a quite recent
trend, we have tried to analyze it and contribute to the C. Second step : Iterative Conception
gamification field by developing a design process which can The second phase is about the choice of the gamification
be easily applied by designers, and guide the selection of experience to design for. We select first the elements using
elements based on the context of use of their system. the conception grid (IV – C) and the decision tree (IV – D)
and then plan the evolution of the interaction. Again, the
III. DESIGN PROCESS FOR GAMIFICATION gamification core principles (IV – A) provide additional
elements to consider.
A. Method
Once this is defined, an iterative conception phase takes
This process has been designed based on two studies led place. The concepts are materialized through mockups or
by in Marache-Francisco and Brangier [10, 11]. It comprises prototypes, and tested on representative users until the
an extensive literature review, which aimed at describing system proves to be efficient.
gamification [10], as well as an experiment led on 10
designers [11]; the goal was to identify the dimensions IV. TOOLS BOXES FOR GAMIFICATION: INFORMATION TO
through which gamification design was perceived. BE INTEGRATED INTO THE GAMIFICATION DESIGN PROCESS
Based on this previous work, we have defined the
gamification design process as consisting of two major steps A. Gamification core principles
(Figure 1): context analysis and iterative conception. We The first design tool – the gamification core principles –
have also built several tools to guide the designers through regulates the conception process. It comprises six principles:
gamification processes. We will describe our process and • Freedom of choice (Marache-Francisco and Brangier
relate it to the literature which has led us to that design. [11]): giving the user the freedom to exercise the user’s
own will, for example being allowed to disable
B. First step : Context Analysis functionalities, or to opt out of the gamified system;
One concern is that gamification cannot be efficient if it • Benefits and meaningfulness (Deterding [13]): The
is not designed based on a good understanding of the users gamification influences must be relevant both to the
and the context of use, as Nicholson [4] pointed out. A owners of the system, who expect positive consequences,
context analysis is thus a prerequisite; intentions must be and to the end users themselves. Otherwise, non-
analyzed and considered in the context of the situation, the meaningful elements will either have a bad influence on
task, as well as the user(s) profile(s). The toolbox provides a the perception of the system by the end users or be
context analysis guide to help the designer during that phase ignored by them;
(IV – B). It also provides gamification core principles (IV – • Personalized experience (Nicholson [4]): Different user
A), which are to be considered during all the design phases. profiles can lead to several different designs. This is
The User Centered Design Field comprises several where the added value of gamification comes from,
methods, as described in the ISO/TR 16982 [12], which can through tailored triggers;
be interesting to apply during that first phase of gamification

Figure 1: Gamification process principles.

• Long-term interaction (Kim [3]): Designing with the • Task support: adapting the interaction to a given user
evolution of the interaction in mind, especially with game-like targeted communication (Järvinen [17)]
concerning the motivational elements; in order to increase his knowledge and abilities;
• Unwanted secondary effects anticipation: Unwanted • Motivation: motivating the user through emotional and
effects can include stress induced by pressures from persuasive elements (accomplishment with self and social
efficiency requirements (Apter [14]), loss of the feeling challenges and relevant feedbacks; self-expression and
of privacy and credibility, gaming the rules of the system, relationships mechanisms);
or focus on quantity over quality to obtain some reward • Attractiveness: elements designed to generate positive
(Montola et al. [15]); emotions with an immersive universe, appealing
• Legal and ethical matters (Werbach and Hunter [6]; interactions and the use of surprise (e.g., Hohl et al. [18]).
Kumar and Herger [7]): They take into account the Below is an inventory of the main elements which can be
existing legal context, for example, data and privacy, and integrated into the gamification proposal. Two display
the interest of the end users. modes are created for this tool: cards summarizing the
elements by category (Figure 2) and tables which describe
B. Context Analysis Guide each element and its use (Table 1). We have tried to be as
The second tool indicates factors, which have an impact comprehensive as possible when identifying the gamification
on the perception and the efficacy of the gamification elements, using the literature mentioned before as well as
elements. The guide advises on data collection and analysis. Antin and Churchill [19], the game mechanics playdeck by
• Intent: (1) Goal (task or motivation-centered); (2) Schonfeld [20] and Graf et al. [21].
concrete actions targeted. Note: The initial intent evolves
based on new parameters arising from the analysis; TABLE 1. CONCEPTION GRID: EXAMPLES OF DESCRIPTIONS
• Situation: (1) Context (for example, work or leisure); (2) Element Description
Means Rhetoric Definition: Providing information about how to reach
Social Environment; (3) Motivators and Pain points; a goal. Example: Tips provided during splash screen
• Task: (1) Goal; (2) Structure; (3) Other actors involved; Definition: Allowing the user to express his
• User(s): (1) Characteristics (for example: gender, age); Creating /
Personalizing
individuality. Example: giving to option to personalize
(2) Personality; (3) Culture (e.g., Khaled [16] one’s avatar
investigated the differences between individualism vs Definition: Elements to communicate and interact with
the user. Units (Fox [22]): sound effects, music,
collectivism); (4) Experience / Competency / verbalization, vibration, shaking, animating the body,
Knowledge; (5) Motivators or Pain points. colors, images, metaphors, 2D/3D, effects
(e.g.,comics, round shapes), minimalistic interface,
C. Conception Grid typography, animation through coding or movement.
The conception grid consists of three categories of Composites (Dyck et al. [23]): Heads-Up display (data
gamification design elements: task support, motivation and Sensory-Motor displayed on the screen to avoid having the user to
(Marache- look away from his focus of attention), Attention
attractiveness. Francisco and aware interface (elements changing their appearance
This has been defined based on a comprehensive Brangier [10]) depending on their relevancy for the user at a given
literature review [10] combined with an experiment we have moment), Context aware view behavior (dynamic
led on gamification perception by designers [11]. Indeed, the adaptation of the screen with pan and zoom to display
first classification has been refined based on a better a relevant interface), Calm messaging (delivering
information on a non-intrusive way without needing an
understanding on how to teach gamification to fit at best
explicit user action), Atmosphere / theme. Example:
designers’ perception of it. communicating an alert on a battlefield with sound and
It is, thus, defined as follow: visual effects to attract the user attention

Figure 2: Gamification elements cards

D. Decision tree : When and how is gamification an asset ? Concerning Attractiveness, efficiency should be
The last tool, i.e., the decision tree, consists of questions considered. Depending on the context or user profile, we
which guide the selection of the gamification elements. It should avoid – or give the possibility to turn off – elements
offers recommendations of conception choices. which are not relevant to the task or are out of phase with the
First, the decision tree covers the choice of gamification system (e.g., narration interfering with the evolution as
elements categories to consider based on the design intent. mentioned by Langer et al. [25], Easter egg). According to
The context analysis will influence this phase (Figure 3). The Bowser et al. [26], experts prefer a direct interface, while
social engagement loop described by Kim [3] is a good casual users appreciate badges and achievements.
example of a personalized experience definition (a Concerning the Universe sub-dimension of
gamification core principle), i.e., that the intent depends on Attractiveness, the metaphor and its scope (punctual or wide-
the user profile. The novice users have to learn about the spread) should be chosen depending on the population and
system (knowledge, competency), the regular users need new the context (e.g., avoiding a childish look and feel for adults
things to do to keep using the system (engagement), while systems). Finally, randomness should be used with caution
the enthusiasts need recognition elements, such as exclusive as it can demotivate the end users.
features, to keep being interested (engagement).
Second, the decision tree helps to analyze the task and
suggests gamification elements based on its structure, the use
and the importance of efficiency within the task’s context
(Figure 4). The elements will be communicated with the
Communication and Universe (sensory-motor) categories.
Third, the tree analyzes the motivation category of
gamification elements. It first questions the motivators which
will be meaningful for the end users and induce certain
elements over others (Figure 5). Those categories can be
combined if relevant.
Figures 6 and 7 offer other parameters which help
deciding whether to use social elements or not, and which
accomplishment elements are relevant.
According to Denny [24], the badges effect might only
be observed if the behavior suggested is valuable for the end
user. Regarding Accomplishment elements, leaderboards are
to be designed with care to avoid demotivating. The end
users should be compared with meaningful people and they
should not be placed at the bottom of a ranking, but instead
between other users (Zichermann and Cunningham [2]).
The motivation elements should be displayed and
supported with task support elements and a relevant
communication with the Communication and Universe Figure 4: Decision Tree: the task
(sensory-motor) categories of gamification element.

Figure 5: Decision tree: motivators

Figure 3: Decision tree: the intent

 A community system has been designed by Cheng and
Vassileva [29], which aims at connecting students online so
that they can share documents and insight about their classes.
The reward system is interesting, as it is dynamically
designed to shape the users’ behaviors. Their goal was,
firstly, to motivate them to share information, and, secondly,
to motivate them to rate those first elements to limit
information overload. Thus, more points are rewarded for
sharing at the beginning of the session, while the comments
lead to more points after a while.
The WantEat mobile phone application developed by
Rapp et al. [30] aimed at motivating people to make the most
of a Cheese trade fair. It consisted of missions such as tasting
and commenting on cheeses, points, leaderboards and a gift
(t-shirt). It is interesting to note that people liked the personal
expression part (comments), but were not interested in the
other users’ comments. We can infer that the social
community aspect of that system was not meaningful to
Figure 6: Decision tree: social elements them, as it consisted of strangers not related to them.
Finally, LinkedIn [31] as another example is described
through the gamification elements categories defined in this
document:
• Task support: goal information, call-to-action, global
task divided into sub-tasks displayed in an attractive list
whose evolution is visually displayed;
• Motivation: expression and relevance through a public
profile, the use of a meaningful social community, a
document sharing system, the possibility to join groups,
comments and voting;
• Attractiveness: the sensory-motor elements are used as
the indicators, dialogues are visuals, and there are
attractive metaphors, vocabulary, and colors.
Besides, the users are free to dismiss suggested tasks and
the elements are relevant depending on the goals of the users.
Figure 7: Decision tree: accomplishment elements
VI. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
Finally, it is important that the core principles of
gamification are paralleled with the use of the decision tree, As seen previously, creating gamified interactions is a
for example: particular design work that requires considering
recommendations to produce relevant categorizations which
• Is it meaningful for the end-user?
offer effective interaction design. An effective gamification
• Which secondary-effects can be triggered? process can:
• How to prevent it? • Guide design and decisions;
• Could it lead to ethical or legal issues? • Provide a common representation within a collaborative
project;
V. EXAMPLES OF GAMIFIED SYSTEMS
• Keep designers focused on key-elements;
The following use cases illustrate the impact of context • Establish functions, needs, desires and goals priorities;
on the selection of gamification design elements. It • Focus designers in a single direction and on the aims that
highlights the need and relevancy of a guiding process. are to be achieved;
Healthy behaviors are promoted differently in Fitocracy • Provide simplified, effective and useful descriptions to
[27] and Blues Buddies (Rao [28]) because of their context help understand complex gaming situations;
of use. Fitoracy aims at motivating people to exercise. They • Indicate through guide cards the problems related to
can monitor their progress, be rewarded, share information unclear a gamification proposal;
and tips, be part of relevant groups, and challenge each other. • Highlight specific characteristics of interactions.
Blues Buddies game uses very different game elements as Our gamification process promotes user-centered design,
the end-users are depressed people who cannot be motivated providing the means to overcome the difficulties encountered
through competition and comparison for obvious with interaction design process.
psychological reasons. Social relationships and attractiveness The controversial aspect of the gamification method and
are thus used differently. tools comes from the fact that scientific studies are rare and
experimentation is often impossible. We need more studies
 to understand better how gamification can be successfully experience in a photo sharing service,” Proceedings of the 13th
applied and to refine our process (e.g., adding factors on the International MindTrek Conference: Everyday Life in the Ubiquitous
Era on - MindTrek '09, 2009, pp. 94-97.
decision tree). We also plan to test this process on a case
[16] R. Khaled, “It’s not just whether you win or lose: thoughts on
study in order to demonstrate its usefulness. Gamification and culture,” Proceedings of CHI 2011 Workshop
Gamification: Using Game Design Elements in Non-Game Contexts,
ACKNOWLEDGMENT May 2011, pp. 64-67.
The authors would like to thank SAP and especially Steve [17] A. Järvinen, “Games without frontiers. Theories ans methods for
KOPP, Christophe FAVART and Chahab NASTAR, Ph.D. game studies and design”, Doctoral dissertation, Finland: University
of Tampere, 2008. Retrieved April 2, 2012 from
http://ocw.metu.edu.tr/pluginfile.php/4468/mod_resource/content/0/c
REFERENCES eit706/week3_new/AkiJarvinen_Dissertation.pdf.
[1] S. Deterding, M. Sicart, L. Nacke, K. O’Hara and D. Dixon, [18] H. Hohl, K. Wissmann, and M. Burger, “The joy of telephony:
“Gamification: Using Game Design Elements in Non-Gaming designing appealing interactions” in Funology: From Usability to
Contexts,” Proceedings of CHI 2011 Workshop Gamification: Using Enjoyment, M. A. Blythe, K. Overbeeke, A. F. Monk, and P. C.
Game Design Elements in Non-Game Contexts, May 2011, pp. 2-5. Wright, Eds. Norwell, MA, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers,
[2] G. Zichermann and C. Cunningham, Gamification by Design: 2005, pp. 205-211.
Implementing Game Mechanics in Web and Mobile Apps. [19] J. Antin and E.F. Churchill, “Badges in Social Media: A Social
Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media, Inc., 2011. Psychological Perspective,” Proceedings of CHI 2011 Workshop
[3] A.J. Kim, “Smart Gamification: Seven Core Concepts for Creating Gamification: Using Game Design Elements in Non-Game Contexts,
Compelling Experiences”, 2011. Retrieved February 2, 2012 from May 2011, pp. 10-13.
http://casualconnect.org/lectures/business/smart-Gamification-seven- [20] E. Schonfeld, “SCVNGR's Secret Game Mechanics Playdeck”, 2010.
core-concepts-for-creating-compelling-experiences-amy-jo-kim. Retreived May, 2 2013 from
[4] S. Nicholson, “A User-Centered Theoretical Framework for http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/25/scvngr-game-mechanics/.
Meaningful Gamification”, Proceedings of Games+Learning+Society [21] C. Graf, S. Niebuhr, and K. Kohler, “Enhancing Business Software
8.0, June 2012, pp. 223-229. through Fun-of-Use: A Pattern-based Approach” in Emotion in HCI:
[5] T. Robert, “Gamification: la slideshareatture”, 2011. Retreived Joint Proceedings of the 2005, 2006, and 2007 International
February 2, 2012 from: http://www.ludicite.ca/2011/10/ Workshops, C. Peter, R. Beale, E. Crane, L. Axelrod, and G. Blyth,
Gamification-la-slideshareatture. Eds. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, 2008, pp. 101-109.
[6] K. Werbach and D. Hunter, For the Win. How game thinking can [22] B. Fox, Game Interface Design. Boston: Thomson Course
revolutionize your business. Philadelphia, PA: Wharton Digital Press, Technology PTR, 2005.
2012. [23] J. Dyck, D. Pinelle, B. Brown, and C. Gutwin, “Learning from
[7] J.M. Kumar and Herger, M., Gamification at Work: Designing Games: HCI Design Innovations in Entertainment Software,”
Engaging Business Software. Aarhus, Denmark: The Interaction Proceedings of Graphics Interface, Feb 2003, pp. 237-246.
Design Foundation, 2013. Retrieved June, 15, 2013 from [24] P. Denny, “The effect of virtual achievements on student
http://www.interaction-design.org/books/Gamification_at_work.html. engagement”, CHI '13 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
[8] Y. Liu, T. Alexandrova, and T. Nakajima, “Gamifying intelligent Human Factors in Computing Systems, April 2013, pp. 763-772.
environments,” Proceedings of the 2011 international ACM workshop [25] R. Langer, M. Hancock, A.H. West, and N. Randall, “Applications as
on Ubiquitous meta user interfaces, Ubi-MUI '11, December 2011, Stories,” Proceedings of CHI 2013 Workshop Designing
pp. 7-12. Gamification: Creating Gameful and Playful Experiences, April 2013,
[9] D. Robinson and V. Bellotti, “A Preliminary Taxonomy of pp. 36-39.
Gamification Elements for Varying Anticipated Commitment,” [26] A. Bowser, D. Hansen, and J. Preece, “Gamifying Citizen Science:
Proceedings of CHI 2013 Workshop Designing Gamification: Lessons and Future Directions,” Proceedings of CHI 2013 Workshop
Creating Gameful and Playful Experiences, April 2013, pp. 69-74. Designing Gamification: Creating Gameful and Playful Experiences,
[10] C. Marache-Francisco and E. Brangier, “The Gamification April 2013, pp. 5-8.
Experience - UXD with a Gamification background” in Emerging [27] https://www.fitocracy.com/ 14.08.2013.
Research and Trends in Interactivity and the Human-Computer
[28] V. Rao, “Challenges of Implementing Gamification for Behavior
Interface, K. Blashki and P. Isaias, Eds. IGI-Global, in press.
Change: Lessons Learned from the Design of Blues Buddies,”
[11] C. Marache-Francisco and E. Brangier, “Perception of Gamification: Proceedings of CHI 2013 Workshop Designing Gamification:
between Graphical Design and Persuasive Design,” Proceedings of Creating Gameful and Playful Experiences, April 2013, pp. 61-64.
DUXU/HCII 2013, Part II, LNCS 8013, July 2013, pp. 558–567.
[29] R. Cheng and J. Vassileva, “Adaptive Reward Mechanism for
[12] ISO/TR 16982, Ergonomics of human-system interaction -- Usability Sustainable Online Learning Community” in Proceedings of the 2005
methods supporting human-centred design, 2002. conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: Supporting
[13] S. Deterding, “Meaningful Play. Getting Gamification right”, Learning through Intelligent and Socially Informed Technology, C.-
Mountain View, CA, USA: Google Tech Talk, 2011. Retreived June K. Gord McCalla, B. Bredeweg, and J. Breuker, Eds. Amsterdam,
15, 2013 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZGCPap7GkY. The Netherlands, The Netherlands: IOS Press, 2005, pp. 152-159.
[14] M.J. Apter, “A Structural-Phenomenology of Play”, in Adult Play. A [30] A. Rapp, A. Marcengo, R. Simeoni, and L. Console, “Playing while
Reversal Theory Approach, H.Kerr and M.J. Apter, Eds. Amsterdam: Testing: How to Gamify a User Field Evaluation,” Proceedings of
Swets & Zeitlinger, 1991, pp. 13-22. CHI 2013 Workshop Designing Gamification: Creating Gameful and
[15] M. Montola, T. Nummenmaa, A Lucero, M. Boberg, and H. Playful Experiences, April 2013, pp. 65-68.
Korhonen, H., “Applying game achievement systems to enhance user [31] http://www.linkedin.com/ 09.12.2011.

View publication stats