What is Gamification, Really?

Great post. Defining gamification is tricky since the term itself carries a bit of baggage. But, I think what you've described is very similar to my own opinions.

I think where we're going to see the biggest influence with gamification is in the workplace. Just as you said, incentive systems are not new but are now able to leverage technology to make them more realtime and dynamic.

In fact, Salesforce.com is announcing the winner of their AppQuest 2011 contest today at Dreamforce and there are two gamificaton platforms as finalist. IActionable has created Engage to bring gamification to workplace as a fully customizable turn key app.

Check out the entry video here: http://iactionable.com/salesforce

Hello Jason,

Thank you for the comment.

Defining gamification is probably going to be an on-going effort. As applications of gamification change, more collaboration with the gaming industry is bound to create something new in the future. I simply wanted to clarify some of the confusion out there now.

Gamification can definitely have a lot of influence at work place. But I think it has even greater potential beyond work in education, health/fitness, social goodwill, volunteerism, government, political process, and civic engagement. These are all topics we discussed. And I will share some of the highlights with you in later posts.

Dreamforce is happening now. So good luck.

Thanks again for the comment and see you next time.

Hi Michael,

After thinking it over, I've determined which part of broadening the definition to include game like attributes it is that doesn't sit well with me. Primarily it comes back to story/narrative. Games hardly have a corner on the market when it comes to narrative. Not only do digital games borrow various forms of narrative from other media, but if anything there are relatively few games that benefit from a well written and well executed designer narrative. In fact, one of the mistakes of bad edutainment development was the assumption that wrapping dull content in a kid friendly video game like narrative would somehow work to create a more effective learning experience. Those efforts also missed the fact that narrative doesn't sit at the core of most game development. 

As we see people trying to figure out what it is about games that works and port those things into non-game experiences, I think it's probably beneficial to keep a keen eye out for those things that are native to games and those things that are present in games but not unique to them. There are surely storytelling practices that can support a lot of other non-game activities, but we don't necessarily want to pull from the traditions of narrative building tied to games as we look for models that support the use of story in other settings.

The other side of this is of course the loyalty programs issue. While these systems can be gamified, they are not gamification. As has been discussed in a number of places they predate it. Hence, calling a simple rewards program gamification is either opportunistic marketing or simply a misunderstanding.

If there is in fact something unique about gamification (and I think that we generally agree that there is), it can only help gamification efforts to set it apart from other tools by focusing gamification processes on the attributes that are most unique to games (analog or digital). That doesn't mean we shouldn't stay aware of where gamification can intersect with other efforts we're bringing to bear in improving the user experience (like the overlay of a narrative), but rather when we talk about gamification I think it's worth focusing on the core aspects that are truly tied to games.

Hello Moses,

Nice to see you here. And thank you for the elaborate comment.

I totally agree that narrative and story are not native to games, and it is not core to the game development. In fact, it pretty much develop in parallel with games throughout human history. Humans play games since they were cavemen, and they also huddle around a fire and tell stories.

However, I think narrative/story can make the game/gamification more appealing and relevant to a particular individual. If someone can relate to the story, it make the game much more meaningful. We can certainly make a game that help people recycle, but if the narratives can give purpose and meaning to why they are doing what they do, whether it is to save the polar bear or save our future. Moreover, if the story is able to capture the attention of the players, the game can be much more engaging. Because the players invested emotionally into the game, and they want the rest of the story (e.g. Clippy in Ribbon Hero 2 by Microsoft).

Since the narrative is not essential to the game/gamification, we can actually leverage this fact by having the same game but use different narratives to relate to different players personas.

And yes, pure reward systems and loyalty programs should not be confused with gamification. In my simple diagram, there should probably be an encompassing circle for strategies that’s designed for behavior modification but does not use game attributes. I think these are outside of the gamification circle, but inside the persuasive design/behavior modification circle.

Ultimately, terminology and what we call thing will probably change over time. But to make communication efficient it does help to put down some definition.

Thank you for the conversation. I think this is definitely helpful to move us to a better understanding of what kind of game attributes are truly tie to games. I hope to see you next time.

That's a great point about the parallel development of games and story telling. It's also a good reminder that when we think about games and gamification, there is a deep history to draw from that predates digital games.

On the implementation side, one way to think about it as a gamification designer might be the primary set of tools (e.g. core game mechanics, player objectives, end states, etc.) and then secondary game related elements that latch into your system. As with your example around narrative, secondary gamification design tools might provide opportunities to customize the play experience, or they might be approaches for creating tight coupling between other aspects of the system you're tweaking and the game layer (e.g. the reward system is meaningful in relation to the game layer).

While this more nuanced approach might be less essential in explaining the work to a client (or potentially confusing depending on their background), it offers the designer a mechanism for focusing on the roles of different types of game and game related attributes in their design effort.

Hello Moses,

Thank you again for coming back and furthered the conversation.

That is an excellent framework!

1. Use primary game attributes to design the core gamification
2. Then use secondary game related attributes for customization of play experience and create coupling between other systems.

I totally agree that this might not need to be client facing information, but I do think it will definitely help designers concentrate their efforts in the right place. I’m very much into the over-arching frameworks as it gives us a holistic understanding and a way to attack the problem without worrying about the implementation details.

Thanks again for point this out. It will definitely benefit the game/gamification designers out there.

Talk to you soon.

I’m reading a fascinating book called “Reality is broken“, by Jane McGonigal and the parallels between gaming and business are far reaching. It’s more than just rewarding points and badges, it’s involvement and direct social connectivity (and what is later coined as ‘ambient sociability’ by Jane), continuous feedback and appraisal. It’s making sure that what we do in business has a clear objective and steps to reach that goal. That the intrinsic satisfaction of completing a set of tasks (or process steps) to achieve the (customer based) outcome has far greater power than just the (not so) almighty dollar.

I would say read the first six chapters and understand the concepts within, then look at how your Social BPM stacks up against it. One of the more interesting topics (technically) touched on is ‘Phasing’ which happens in WoW, where each player is shown a different view of the world depending on their own accomplishments. Perhaps this is something that could/ should translate into business context a lot more, and in Social BPM, visibly seeing the impact of your work and how it affects the organisation around you. And I don’t mean BAM and MI. Please think a little more abstract when you apply social context to these tired concepts.

Do we split Social BPM into Hardcore and Casual streams ?

Casual processes, ones that offer one off hits, quick and dirty customer fulfilment ?
Hardcore processes that take longer and more effort but the rewards are more visible and longer lasting ?

Food for thought if you’re looking to explore gamification beyond just ‘business games for innovation’

http://bpmredux.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/level-up-why-social-bpm-and-the-social-enterprise-should-be-more-like-wow-bpm-socialbpm-gamification/

Hello Theo,

Thank you for the comment.

Yes, I’ve read Jane’s book. Great book indeed, but I didn’t finish all of it yet. Our CEO actually put forth a webcast with Jane McGonigal back in June. The webcast is still accessible on-demand here if you are interested.

Totally agree. If you take a look at the next post (which is just published), points and badges are the most shallow gamification design there is. And people will most likely get tired of them soon. Continuous feedback is great, but it’s efficacy depends on the application. Feedbacks can sometime be interruptive too. The key is to have the right feedback at the right time. But I agree that given today’s BPM, we definitely need more feedback, lots more.

So my question to you is that are you willing to work at a job you love for free? Completely free, even if you know that they are using you and manipulating you, but you are still doing what you love. There is more to it than just intrinsic rewards. Certainly intrinsic rewards are more motivating, but you also need extrinsic reward to reinforce the intrinsic. And there is a notion of fair and justice that has to be enforced too.

It seems that you like reading, so I would also recommend another book on this very subject “Total Engagement.” It is by  Prof. Byron Reeve, a renowned game researcher at Stanford University. It’s probably more academic than it’s necessary compare to “Reality is Broken,” which is more for the general public. But since you are a gamer, I also recommend this post “The Future of Enterprise Software will be Fun and Productive.” Although software doesn’t fix everything, but if the tools are gamified, that is the first step. How you gamify would have to be design by creative designers.

In game design, it is very common to have several currencies and metrics, all going at the same time, at different rate. There are the rapid, immediate, action-based metrics. These are often shown as some kind of progress bar. The information is just there. This type of feedback is passive. If you want it, it’s there, it won’t ping you or pop up something to draw your attention. It is less interruptive (to my point above that feedback that are too frequent can sometimes be interruptive). And there are also those that are achievement, ranks and level up. These are more attention drawing and interruptive, and they have to be carefully planned to ensure smooth UX. I think these different types of metrics can map to the casual process and the hardcore process you mentioned.

Alright, Thank you for the great comment. I look forward to chatting more in the future. See you next time.

Fascinating and thoughtful post Mike. Now, having approached this definition from a top-down Socratic direction, I would like to see an extensive set of examples that fit the definition. For example, I still have some difficulties separating "incentive systems" from Gamification. Would be great to see a robust set of examples, annotated to tell which aspects of Gamification they exploit.

Hello Glenn,

Thank you for stopping by and commenting.

You bring up a good point. Incentive systems and gamifications are not easy to tell apart if you are not a trained professional game designer. The reason is that the two are not mutually exclusive. Some incentives sytems are designed with gaming attributes from the ground up (these are valid gamification), and others are not (these are just plain old incentive systems).

The best way to distinguish a plain old incentive system from Gamification is to ask couple of questions

1. What gaming attributes did it use?

2. What gamer profiles/persona does the incentives target?

3. Does it drive behavior reliably and predictably?

If the answer to all three are yes, then it is likely that it is a gamification. But keep in mind that these are not definitions, so getting 3 yes do not guarantee it is a gamification, and missing some of them does not guarantee them to be a plain old incentive system either. These are merely a set of diagnostic questions. You should always check back with the definition to see if they are indeed gamification or just incentive systems.

I will keep your suggestions in mind. Maybe when I have the bandwidth to write a book, I will include more examples. And of course, I will sure some of them here on my blog too.  ;-)

Thanks again for the comment. I hope this helps for the time being. See you next time.