discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/279059823
DOWNLOADS
VIEWS
29
67
4 AUTHORS:
Alberto Mora Carreo
Daniel Riera
9 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Joan Arnedo-Moreno
Universidad de La Laguna
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
I.
I NTRODUCTION
design processes. And third, identifying the existing gamification design frameworks and classifying them by their main
features. Our contribution to this analysis is in the assessment
of the shortcomings and the principles that are not being
applied and may lead to failure.
II.
Aesthetics, describing the desirable emotional responses evoked in the player when interacting with
the game system.
III.
L ITERATURE R EVIEW
Approach: applicable to a wide spectrum of environments (generic) or designed for an specific business
context.
B. Results
This subsection summarizes the main properties of current
gamification frameworks according to our literature review.
As follows, the frameworks have been split between two
categories, being sorted by time, background and scope.
Generic frameworks
Di Tomasso (2011) defines a framework for Success [21]
based on the Self-Determination Theory by Ryan and Deci
(2000), known as SDT [22]. From a knowledge of individual
player differences and social influences, he proposes the following steps: discover the reason to gamify (stakeholders and
business objectives), identify players profiles and motivational
drivers, set up goals and objectives, describe skills, track and
measure, define lenses of interest, desired outcomes (thanks
to feedback and establishing the epic win state) and play-test,
and polish.
However, the best-known design framework is presented in
Six Steps to Gamification [23] by Werbach and Hunter (2012)
and commonly known as 6D. This framework starts from a
definition of business objectives and then proceeds to target the
expected behaviours, describes the players, devises the activity
loops without forgetting the fun, and finally, deploys the
gamification system with the appropriate tools. Although not in
a explicit way, takes a slight influence of Hunicke et. als MDA
game design framework. This can be seen in the Pyramid of
Gamification Elements, which proposes the following relevant
elements: mechanics, dynamics and components. It is the basis
for several other gamification design frameworks.
Meanwhile, a simpler framework, called GAME [24], is
proposed by Marczewski in 2012. It is based on two phases.
Firstly, planning and designing, which includes the gathering,
by means of a survey, of key information such as the users
types in the gamification context (Hedax user type, based on
Bartles (2005) [25]). Afterwards, the best solution for goals
and engagement is designed, measuring user activities and
outcomes. He applies an own motivation framework called
RAMP (Relatedness, Autonomy, Mastery, Purpose). The design must be enriched over the time. Updates of this framework
were published in different media afterwards and have been
incorporated to this review after contacting the author.
Moreover, Marache-Francisco and Brangier (2013) define
a Gamification design process [26] based on Human-Computer
Interaction (HCI) principles. They identify several dimensions
outside the gamification components and practices which can
be used to define a clear framework. Three dimensions are
described: sensory-motor dimension, motivation emotion and
commitment, and cognitive dimension of interaction. Based on
these, the design process consists on two major iterative steps:
the context analysis (User-Centered Design) and the iterative
conception of the gamification experience. Moreover, a toolbox
for gamification (named Core Principles) to help designers
Al Marshedi et al.s propose (2015), A Framework for Sustainable Gamification Impact [34]. This approach aims to
increase the sustainability of the desired impact of gamified
applications. It is mainly based on three backgrounds: Csikszentmihalyis Flow Dimension Theory (1990) [35], Pinks
drive motivation elements (2011) [36] and SDT. Furthermore,
it is focused on User-Centred Design (UCD). As the authors
claim, it is a way to integrate purpose, mastery, relatedness
and flow to competence and time; being as a guideline for
designers that want to create relevant experiences that people
will be engaged to in the long-term.
Business-specific frameworks
Purely for a business purpose, J. Kumar (2013) describes
the Player Centered Design Methodology [37] as a practical
guide for user experience designers, product managers and
developers to incorporate the principles of gamification into
their software. This approach is useful for the enterprise context and for specific applicability. The methodology is based
on a Player-Centered Design (2004) [38], a related common
point of view in other frameworks. The process focuses on
good understanding of both the player and the mission. The
following eight steps are described: understanding the player,
understanding the mission, understanding human motivation,
applying game mechanics, setting the game rules, defining
engagement loops, managing-monitoring-measuring and considering legal and ethical issues.
Thus, the Role-Motivation-Interaction Framework of
Gears (2013) [39] is a proposal based on the Constantine and
Lockwood (1999) model and method of usage (software for
use) [40] from UCD. Basic desires described by Reiss (2002)
[41] are applied to the gamified system development process.
This framework is based on a predefined architecture in order
to make the process easier and provide a set of rules that cannot
be broken. The recommended aspects to be considered for the
design process are the description of the goals, objectives,
business rules, behavioural norms, preconditions, actors and
the course of these actions (gameful interactions).
In this regard, a Gamification Framework is proposed
by Jacobs (2013) [42] for implementing enterprise level gamification within an organization. A good knowledge of the
requirements determines the success of the gamification model,
considering gamification as a fluid subject, constantly changing
and evolving. This framework is based on a Goal-Model
Design, distinguishing between short and long term goals.
Several considerations are taken into account: understanding
the goals and impact, defining the goals, considering user
and social media, feed-backing and compilation of data for
analysis, and finally, running the loop engagement.
Additionally, Julius and Salo (2013) propose a concrete
framework for gamification [16] in the business context, focusing exclusively on a marketing environment. The authors
consider an agile design process (which not always must use a
design framework) created from a literature review and tested
with an empirical study. Concretely, it was designed from the
whole of Werbachs proposal, taking into account some of the
special features in the marketing sector. This proposal inserts
an additional third stage, called market research.
On the other hand, Li (2014) proposes the Theoretical
Model for Gamification in Workplace IS context [43]. From
Risk: a probability or threat of damage, injury, liability, loss, or any other negative occurrence.
2) Logic:
Loop: the game mechanics combined with reinforcement and feedback in order to engage the player in
the key system actions.
3) Measurement:
Metrics: the standards of measurement by which efficiency, performance, progress, process or quality.
4) Psychology:
Ethics: a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of
right and wrong conducts.
5) Interaction:
All the items have been analysed and the ten most meaningful of them (in terms of results and heterogeneity) can be
found in Appendix A. From this results, questions Q2 and Q3
can be answered. On the one hand, as previously seen, most
of game design principles and components are being inherited
for the gamification frameworks description. Most of these
items are present in lens of game design proposed by Schell
(2008) [11], which is a world reference about game design
and its components. So, mainly game design items are being
used in the gamification process too. In the other hand, the
way they are being applied is not the same as the game design
environment. A set of new new steps or sequence is needed as
Marczewski previously asserted.
By querying the table, Q3 answer can be inferred for
the reader. Indeed, several aspects or factors are not being
considered or extended by the authors.
IV.
C ONCLUSION
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was partly funded by Ag`encia de Gestio dAjuts
Universitaris i de Recerca (Generalitat de Catalunya) through
the Industrial Doctorate programme 2014-DI-006 and the
Spanish Government through the project TIN2013-45303-P
ICT-FLAG (Enhancing ICT education through Formative
assessment, Learning Analytics and Gamification).
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
Moreover, we also would like to thank all authors referenced who helped us responding our questions during the
literature review.
[27]
[28]
R EFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
I
E
U
I
U
U
I
U
U
U
E
I
I
U
U
E
I
A framework for gamification suited for marketing. Julius and Salo (2013) [16]
Stakeholders
Economic
Loop
Endgame
On-boarding
Logic
Rules
Metrics
Measurement
Ethics
Psychology
UI/UX
Note:
E - Explicit: the item has appeared in the frameworks definition.
I - Implicit: the item has not appeared explicitly in the framework definition. Inferred by the authors or referred inside an academic work of the author.
U - Unavailable: the item has not appeared anyway.
Viability
FEATURES
CATEGORIES
Technology
Interaction