Gartner

[Updated] What gamification is to me – My definition

by
Gamification definition Updated What gamification is to me 8211 My definition

Updated September 2015!

As you know, over the weekend I picked a fight with Gartner over their redefinition of gamification.http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_burke/2014/04/04/gartner-redefines-gamification/ and https://gamified.uk/2014/04/05/a-response-to-gartners-new-definition-of-gamification/

The conversation turned to a bit of a bun fight, so I have now stepped away a little. However, it got me thinking about my own definition and why I use it and what gamification in general means to me.

 

However, I have decided to change it a little, to give it more scope and with luck make the aims clearer.

“The use of game design metaphors to create more game-like and engaging experiences”

So what does this all mean to me.

 

Game Design Metaphors

Many definitions talk about non game contexts. I talk about metaphors. We use game like interface design in applications that are not games. We use game like narratives, in applications that are not games. We use the game equivalent as a metaphor – we using these things in ways that are not literally applicable as games.

Game-Like

Gamification is a very specific approach that does not actually involve creating games, it is about using ideas from the games, elements and more.

Engaging Experiences

This is the key to gamification, engagement. I define engagement as Active and intrinsically motivated participation. So with gamification we are trying to create experiences that promote this.

 

This is core to my understanding and approach to gamification. It is one tool in a tool-kit designed to solve problems.

Now, I don’t expect anyone to agree with me. My definition is not really different from any other out there, I just like this wording. I find that this way I am not limiting myself to any technology or approach. Bits of paper or digital platforms are all fair game for me.  I am also not interfering with my own ideas on where serious games fit into the equation.

 

I am sure over time, the way I describe gamification to people will change. However, the core aspect will not. It is an approach to problem solving. It is not defined by the platform or the trends that may enable it.

 

A response to Gartner’s new definition of gamification

by

On April the 4th, Brian Burke, via his blog announced that Gartner had changed its definition of gamification. It would be;

“the use of game mechanics and experience design to digitally engage and motivate people to achieve their goals”

http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_burke/2014/04/04/gartner-redefines-gamification/

At first I chuckled. This was very similar to the definition I use in my book;

“the application of gaming metaphors to real life tasks to influence behaviour, improve motivation and enhance engagement.”

However, the smile faded as I reread it. I could forgive the misguided use of the phrase Game Mechanics. I have come to terms with the fact this will always be misused by certain sectors of gamification, but it was the word digital that suddenly struck me and made me read it a third time.

As I read the reasons behind the definition, my heart sank.

First was the game mechanics explanation.

Game mechanics describes the use of elements such as points, badges and leaderboards that are common to many games.

This is a set of examples that most of us in gamification are trying to stop putting in the forefront of people’s minds. Ignoring the fact they are feedback mechanics, not game mechanics, they are the lowest example of gamification implementations.

The next bit that tipped me over the edge was talk of gamification being a way to digitally engage, explaining that gamification is about engaging people with devices such as smart phones – not other people.

This is where it all fell apart for me. When challenge on why he would choose to limit his definition of gamification to just digital, Brian came back with;

The reason we limit gamification to digital is because it answers the question, ‘why is gamification a trend?’ Without including ‘digital’, there’s nothing new about gamification.

This seems to miss the entire point. First, a definition should not be answering a question no one has asked – why something is a trend, it should tell you what it is. Gamification is not a trend, it’s use has begun to trend, but gamification is a tool, a methodology, a set of ideas and ways of thinking that help is to solve various problems. It is not a technology. This definition states that if you use game ideas in a non digital way – it isn’t gamification.

Also, why does gamification have to be new? It isn’t. The use of digital in gamification is new and has accelerated it’s development and made certain applications of it very popular.

It is like saying that games are nothing new and thinking that is a problem. It is like saying that games only become relevant when they went digital.

I feel for Brian. He seems like a great guy and I can’t wait to meet him at GWC. However, he has this out there now and it is in his book and he will have to defend it.

I also feel angry though, as this could set us back a few years in certain circles. The one thing we had pretty much all agreed on is what gamification basically is. Gartner has now stated that gamification is nothing more than technology and without technology, it is nothing.

Whilst we know that is nonsense, the readers of Gartner don’t. They will see this and start asking if gamification is about points and badges – all over again. This definition distils gamification down to everything we have been fighting to put behind us for the last 3 years.

Read Brian’s post. Then read the comments of a few industry voices and experts and see what you think.

First considerations of Gamification

by

On thing I am asked more than any question when it comes to gamification, is how do I get started. What is the first thing I should do.

The answer they are hoping for normally is something like “Download this great framework and slap it on your product – job done”. However, this is never my answer (though at times, if it is suitable for their needs it will be part of the answer… but that’s another story!).

What I actually say is “Decide WHY you need gamification and WHAT you are actually using it for / on”. That should be the first days of discussion. Too many times you see gamification applied just because it can be applied.

Once you have that down, then the rest will start to fall into place. Get an understanding of who will be involved, design your system around those user types and the program goals and you are well on the way to building a good solution.

Take a look at my simple framework to get an idea of what questions to ask yourself as you begin to look at gamifying anything.

What if they don’t want to play?

by

One of the questions I get asked all the time is,

“What if people just don’t want to play your game? How do you engage them?”.

The answer comes in two parts, both as important as each other. One you may not like, but you have to accept it!

The first is, make sure you have designed the system properly.  If you have just added some badges and a leaderboard, then you are going to engage a very small number of people for any length of time. Consider looking at the User Types and design more to support them. People often say that people don’t engage with gamification because gamification is bad. The truth is that many gamification designers are bad – and so they create bad gamification. This is true of any industry and especially new technology, just think how wrong most companies got social media at the beginning!

Now for the more difficult to hear and unpopular bit of this answer. Most gamification only increases engagement by a few percent.  There are lots of examples that quote massive increases – and it is true that this is more than possible. But, generally speaking you will never reach everyone – and that is just fine! There will always be at least 20% of people who just will not engage. They will either be totally apathetic to it, or actually very against it (these ones fall into the disruptors and you need to watch out a little bit with them!).

The point is, that is okay. You can’t make people have fun, engage more or do things they just don’t want to do. Gamification is not magic! What you have to do is design a system that either engages as many people as possible, or that engages the “right” people. By this I mean the ones who will get the most out of your system.  The rest you just have to accept – but not upset. You just can’t force people – as much as you may want too – other wise you will end up having the exact opposite effect on them. If they don’t want to be involved, you have not lost anything – concentrate on the ones who do and hope they can evangelise your system enough to get more of the “non believers” involved.

“Some men you just can’t reach”

(a bonus imaginary point if you can tell me the film where that quote comes from in the comments!)

Money, Motivation and Common Sense

by

Here I am again, considering extrinsic rewards and their effect on motivation.

Recently I was told that it is obvious that if a person is given more money to do their job, that they will do it better and probably enjoy it more. I stopped myself quoting Deci or Pink, I smiled, politely disagreed and went on with my day. However, it got me thinking. Ignoring the research, I was wondering, what does common sense tell us about that statement.

  1. I am unhappy in my job, will I be happier if I am given more money?
    1. If I am unhappy because I am not paid enough, then yes – I will become happier if given more money. This will most likely lead to me being more motivated and engaged.
    2. If I am unhappy for other reasons, then no – more money won’t help!
  2. I am not engaged by the job, will this improve with more money
    1. No. There is obviously something else wrong here. If the role is not engaging me, then you can throw all the money in the world at me, it will not make the role more engaging. It may make me happier in the short term, but long term I will still not be engaged or motivated by the role itself.
  3. I am engaged and happy, will giving me more money make me work harder.
    1. If money is a concern for me, if it is on my mind a lot – then yes, that is quite likely.  This is because it will be one less thing on my mind to distract me from doing my best work.
    2. If money is not a concern for me, then money won’t really have much of an impact!

Very unscientific of course, but it makes sense to me.  Money is part of the most basic needs in a modern world, it is part of survival.  If you don’t have enough of it to cover your needs, it will be a concern for you and will potentially affect the way you are working. However, if you are not engaged in the job, maybe it is a deeper problem, either the job is not right for you or you are not right for the job.

Now then, if something as tangible and essential as money is so unlikely to motivate you, how can traditional Points, Badges and Leaderboard style gamification motivate you?

Try harder, look deeper, consider RAMP, cover basic needs  – then look at how the more “shiny” aspects of gamification can complement this foundation.

Exit mobile version