The Dark HEXAD – Star Wars has inspired a new HEXAD!

Dark hexad The Dark HEXAD 8211 Star Wars has inspired a new HEXAD

I was having a think about the User Type HEXAD and it occurred to me that I have never considered Star Wars and how that might fit the HEXAD! You know, as you do 😀

As I did so, I was reminded of the fact that when I started building the user types, I used to split based on whether they interacted with people or a system AND if they acted on people or the system – I.E. imposed themselves on them rather than working within them.  This got me thinking about light and dark side HEXAD types. If you have seen my DODECAD you will know that there are actually 12 types in my overall taxonomy – but I really like this idea of a Dark HEXAD! Read More ...

The “Is it a now thing, or a later thing?” prioritisation framework – Beat the Post Christmas Slump

Yes no banner The 8220 Is it a now thing or a later thing 8221 prioritisation framework 8211 Beat the Post Christmas Slump

So, Christmas is done and we are now in that no mans land between Christmas and New Year. No one knows what day it is, what they should be doing or what their next meal might consist of – but know that it is in the freezer and is bit sized.

The next week or so can be really hard to stay focused during as you work in a piecemeal fashion and have slightly less direction than usual. So I thought it was time to just share the basic prioritisation framework I use in my head (which I probably stole from somewhere!). At it’s most simple it asks the question

“Is it a now thing, or a later thing?”

There are factors that can affect the priority as well, moving things more to being a now thing or towards being a later thing. 

Here is a simple example of how you could consider this, a decision tree that asks a few questions to decide if it is a Now or Later Thing

This is a massive over simplification, but it serves as a simple example – not many things actually fall into the Later Thing category! However, it is important to go through a process like this to help decide if you should be doing a thing now or later. So, a client calls and their entire network is down and they are losing billions of dollars a second whilst they wait for you to fix it. That probably sits in the realms of a Now Thing, when you are sat trying to decide if that is more important than playing the latest video game you got for Christmas – or do client work!

A little less obvious, you have this new video game and there is no client work. However, you do have some training that could be done that will make later easier and possible improve your life by learning a new skill. The video game still sits in the Later Thing category.

You’ve done your training, there is no client work to be done and no other priorities you can think of that will impact you if they are left until later…. the video game is going to bring you joy and help reset your brain – it is finally a Now Thing! 

As I say, it is a simplification of the process, you still need to prioritise other work and schedule correctly. I am a fan of the Eisenhower Matrix for this. I have used an image from Techtello here to show you an example – it is very very handy as a way to augment the Now or Later framework!

Anyway, I hope this helps a little and gets you back in the swing of things before the New Year!

Relationships Between HEXAD Types

Type relationships Relationships Between HEXAD Types

It’s been a while since I wrote about the HEXAD user types, but the world does not stand still and I keep seeing them turning up in academic papers – which is amazing, so I thought it time to say a few words on things that have repeatedly come up!

I was inspired by a recent paper by Ana Cláudia Guimarães Santos, Wilk Oliveiraa, Juho Hamari and Seiji Isotani called “Do people’s user types change over time? An exploratory study ” You can grab a copy here.

Without spoiling too much, they come to many conclusions about the types, but one that stuck out for me was

“the dominant user types can not be considered stable.”

There were also a few comments around Free Spirits and Disruptors being a touch difficult as well!

“Disruptor and Free Spirit presented reliability results slightly below the acceptable […] might highlight the necessity of the improvement of Disruptor and Free Spirit sub-scale or further analysis of these user types” Read More ...

10 Things I Wish I Knew About Gamification in 2011

Lesson 1574418020 10 Things I Wish I Knew About Gamification in 2011

As we edge closer to Gamification EU, I was thinking about the lessons I wish I had learned earlier on when I started in Gamification. Keep in mind, at that stage there was not a lot of information about gamification, it was in its infancy (2011/2012).

  • The word gamification is going to cause you all sorts of trouble in business conversations! Even now, it still has not penetrated into the common lexicon.
  • Gamification is full of experts and evangelists. You have to listen to and learn from both, but be sure to also check the research for yourself and what projects they have worked on.
  • There is no one perfect framework. The majority have their place but don’t rely on just one.
  • Research Gate is your friend as there is more research out there than you realise. There are also academics out there who want to help, but research takes time!
  • There are very few jobs that are specifically for gamification experts or designers. You need to look at user experience, engagement specialists, product owners etc.
  • Gamification is used (for better or worse) as a blanket term for all games based solutions. Life is too short to argue about the true definition – leave that to me 🙂
  • We make use and reference to a lot of psychology, make sure you understand the source, not just the pop psych books.
  • There are usually no quick fixes, the faster the fix, the shorter the engagement.
  • Short term engagement is also fine though, it depends on the needs of the project!
  • Focus on the solution, not the technology or the cleverness of the game design. Solve the problem.
  • Read More ...

    Introduction to Gamification Part 8: User Types

    Intro to Gamification Part 8 Introduction to Gamification Part 8 User Types

    There are many tools available to gamification designers to help them with their designs. One of the most useful for me, for reasons I will go into here, is the concept of User Types.

    There are many views on user profiling and many ways to do it. Some people love it, some hate it. I am in the middle. It is a very useful tool, but it is not the only thing you should rely on. For me, they can be a useful way to understand or at least considers the motivation so those who will be using your system.

    Bartle’s Player Types

    In the games world there are a few famous player type models, Bartle’s Player Types being the most well known [1]. In these he breaks down players of his famous Multi-User Dungeon (MUD) game into 4 key types. Killer, Achiever, Socliasler and Explorer. Each type of player had a different motivation to play the game.

    Very simply put, Killers are there to impose their will on other players, Achievers want to be the best at everything, Socialsiers want to meet people and Explorers want to explore the boundaries of the game.

    He later created an expansion on the 4 types, by splitting them into 8 based on their behaviour being implicit or explicit. For example, if a killer was just plain out to hurt people, their killer behaviour could be considered implicit (they don’t realise they are doing it) and they are a Griefer. If they were more of a mother hen style character, who felt that imposing their will on others was actually for their benefit, the behaviour was explicit and they are a Politician!

    Now, I could go further, but this is meant to all be about introductions. Suffice to say, Bartles Player Types are an amazing tool to help you design multi-player role-play games – that is what they were designed for. By his own admission, they are not well suited to other applications – even though they can be seen used in everything from gamification to marketing and sales!

    Marczewski’s User Types

    That brings us to my User Types or the HEXAD[2]. Again, as this is an introduction, long story short – I created these over the course of a couple of years to offer an alternative to Bartle’s types that was more applicable to gamification design. In fact, Bartle helped me build them. There has been a lot on this site about them, but a good place to start is on the User Types page . There has also been a fair amount of academic research done around them and a survey I created to help tell you what your User Type is [3][4].

    In my model, I propose six types of users (at a basic level); four intrinsically motivated types and two others.

    Achiever, Socialiser, Philanthropist and Free Spirit. They are motivated by Relatedness, Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose (RAMP: which you will remember from Part 4 of this series) [5].

    The other two types, whose motivations are a little less black and white are Disruptor and Player.

    The Types

  • Socialisers are motivated by Relatedness. They want to interact with others and create social connections.
  • Free Spirits are motivated by Autonomy and self-expression. They want to create and explore.
  • Achievers are motivated by Mastery. They are looking to learn new things and improve themselves. They want challenges to overcome.
  • Philanthropists are motivated by Purpose and Meaning. This group are altruistic, wanting to give to other people and enrich the lives of others in some way with no expectation of reward.
  • Players are motivated by Rewards. They will do what is needed of them to collect rewards from a system. They are in it for themselves.
  • Disruptors are motivated by Change. In general, they want to disrupt your system, either directly or through other users to force positive or negative change.
  • Read More ...