Designing Gamification for Corporate Learning Management System (Study Case Sintesis+)
The journal which answers the research question n, ‘are gamification strategies effective in increasing engagement in online programs? The result is based on studies met the inclusion criteria, which a total of 10,499 participants, and were commonly undertaken in tertiary education contexts. Effect sizes typically ranged from medium to large indirect engagement and downstream behavior, with 12 out of 15 studies finding significant positive effects in favor of gamification with engagement. The engagement metrics that define the journal are time spent, the volume of contributions, and occasions visited the software, downstream behaviors such as performance and healthy behaviors. (Looyestyn, Kernot, Boshoff, Ryan, & Edney, 2017)
Based on the Harvard Business Review, Deloitte Leadership Academy (DLA) training program increase learners who are spending on the Deloitte learning site. Since the integration of gamification into Deloitte Leadership Academy, there has been a 37 percent increase in the number of users returning to the site each week. (Meister, 2013).
Based on Octalysis gamification design (Figure 1) , there are five items that must define it can be seen from the figure above :
· Business Metrics, which lead to game objective
Creating a list of business metrics that depend on quantifiable metrics for what creates a successful platform. Also, the ones on top are final metrics that would make a project successful, while the ones on the bottom are more of a “means-to-an-end” type of metrics.
· Users, which lead to players
Define who are the target users who become players in the system gamification design will work.
· Feedback Mechanics, which lead to triggers
Feedback Mechanics are information delivery mechanisms that communicate to the user that their actions are meaningful. It allows them to track their progress towards the Win-State, feel the urgency of time, understand the unpredictable nature of the experience, and more.
· Desired action, which leads to win-states
The next step is to define the Desired Actions for the Users, which become Win-States once they commit to the actions. This is where we lay out all the little actions and steps that we want users to take in chronological order as part of a player journey.
· Incentive, which leads to rewards
The last item to define in the Octalysis Strategy Dashboard is Rewards, which is what the experienced designer can give users when they commit the Desired Actions and arrive at the Win-State.
1. Business Metrics
Starting from pain points, pain points come in all sorts of shapes and sizes for your customers, from mild irritations to major barriers to their success. In order for your business to be successful, you have to define your pain points. (Kaine, 2018). Pain Points are difficulties, either real or perceived, experienced by the customer during the use. (Carter, 2012). The objective of this research is to know the user problem during training with a learning management system. The data gathered in April 2020, with a demographic of respondents, are 62 % male and 38% female, with 86 % job role supervisor and 12% officer. The criteria of this research are a user who accesses the learning management system.
Based on the pain point of the user (Figure 2), The second position of the pain point is there are training materials which still unfit with the user. This pain point supported with internal organization data survey which conducts on April 2020 which involved 67 employees after training the preference of user regarding training material is a mix between video and text (74,6%), duration video 15–30 minutes (68%) while based on TED Talk the maximum video is 18 minutes s long enough to be serious and short enough to hold people’s attention. (Lynch, 2019). ). Furthermore, the most distinguishable data is that there is no engagement from the Sintesis+ team to a user. It is supported by a business issue regarding duration and also user frequency who access the platform.
It can be concluded that, based on the current reality tree (Figure 3), the root cause of the problem is an unclear process to design an engagement feature of the program in the learning management system. The process of designing engagement features and programs missed on fit in this situation, which caused the end of the undesirable effect: users do not access Sintesis+ platform. Based on the root cause, the design engagement feature and program is the solution that can solve the undesirable effect problem.
Moreover, business metrics to ensure the gamification design successful business metrics must be defined (Table.1). Analytics is the process of setting up these essential business measurements, monitoring them on an ongoing basis, and feeding the results back to the most appropriate consumer in the most appropriate manner. Analytics is about measurements. Without measurements, it’s impossible to tell what you’re doing well and, more importantly, in what areas you could stand to improve. Failing to take measurements makes it impossible to adjust to change (Dugan & Shoup, 2013) . There are two methods that will measure the business metrics first, WOLF-S because they can be effectively and efficiently used in an academic setting for measuring flow in study-related activities. Second, using google analytics data, which will know lagging data by measuring user login, bouncer rate, and also average time per session.
According to a previous study related to work engagement, which was measured by WOLF-S. To know the improvement and impact of gamification to study work engagement. The author defines the first business metrics, which will be measured semesterly. The next measurement will be conducted at the end of 2020. The objective of measurement to know how many students or employees reach flow and also the improvement from the current condition. The table (Table 2) can be seen from the table below
2. Users
Respondents assessed themselves using the Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology template from the website https://matthewbarr.co.uk/bartle/, the website based on the paper from Professor of Computer Game Design, University of Essex, Richard Bartle with the title Hearts, Club, Diamond, Spades: Players Who Suit Muds. Based on the paper Gamification: Classification of the Users Based on Player Types and Motivations (Edwin Tunggawan, 2018) comparing the other persona model from Yee, Bartle’s persona not very difficult to do, can be done by simply observing the user’s action. Further, from the book Actionable Gamification: Beyond Points, Badges, and Leaderboards (Yu-kai Choi, 2015), Richard Bartle is a game researcher who invented the first MUD (Multi-User Dungeon) game during the 1970s, which evolved into the role-playing games (RPGs) we know today. He realized that within a virtual environment, there tend to be four main groups of players doing four distinct types of activities.
After know, the persona respondent fills their persona in the questionnaire. The result of the assessment can be seen in the figure below (Figure 4). It can be seen that 37 % of employees of PT Berau Coal have explorers persona while Killers and Socializer have 24% and 23% proportion, respectively. Lastly, achievers sat in the bottom position with 18 %.
Based on that graph, there are four types of persona based on Bartle Player :
· Achievers are proud of their formal status in the game’s built-in level hierarchy, and of how short a time they took to reach it.
· Killers are proud of their reputation and of their oft-practiced fighting skills.
· Explorers are proud of their knowledge of the game’s finer points, especially if new players treat them as founts of all knowledge.
· Socializers are proud of their friendships, their contacts, and their influence.
3. Feedback Mechanics
Feedback Mechanics are information delivery mechanisms that communicate to the user that their actions are meaningful. It allows them to track their progress towards the Win-State, feel the urgency of time, understand the unpredictable nature of the experience, and more. (Chao, 2015). Referring to Yukai-Chou, there are eight core drives within in Octalysis gamification framework. The core drive is pivotal to notice because it suggests that there are none of these core drives behind the desired action, there is no motivation, and no behavior happens. (Chao, 2015)
Feedback Mechanics are information delivery mechanisms that communicate to the user that their actions are meaningful. It allows them to track their progress towards the Win-State, feel the urgency of time, understand the unpredictable nature of the experience, and more. (Chao, 2015). Referring to Yukai-Chou, there are eight core drives within in Octalysis gamification framework. The core drive is pivotal to notice because it suggests that there are none of these core drives behind the desired action, there is no motivation, and no behavior happens. (Chao, 2015)
Based on the analysis type of player core drive recommendation detail of feedback mechanic can be seen from this figure 6 below :
The summary of the feature (Figure 7), which can be implemented based on each core drive can be seen from the picture below. The category of gamification which will be divided into two application, product Gamification that has application to make a product, online or offline, more engaging, fun, and inspirational through game design, while workplace Gamification is the craft of creating environments and systems that inspire and motivate employees towards their work. The target of product gamification will be applied for all persona while the workplace gamification can categorize every persona such as gamification event for individual peer to peer competition will represent the killer persona and for representing group or company will represent the socializer persona.
4. Desired Action & Incentive
In this part, each persona will be designed to have their own journey based on octalysis core drive recommendation. The output is a user journey scenario that has four steps, discovery, on-boarding, scaffolding, and end-game. Author also propose gamification event which will describe of learning journey for one quartal regarding gamification program.
- Explorers User Journey
In this figure above (Figure 8), depict explorer persona, which tends to get the reward for new findings and new relevant material. The journey describes how the explorer users to follow the journey. In the discovery, step users, try to use LMS. Then, on the on-boarding step, users find features such as point, badge, and leader board at a particular course and also new material which publish on this week. Next, at the scaffolding phase, users learn the material with interactive content. Lastly, at the end-game user finish the study, which the main objective of LMS and get a reward from point and badge feature and also certification completion of the course.
5. Result of Sintesis+ Octalysis Gamification Framework
The result of Sintesis+ using Octalysisi Gamification Framework (Figure 9) can be seen from this picture below, the result considering of persona of user and also platfrom and organization capability. The main of feedback mechanic which will use are point badge and leaderboard and also interactive training material. Based on benchmark data the two top of popularity gamification core drive are core drive number two and number three, based on plugin mapping, core drive number two and number three also provide in Moodle. Regarding category of gamification this Sintesis+ Ocatlysis Gamification Framework fit in category white hat gamification which help their employees to be engaged in the long run, which can also help the company reach the target in the long run. The white hat core drive are represented by the core drives at the top of the octalysis diagram which can be seen from the picture below the core drive number two and core drive number three dominated. (Chao, 2015)
References
Anadea. (2017). Gamification in Business and Its Application to Software Development . https://anadea.info/blog/gamification-in-business.
Andrews, D. H. (1980). A Comparative Analysis of Models of Instructional. Journal of Instructional Development.
Bakker, A. (2008). The work-related flow inventory: Construction and initial validation. Journal of Vocational Behavior.
Bakker, A., Golub, T., & Rijavec, M. (2016). Validation of the Study-Related Flow Inventory (WOLF-S). Croatian Journal of Education, 147–173.
Bartle, R. (1999). Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds Spades: Players Who Suit MUDS. MUSE Ltd, Colchester, Essex.
Biech, E. (2015). 101 Ways to Make Learning Active Beyond the Classroom. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bista, S., Nepal, S., Paris, C., & Colineau, N. (2012). Using Gamification in an Online Community. CollaborateCom 2012. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Camacho-Cruz, H. E., Cantú, M., & Mariño, J. (2018). Redesigning the Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology for Its Application in Gamification Processes of Learning. The 12th International Multi-Conference on Society, Cybernetics and Informatics. Orlando, FL. USA.
Carter, J. (2012). What’s a Pain Point? . Retrieved from http://pointsandfigures.com/2012/04/27/whats-apain-point/.
Central, I. D. (2016). Instructional Design Models. https://www.instructionaldesigncentral.com/instructionaldesignmodels.
Chao, Y.-K. (2015). Actionable Gamification Beyond Points, Badges, and Leaderboards.
Chaudari, C., & Mukhopay, S. (2003). Application of theory of constraints in anintegrated poultry industry. International Journal of Production Research.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: HarperCollins.
Dugan, K., & Shoup, K. (2013). Business Gamification for Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
Enginess. (2019). Digital Accessibility 101. Retrieved from Enginess: https://www.enginess.io/insights/digital-accessibility
Gafoor, K. A. (2012). Considerations in the Measurement of Awareness. National Seminar on Emerging trends in education.
Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. K. (2015). Likert Scale: Explored and Explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology.
Kaine, A. (2018). How well do you understand your customers’ pain points?
Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (n.d.). University students’ perceptions of the learning. Studies in Higher.
Looyestyn, J., Kernot, J., Boshoff, K., Ryan, J., & Edney, S. (2017). Does gamification increase engagement with online program? A systematic review. PLOS One.
Lynch, L. (2019). How Long Should Videos Be for E-Learning? Retrieved from https://www.learndash.com/how-long-should-videos-be-for-e-learning/
Meister, J. C. (2013). How Deloitte Made Learning a Game. Retrieved from Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2013/01/how-deloitte-made-learning-a-g
Mihaly, C. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperCollins.
Nazarbayev, N. H. (2020). Games in Everyday Life: For Play . Kazakshtan University.
Patel, P., & Deshpande, V. A. (2017). Application Of Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle For Quality And Productivity Improvement-A Review., (p. International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering).
Potgieter, T., & Merwe, R. V. (2002). ASSESSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE:. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology.
PT Berau Coal. (n.d.). Berau Coal Company Profile.
RE, M. (1992). Cognition and Instruction: Their Historic Meeting within Educational Psychology. J.Educ.Psychol.
Strydom, J. F, & Mentz, M. (2010). Focusing the student experience on success through student engagement. Council on Higher Education, Pretoria.
Thompson, A. A. (2007). Crafting and Executing Strategy-Concepts and Cases, (15th Edition). Unites State: McGrawHill/Irwin.
Tunggawan, E. (2018). Gamification: Classification of the Users Based on Player Types and Motivations.
Wall, M. B. (1992). Evaluating Prototyping Technologies for Product Design. Res. Eng. Des., 3(3), pp. 163–177.
Witte, R. S., & Witte, J. (2017). Statistics. Wiley.
Zhang, H., Miao, C., & Wu, Q. (2019). The Effect of Familiarity on Older Aldut’s Engagement in Exergame. Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Social Media, Games and Assistive Environments .
Zichermann, G., & Linder, J. (2013). The Gamification Revolution. United State: McGraw-Hill Education.
