Towards Gamification Transparency: A conceptual framework for the development of responsible...

gamificationenterpriseethicsengagementdesignvaluespersuasion

Gamification currently faces several contentious issues when deployed in the enter-prise to improve productivity, organizational transformation or innovation. Early experiments show that gamification can create value; however, there are significant limitations within gamification design practices that can actually destroy value. The objective of this article is not to ascertain the appropriateness or effectiveness of enterprise gamification but to provide a constructive criticism of its applications and propose a conceptual design framework and process. A cornerstone of this framework is the utilization of values-conscious design to ensure a more human-based and ethi-cal approach to gamification design that can potentially produce more responsible and sustainable results.

JGVW_6.2_Raftopolous_159-178.indd 159 8/29/14 10:10:43 PM

The economics of enterprise rewards and punishments used in the workplace to motivate workers has a long and complex history that has largely relied on mone-tary incentives and has underutilized the ‘motivational capital of organizations’ to engage in more creative and sustainable ways (Akerlof and Kranton 2005). It has also been derived from the ‘self-interest hypothesis’ of human nature (that we are all driven to maximize our self interests above all else) that misses the essence of deep intrinsic employee motivators that drive cooperative and collab-orative action (Fehr and Schmidt 2006). The entire reward/punishment para-digm is predicated on the assumption of self interest that is little more than what Fehr and Schmidt (2006: 683) call ‘a convenient simplification’ that is not serv-ing enterprises well. This notion is also echoed by Deming, the founder of Total Quality Management (TQM). Deming believed that ‘the prevailing management system is failing our people’ when he came to see that TQM, which was created to work in cooperation with workers, was eventually being used against them (Senge 1990). In an era of rising levels of employee disengagement and declin-ing productivity, which is often described as being at critically low levels (Gallup 2013; Towers Perrin Global Workforce Study 2011), enterprises are looking for more effective tools and approaches to address these issues and have recently turned to games and gamification as a potential solution to turn around the decline. Presented as being derived from ‘motivational science’ and shaped by the engaging art form of game design, gamification is being sold as a seductive alternative to more traditional forms of staff engagement, process improvement and organizational design. Fundamentally, however, gamification is a persuasive technology, and persuasive technologies can be just as exploitative as traditional forms of enterprise management, depending on the inherent values, intent and transparency of the system design. If the current enterprise engagement crisis is an outcome of people feeling a lack of meaningful connection, intrinsic motiva-tion and contribution to a system, then gamified persuasive design will not be the sustainable solution that it is hoped to be.

The boundaries between work, leisure and fun began to blur before gami-fication became popularized, spurred by management practices since the 1980s designed to make employees feel more connected, productive or effective at work. Precursors to gamification can be traced back to the introduction of play-fully driven business tools and methods that helped to make work more inter-esting or to facilitate greater levels of creativity through breaking the traditional patterns of cognition, framing, analyzing and finding solutions to problems. This included serious games and simulations (Deterding et al. 2011; Llagostera 2012), pervasive games (Bogost 2007), Games With A Purpose (Khatib et al. 2011; von Ahn and Dabbish 2008; von Ahn 2006), and the more popular or playful business methods such as Gamestorming (D. Gray and S. Brown, 2010), Innovation Games (L. Hohmann, 2006), Lego Serious Play (Roos 2006), and other forms of workplace games that are used for specific events or activities (Mollick and Rothbard 2014). Gamification has successfully built on this momentum, and backed by accessible and inexpensive technologies it has been able to scale quickly across organizations and show positive early results. This has resulted in widespread media attention heralding gamification, and games in general, as a potential new frontier for improved enterprise performance due to its perceived ability to better engage with staff to achieve improved business outcomes (Accenture 2013; CapGemini Consulting 2013; Deloitte 2013; Gartner 2011, 2012b, 2012b, 2012c; Hagel et al. 2009; PricewaterhouseCoopers 2012; Reeves


and Read 2009; Werbach and Hunter 2012; Zichermann and Linder 2010). And much of this attention has put the rhetoric into overdrive.

Responsible applications of enterprise gamification need to be treated like any other strategic management tool when implemented in enterprise settings (Reeves and Read 2009; Werbach and Hunter 2012); however, robust management tools and governance frameworks have been noticeably absent. Furthermore there is a dearth of peer-reviewed research to support claims of sustained improved business performance (Deterding 2012; Hamari 2013; Hamari et al. 2014; Huotari and Hamari 2012; Mollick and Rothbard 2014). Without robust management frameworks, gamification is also vulnerable to moral and ethical issues, particularly as it’s used, more often than not, as a persuasive technology. The language used by vendors selling gamification solutions imply that it is something performed on employees by manage-ment using the tools and tricks of game design. For example, assertions that are often made in the popular media about how gamification can be used include ‘exploiting workers’, ‘motivating staff with rewards and competitions’ or ‘make work addictive for your employees’. The implicit assumptions in this line of rhetoric is there is diminished agency on the part of the employee to be more productive, and that it’s up to management to provide the external stim-ulus to crank up performance, rather than review systemic issues that may be affecting performance in the first place.

There is also some question over the transferability of the engagement of gameplay onto gamified applications. Gamification in the workplace raises an overt or implied obligation or expectation to play (within a context that management is potentially watching and measuring workers at play in the system), whereas games and play are based on voluntary participation to opt-in and opt-out to generate true engagement (Llagostera 2012). An overt or implied expectation to play completely changes the nature and effective-ness of the gamified engagement. Other negative or morally questionable attributes of enterprise gamification include extracting value from labour through the shaping of emotions (Bogost 2007, 2011; Dyer-Witherford and de Peuter 2009; Schell 2011), using persuasive technologies or captology where human actions and behaviours are shaped and reinforced through technolo-gies such as surveillance, conditioning and channelling. And worse still, gami-fication can become an operant conditioning type of persuasion tool where technology shapes employee behaviour through a predetermined schedule of reward and punishment (Deterding 2012; Fogg 2002; Llagostera 2012; Schell 2011). Another concern is that data collection that is amassed with gamifi-cation technologies can potentially compromise individual privacy through performance monitoring, surveillance and ‘leakage’ in gamified enterprise applications, which are issues that form part of the wider human–computer interaction (HCI) discourse on data, privacy and ethics of persuasive technolo-gies (Albrechtslund 2007; Ball 2003; Berdichevsky and Neuenschwander 1999; Carroll 1997). At a meta level, the impact of technology on the labor proc-ess in general shows us that empowerment and disempowerment, skilling and deskilling, autonomy and control often coexists and is dependent on the context of the organisational structure and authority structure, and the nature of the technology deployment (Zureik 2003), however this level of complexity with regard to the impact of gamification is rarely researched and discussed.

Figure 1 shows a summary of the key themes of where gamification is reported in popular media and available research to create value. I have synthesized them into seven key themes that I’ve named ‘The Rhetoric’. I also conducted a


detailed literature review of peer-reviewed papers on gamification, persuasive technology and related fields in HCI, and found seven recurring themes on the potential risks where such technology can destroy value. I have euphemistically named this set of themes ‘The Seven Deadly Sins’ of gamification:

Each value creation theme has a corresponding value destruction theme, and the overall position or impact of a given gamification strategy on this continuum will depend on the design decisions that are made, the implied values in those decisions, and the context in which they are applied. A detailed analysis of the value destruction risks presented by gamification is discussed in the following section of this article.

The popular business media is reporting on gamification as a potential panacea to current business challenges of a disengaged workforce and proc-ess ineffectiveness. However, there is a need to get past the rhetoric to estab-lish the realities of how gamification can benefit the enterprise in a responsible and sustainable manner. The first step in doing this is to address the unintended or indirect consequences of the value destruction elements listed in Figure 1. Most importantly, the question to be explored is not how gamification can prop up ailing, hierarchical enterprise systems but how we can potentially use it to develop new systems that may positively emulate game worlds, particularly in the area of meaningful intrinsic motivation, collaboration, democratization of power, leadership and decision-making (Castronova 2005; Hagel et al. 2009; McGonigal 2011; Reeves and Reed 2009).

This article is focused on a constructive criticism of enterprise gamification so that we can develop a more sound footing for moving forward. Despite

Figure 1: Enterprise gamification benefits and risks.

JGVW_6.2_Raftopolous_159-178.indd 162 9/3/14 8:49:52 AM

the rhetoric and lack of rigorous research and frameworks, there have been a sufficient number of experiments and reports of successful applications of gamification in the enterprise to warrant further considered research and investigation (Hamari et al. 2014; Thom et al. 2012). Industry need for more effective business solutions in the current economic climate is compelling. To this end, I offer a conceptual model that focuses on Sustainable Gamification Design (SGD) that will yield a Minimum Viable Design (MVD) for gamified enterprise applications. My approach in developing this model is as follows:

Foundations: This model has been abstracted from Mendel’s taxonomy of models used in the design process (2012), the Analysis-Synthesis Bridge Model (Dubberly et al. 2008) and the Design Innovation Process (Kumar 2012). This approach is premised on the fact that as design school and HCI disciplines, the development of enterprise games and gamification needs to be subject to (or make use of) the same rigors, models and frameworks that have already been widely used and tested in these fields. However, flexibility is also built into this model as game and gamification design is also partly an art-form that requires room for creative expression. Design Framework: This model outlines a four-step design framework that incorporates the phases of (1) Discover, (2) Reframe, (3) Envision and (4) Create, again influenced by Mendel (2012), Dubberly et al. (2008) and Kumar (2012), which is a structure that is not uncommon in design and design-thinking disciplines. In addition to this, the two axes of Understand/Make and Reflect/Act frame the nature of the activities that will be performed by gamification designers and stakeholders in each quadrant. This framework is illustrated in Figure 2. Values and Ethics: A important and significant contribution of my model is the inclusion of a fifth element, (5) Values and Ethics frame, at the centre of the framework that has been influenced by the works in human values in technology design, the most notable being Value Sensitive

Figure 2: Sustainable Gamification Design (SGD) model.


Design (VSD) (Friedman and Hendry 2012; Friedman et al. 2008; Yoo et al. 2013), Value Conscious Design in game development (VCD) (Flanagan and Nissenbaum 2007; Belman et al. 2011; Belman and Flanagan 2010) and Ethics of Persuasive Technology (Berdichevsky and Neuenschwander 1999; Albrechtslund 2007). The purpose of the Values and Ethics frame in this model is to manage the potentially negative impacts of the ‘value-destroying’ elements of gamification that I have outlined in Figure 1, by integrating into each step of the development process. Design Process: I propose a seven-step process synthesized from various game development, design thinking and innovation processes (Brown 2009; Fullerton 2008; Mootee 2013; Zimmerman and Salen 2004). The seven steps include: (1) setting project objectives; (2) mapping project motivations, methods and outcomes; (3) mapping stakeholders and user personas; (4) creative problem-solving through participatory design; (5) exploring suitable technology platforms; (6) selecting appropriate gameplay and game mechanics; and (7) prototype, pilot, test and launch the gamified application. Each step includes exercises at key intervals to ‘check-in’ on how the process is tracking with agreed values and ethics principles that are set up at the beginning of the process. It should be noted that this is not necessarily a linear process, and is highly iterative. A more detailed discussion on this process, including the purpose, activ-ity and sample methods for each step is provided in a later section of this article. The design process is illustrated in Figure 3.

Before I discuss the model and framework in more detail, I will first explore the potential value destroying capabilities of enterprise gamification as a counterbalance to the rhetoric. This is important so that we gain a deeper understanding of the significance and complexity of each of these elements so that it can better inform the design of more sustainable gamification solutions.

Figure 3: SGD process.


Increased competitive pressures, thinning margins and consequent changes in the enterprise workplace over the last two decades have significantly increased the demands on employees, often to the detriment of their health and personal life (Cartwright and Holmes 2006; Gallup 2013; Towers Perrin Global Workforce Study 2011). Furthermore, changing labour market struc-tures and conditions have fundamentally altered employment policies and practices, and workplaces are now lacking security in terms of employment and working conditions with no obvious or sustainable long-tem solutions in place (Grimshaw et al. 2001). Organizations are now expecting more from their workforce with little perceived return other than employment itself, which has raised levels of cynicism and mistrust among employees within a context of increasing job insecurity. This has a negative impact on job satisfac-tion, organizational commitment, life satisfaction and self-rated performance (Cartwright and Holmes 2006).

If gamification forms even a small part of the overall solution to these systemic problems, it needs to be done with care so that it is not superficial and meaningless as it will only serve to make these pressing labour market issues even worse. Gamification can create seductive experiences (Khaslavsky and Shedroff 1999), be persuasive (Llagostera 2012), and fun (Mollick and Rothbard 2014), and therefore produce improved levels and quality of staff engagement with enterprise systems for at least a short period of time. However, used inappropriately, gamification can backfire and destroy value (see Figure 1). In the following section I will discuss each of the seven value destruction items in more detail.

Games require voluntary participation or opt-in to play. This is a sticking point with enterprise gamification, where even a sense of an obligation to play may detract from the experience and hence the effectiveness of the gami-fication strategy from a practical and philosophical point of view (Deterding 2012; Deterding et al. 2011; Hamari 2013; Mollick and Rothbard 2014). The ability of games to engage players in gameplay for extended periods of time is well researched and accepted, as is their ability to assist or even acceler-ate learning (Prensky 2001; Foreman et al. 2004), with advocates often citing research on goal orientation and intrinsic motivation (Eisenberger et al. 1999; Elliot and McGregor 2002) as an explanation of the effectiveness of games and gamification and how it can work in enterprise. However, fun and games in the specific context of the workplace (where people are under pressure and obligation to perform and are aware that they are being scrutinized, measured and evaluated) is understudied and lacks the evidence base for the conclu-sions that are being made about gamification leading to sustained improve-ments in workplace morale and productivity (Georganta 2012).

David Lyon’s concept of ‘leaky containers’ (2003) describes the increas-ingly fluid movement of data between different applications and networks, particularly as technology and computing become more mobile, intelligent and pervasive (see also Albrechtslund 2007). With leaky containers, data


captured in one application or network for a particular purpose can easily find its way into another application or network and be used for a different purpose. Albrechtslund (2007) uses the simple example of how a surveil-lance camera intended to watch for shoplifting can also be used to monitor staff to illustrate this point. While gamification is less ubiquitous than surveil-lance cameras, it does pose the same leaky container problem where gamified applications designed to boost motivation, engagement and performance can also be potentially used for surveillance, performance monitoring, and worker control and conditioning, a topic that deWinter et al. take up in this issue. This raises several ethical and moral issues of whether gamification operates under full transparency, disclosure and permissions to minimize the potential for misuse or abuse of the information that is ‘leaked’ into other enterprise systems or applications. The connection between technology design and its use is complex and unpredictable. Overarching ethics and design principles can therefore play an important role in providing high-level guidelines and transparency measures to ensure that human rights are protected, particularly when persuasive technologies are in use (Albrechtslund 2007; Berdichevsky and Neuenschwander 1999).

This issue has recently received wide media attention (Ball 2013) with the revelations of National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) ‘spying’ on players in massively multiplayer online role playing games (MMORPGs) such as World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment 2014) on the Xbox Live platform, and in virtual worlds such as Second Life (Linden Lab 2014) as part of a wider surveillance on potential terrorism (Ball 2013). This has drawn attention to and raised the legitimacy of games and digital gameplay as a means by which people can collaborate, strategize and communicate. On the other hand, however, these reports also highlight how these same systems can be used by third parties by stealth in this leaky container problem, to monitor and ‘spy’ on how people play and who they play with and to cast judgment on their intentions and motivations on matters unrelated to pure gameplay. This is despite the fact that causal links cannot be inferred between gameplay and real life behaviours of an individual (Mayer-Schönberger 2009).

Surveillance and performance monitoring in one form or another has always been at the heart of capitalist enterprises and organizations in general, and they now have sophisticated technological tools to make this more pervasive (Ball 2003). For example, the unrelenting use of pervasive technologies in the surveil-lance, monitoring and performance tracking of call centres (an area that has many examples of gamification) has been described as the ‘technological whip of the electronics age’ (Ball 2003: 203) or as an ‘electronic sweatshop’ (Fleming and Sturdy 2010: 192). This shows that over time, the social construct and the traditional structures and hierarchies of the workplace have remained largely the same, and it’s only the technical management tools that have changed and have become even more pervasive (Ball 2003; Hanson and Kysar 1999).

These issues form part of the ‘dark side’ of persuasive and pervasive tech-nologies, which include gamification that largely remains hidden beneath the rhetoric. Gamified enterprise applications can be potentially viewed not only as leaky containers but also as yet another ‘technological whip’ that has been developed to maintain the enterprise’s existing social construct, with the added sweetener of play and games into the mix.


Data collection, data mining and player dossiers are key features of game development and are a key selling proposition of gamified enterprise applica-tions. In game development, player dossiers are data-driven reports on player gameplay that provides the developer with the detailed information required to develop meaningful constructs about player identity, preferences and moti-vations. The developer then uses this data to develop a better game design to reduce player attrition by building in more compelling gameplay and building and maintaining a profitable game economy (Kennedy 2003; Medler 2011). Data collection and mining within games also provide the data points required to build feedback loops that earn players points, badges, gear, achievements or currency. Player data derived during gameplay represents behaviour, moti-vation and actions that may be relevant during the paradigm of gameplay but are out of context to a person’s life outside of a game environment, and hence no further meaning can be inferred (Mayer-Schönberger 2009). In HCI research, data monitoring and mining has been used to construct user models or personas to develop better human-computer systems and interfaces (Fischer 2001). However even within HCI, issues on misuse, ethics and calls for greater transparency and controls have been raised, particularly when user data is captured across different domains (i.e., phone, loyalty cards, website visits) and then synthesized to infer something about a person in a different context (Fischer 2001).

The capacity of gamified applications to collect and mine data, then synthesize individualized player reports on employees are a significant attrac-tion for enterprise human resource management; however, this is not proven to be accurate or appropriate. Kirsty Ball (2003) points out that most Enterprise Human Resource Management Systems (EHRMS) require powerful analytical tools to predict and manage optimum staffing levels and skills and competency development, that are used in tandem with other softer people management technology such as 360° feedback appraisals and training needs assessment. Human resource management is a key focus area targeted by gamification platform providers with the promise of improved employee engagement, productivity and financial performance due to the inbuilt game mechan-ics (e.g., Badgeville.com and Bunchball.com). Therefore, the use of enter-prise gamification platforms appears to provide a different tool for the same purpose but with a greater level of engagement and persuasion. The limita-tion of these technologies, however, is that they are self optimizing systems, which means the system provokes ‘system conform reactions’ from users but is a poor mechanism for attitudinal change (Kuka and Oswald 2012: 6). The persuasive technologies used such as measurement dashboards, feedback and data visualization were originally developed to control machinery but are now used to control people. Kuka and Oswald (2012) found that such technology has a normative influence on the affected workforce, which raises issues on a reduction of capacity for divergent thinking for creative problem-solving and innovation if people are corralled into the behavioural presets of the persua-sive technology.

Playful or gameful interfaces used in gamification can lull players into a sense of trust in the system where they would otherwise be more discerning (Friedman and Kahn 1992; Llagostera 2012; Marache-Francisco and Brangier


2013; O’Brien and Toms 2008). This is because games in our cultural context are viewed as a fun and innocent activity (Bogost 2011; Deterding et al. 2011; Llagostera 2012; Schell 2011), and the rhetoric and ambiguity of play disarms us (Sutton-Smith 1997). It is these sociocultural factors that may make a gamified application appear more trustworthy and persuasive to users than it should be, rendering their users more vulnerable to exploitation.

The power of gamification lies in its persuasive design elements (from a socio-cognition point of view) and in the graphic interfaces that are unique to games development (Marache-Francisco and Brangier 2013). HCI professionals agree that persuasive technologies and graphics are key explanations of user commitment to gamified software or applications. This is attained through attractiveness (triggering emotions and providing immersive experiences), opportunities for self and social competition (goal setting, evaluation, rewards), and freedom of choice (voluntary participa-tion and control of the sequence of events). Gamification can become a decisive factor for the design of a successful human-technology relationship (Marache-Francisco and Brangier 2013).

Concerns have been raised about increased sophistication in HCI tech-nology through the anthropomorphizing of computer systems interfaces (Friedman and Kahn 1992) where human-to-human interaction is used as a model to develop human-computer systems or interfaces. With such tech-nologies, people are led to attribute agency away from themselves and onto computational systems, which diminishes the role and autonomy of humans (Kuka and Oswald 2012) and can result in reduced work experiences and enjoyment. This is especially apparent in computer-based courseware, where a high level of design can erode the learner’s sense of his or her own agency and active decision-making in their learning (Friedman and Kahn 1992). A socio-political critique in HCI of such technologies that may apply to gamified applications is that the increasingly improved usability of software interfaces has unwittingly become a vehicle for deskilling and disempowering workers (Carroll 1997).

Gamification has the potential to go beyond the capability and reach of traditional ‘workplace games’ or ‘games at work’ such as Lego Serious Play, Innovation Games, and Gamestorming. These do not fundamentally change the nature of the tasks being performed but focus only on changing the employee experience for the time the games are being played without redesigning the job, function or process itself (Mollick and Rothbard 2014; Marache-Francisco and Brangier 2013; Llagostera 2012).

Gamification can be used to introduce systemic changes to how work is currently designed and managed while enhancing enterprise innovative and productive potential. However, it needs to go beyond introducing a game layer; it needs to develop a renewed game design thinking approach in rede-signing or reinventing current enterprise structures and processes (Castronova 2005, 2007; Hagel et al. 2009; Reed and Reid 2009). However, the key selling proposition of enterprise gamification practitioners and platform vendors is the immediate gains in employee productivity and engagement and not on business transformation. However, this is also likely to be an outcome of buyer needs and demands rather than the capability or foresight of gamification consultants and vendors.


Software is designed with a set of explicit and implicit assumptions and values. For example, enterprise Computer Based Performance Monitoring Systems (CBPMS) are designed as a form of worker categorization, and this is enmeshed within the boundaries of the existing workplace socio-technical assumptions and values systems (Ball 2003). At the meta level, there is an implicit social design of workplaces (as there are in game worlds), and all tech-nology development in terms of systems and software design reinforces this meta social design, or in other words, reproduce rather than change the status quo (Llagostera 2012; Ball 2003; Carroll 1997). These are pre-existing social constructs and most games and gamification applications work within these boundaries and are worlds apart from the more idealistic and worldly aspira-tions that games can change the way we construct the real world (Castronova 2005, 2007; McGonigal 2011).

Enterprise buyers are more likely to seek efficiencies in existing legacy systems rather than seek significant changes or reinvention of the work-place. The latter requires significant financial investment and corporate risk, which is a difficult proposition for most enterprises in challenging economic conditions.

On a practical or operational level, enterprises have a long-standing history and capability in change management and business transformation, which comes with rigorous processes, detailed procedures, methodologies and systems, as well as a large base of qualified and well trained practi-tioners and consultants. Gamification is without such tools, and until such time as these enterprise tools are developed, the potential of gamification to develop new systems that may emulate game worlds, particularly in the area of meaningful intrinsic motivation, collaboration, democratization of power, leadership and decision-making, will remain untapped.

Fun in the workplace differs from gamification in design but is similar in motivation and intention, and is often used as one of the positive effects of using gamification in the workplace. However research shows that ‘fun’ at work is often more about distracting employee attention away from organi-zational dysfunctions and the taxing controls over them. In addition to this, fun activities are often used to homogenize the worker experience for better control, while also introducing a level of debilitating ‘emotional labour’ in the workforce (Fleming and Sturdy 2010: 195). Organizational ‘fun at work’ programmes can backfire, leaving employees disgruntled when attempts at fun are in reality attempts to cover up poor work practices, which render the exercises shallow and inauthentic and leave staff disillusioned (Fleming and Sturdy 2010; Fleming and Spicer 2003).

Management research has shown for some time that individual and work-place engagement, creativity and innovation are determined by the intrin-sic nature of the work itself (Amabile 1982, 1983, 1988, 1996; Cartwright & Holmes 2006; Elliot and McGregor 2002; Eisenberger, Pierce and Cameron 1999). When well designed and executed, fun can provide a temporary lift in workplace. However without meaningful workplace design, interactions and experiences at the core of the organisation, longer term satisfaction and productivity will be diminished.

In concluding this section, I have outlined how enterprise gamification can destroy rather than create value. This occurs where there is a lack of awareness


or misinformation among managers or designers, a misuse of the technology, or an inability to effectively navigate a trade-off between short-term gains (quick and easy to implement gamification strategies) and long-term bene-fits (which requires a more considered and methodological approach). This is often an outcome of the forced and hurried engineering and design decisions that are made due to the tight timelines and resources dedicated to enterprise systems development and implementation, and the perception that work on values and ethics may slow things down for little gain (Manders-Huits and Zimmer 2009). The next section of the article will introduce a framework that may be helpful in overcoming these design challenges.

In game development, the fundamental role of the game designer is to be the ‘advocate of the player’ and the designer must look at the game world that is being created through the eyes of the player and focus completely on the player experience without being distracted by the other concerns of produc-tion (Fullerton 2008). Here already we have a disconnect between the role of a game designer versus the role of a gamification designer, which affects the dynamics and effectiveness of game elements used in non-entertainment contexts. A gamification designer is often the advocate of management or the investor – the enterprise itself – and the role of the player or worker is funda-mentally subordinate in the game that is being developed. The engagement and experience of the player in a gamified enterprise application is typically a means to an end (business outcome), rather than the end in itself (enjoyment). And it’s this very distinction that has given rise to the value destruction risks of gamification and is the design challenge that all gamification designers face.

For this reason, I have a applied a ‘meta game-thinking’ approach in developing this conceptual model and process to ensure that the gami-fication designer is an advocate of the player just as much as an advocate of management in order to gain the greatest possible benefits from the use of game elements in enterprise contexts. To this end, I have incorporated a values-conscious design approach that uses methods to design technology that accounts for human values in a comprehensive manner (Friedman et al. 2008). Key features include the use of co-design or participatory design with stakeholders at each stage of the design process and the development of a set of project values that frames the terms of reference for the project. This approach is not without its challenges (Manders-Huits and Zimmer 2009) but provides a tested, theoretically grounded approach that may help circumvent some of the value-destroying aspects of gamification features.

From a value creation perspective, a values-driven approach is also signif-icant as a strategic management tool as it’s considered a more humanis-tic approach in facilitating employee engagement and trust, positive culture change, and in providing opportunity for innovation, growth and creative problem-solving (Kanter 2009). Therefore in an enterprise setting, the discus-sion and use of values already has precedence.

In the introduction, I presented an outline of a conceptual model and process that focuses on SGD that will yield a MVD for a gamified enterprise application. In this final section, I will briefly run through each of the four phases of the model and outline the: purpose; activities to be undertaken in the design process; and examples of methods and tools than can be used in the design process.


There are many different methods and tools that can be applied and can be sourced from across the design professions, such as service design, user-centred design, interaction design, as well as game design. Rather than being prescriptive, a range of options is offered as methods and tools need to be tailored to the unique needs of the organization, the participants and the problem that is to be solved. What is more important here is the process that ensures that diligence is paid the key components to deliver a sustainable, minimal viable design. An outline of the process is described below:

Purpose: Understand the context and actors of the system to be gamified. This phase also establishes the values and ethics framework that will shape the project, and will be a term of reference at ‘check-points’ throughout the development process.

Activities: (1) Establish project needs and objectives, and ethical foundations; (2) map project motivations, methods and outcomes; and (3) stakeholder mapping and user or player personas. (Corresponding numbers are reflected in Figure 4 and emphasis of phase is indicated in purpose.)

Example Methods: Motivations-Methods-Outcomes framework (Berdichevsky and Neuenschwander 1999); Conceptual-Empirical-Technical method (Friedman et al. 2008); Envisioning Cards (Friedman and Hendry 2012); Method Cards (IDEO 2003); Grow A Game Cards (Flanagan and Nissenbaum 2007).

Purpose: Analyse the information generated in the Discovery phase and reframe as opportunities and a range of potential solutions.

Figure 4: SGD process.


Activity: (4) Creative problem-solving and ideation through participatory/co-design.

Example Methods: Ideation; Scenarios; Storyboarding; Gamestorming; Envisioning Cards (Friedman and Hendry 2012); Method Cards (IDEO 2003); Grow A Game Cards (Flanagan and Nissenbaum 2007); Values and Ethics Checklist (Berdichevsky and Neuenschwander 1999).

Purpose: Explore, identify and scope a preferred solution.

Activities: (5) Exploring suitable gamification technology options and (6) selecting appropriate gameplay and game mechanics.

Example Methods: Storyboarding; conceptual modelling; wireframing; game design document; Game Design Cards (Schell 2008); Grow A Game Cards (Friedman and Hendry 2012); Values and Ethics Checklist (Berdichevsky and Neuenschwander 1999).

Purpose: Design and launch a gamified solution.

Activity: (7) Prototype, pilot, test, iterate and launch the gamified application.

Example Methods: Agile methodologies in software and game design need to be applied here; values and ethics checklist. Systems dynamics methodologies also provide valuable tools to endure that effective gamification systems are developed.

This model is a work-in-progress and forms part of my doctoral research. It has been run in several organizations looking to meaningfully engage their target audience with a gamified application. This ranges from an insurance company looking to develop an internal browser-based game for staff train-ing, a bank looking to engage the youth market with its financial services, a public sector organization looking to consult with stakeholders with a gami-fied mobile ideation app, to several technology start-up companies looking to gamify their web services.

Activities are designed around a series of workshops or design sprints (run over a few days or several months), with time in between sessions so that participants can conduct further research, resolve problems, consult subject matter experts, run tests or get additional stakeholders on board. Like all design sprints, the process is essentially time bound and playful to foster crea-tivity and innovation.

In most cases, design sprint and workshop participants were more comfortable on the ‘make’ side of the model and were more challenged on the ‘understanding’ side of the model that involved a lot of pre work, strategiz-ing and conceptualizing. This included the building of the Values and Ethics frame and developing stakeholder personas. These activities initially appeared esoteric and time consuming, and participants were keen to get on with the job of building things. However those that rushed the earlier stages of the process often found themselves backtracking when they reached an impasse in the selection of appropriate gameplay and game mechanics that matched


the intention of the project. As this process is a highly iterative one, we found that spending more time on values, ethics and personas up front meant that design decisions when it came to gameplay, game mechanics and technology platform became more obvious, targeted and produced a more engaging solu-tion for the target audience.

This proposed gamification design framework and process was intended to provide an early model built on tested, peer-reviewed design frameworks of how the practice of gamification design can be developed more responsibly and sustainably to produce a MVD. This model also provides a more reli-able design framework that avoids the rhetoric of the untested approaches proposed by popular gamification advocates that have either been ill-conceived or not well thought though. This may assist in reducing the expected 80 per cent failure rate of gamification projects due to poor design (Gartner 2012c), and thereby improve the confidence of enterprises to exper-iment with gamification within ‘safe-fail’ boundaries, reduce unintended consequences, and limit the activities of rogue or unethical projects.

Transparency and trust is important for stakeholder acceptance, but most importantly the solution itself comes from a deep respect of human capability and dignity, which is the true source of organizational creativity and productivity.

Accenture (2013), ‘Why gamification is serious business’, http://www.accenture.com/us-en/outlook/Pages/outlook-journal-2013-why-gamification-is-serious-business.aspx. Accessed 15 March 2013.

Akerlof, G. A. and Kranton, R. E. (2005), ‘Identity and the economics of orga-nisations’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19: 1, pp. 9–32.

Albrechtslund, A. (2007), ‘Ethics and technology design’, Ethics and Information Technology, 9: 1, pp. 63–72.

Amabile, T. M. (1982), ‘Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43: 5, pp. 997–1013.

—— (1983), ‘Social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualiza-tion’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45: 2, pp. 357–77.

—— (1988), ‘From individual creativity to organizational innovation’, in K. Gronhaug and G. Kaufmann (eds), Innovation: A Cross-disciplinary Perspective, Oslo: Norwegian University Press, pp. 139–166.

—— (1996), ‘Creativity and Innovation in Organisations’, Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1–15.

Ball, J. (2013), ‘Xbox live among game services targeted by US and UK spy agen-cies’, The Guardian, 10 December, http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/dec/09/nsa-files-games-virtual-environments-paper-pdf. Accessed 15 December 2013.

Ball, K. (2003), ‘Categorizing the workers: Electronic surveillance and social ordering in the call center’, in D. Lyon (ed.), Surveillance as Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk, and Digital Discrimination, London: Routledge, pp. 201–25.

Belman, J. and Flanagan, M. (2010), ‘Designing games to foster empathy’, Cognitive Technology, 14: 2, pp. 5–15.

Belman, J., Nissenbaum, H., Flanagan, M. and Diamond, J. (2011), ‘Grow-a-game: A tool for values conscious design and analysis of digital games’,


Think Design Play: The fifth International Conference of the Digital Research Association (DIGRA), Utrecht, Netherlands, 14–17 September.

Berdichevsky, D. and Neuenschwander, E. (1999), ‘Towards an ethics of persua-sive technology’, Communications of the ACM, 42: 5, May, pp. 51–58.

Blizzard Entertainment (2014), ‘World of Warcraft’, http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/games/wow/. Accessed 12 June 2014.

Bogost, I. (2007), Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames, USA: MIT.

—— (2011), ‘Gamification is bullshit: My position statement at the Wharton Gamification Symposium’, http://www.bogost.com/blog/gamification_is_bullshit.shtml. Accessed 15 December 2013.

Brown, T. (2009), Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation, New York: Harper Collins.

CapGemini Consulting (2013), ‘Let the games begin: Using game mechanics to drive digital transformation’, http://www.capgemini-consulting.com/resource-file-access/resource/pdf/enterprisegamification.pdf. Accessed 15 January 2014.

Carroll, J. M. (1997), ‘Human-computer interaction: Psychology as a science of design’, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46: 4, pp. 501–22.

Cartwright, S. and Holmes, N. (2006), ‘The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining employee engagement and reducing cynicism’, Human Resource Management Review, 16: 2, pp. 199–208.

Castronova, E. (2005), Synthetic Worlds, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. —— (2007), Exodus to the Virtual World: How Fun is Changing Reality, New

York: Palgrave Macmillan. Deloitte (2013), ‘Gamification goes to work: Moving beyond points,

badges, and leaderboards’, http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/Services/consulting/technology-consulting/e53b217fb162c310Vgn-VCM1000003256f70aRCRD.htm. Accessed 15 January 2014.

Deterding, S. (2012), ‘Gamification: Designing for motivation’, Interactions, 19: 4, pp. 14–17.

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. and Nacke, L. (2011), ‘From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification”’, in Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, Lugmayr A., Franssila H., Safran, C., Hammouda, I. (eds) Tampere, Finland, 28–30 September, pp. 9–15, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2181037&picked=prox. Accessed 20 March 2014.

Dubberly, H., Evenson, S. and Robison, R. (2008), ‘the Analysis-Synthesis Bridge Model’, Interactions, 15: 2, pp. 57–61.

Dyer-Witherford, N. and de Peuter, G. (2009), Games of Empire: Global Capitalism and Video Games, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Eisenberger, R., Pierce, W. D. and Cameron, J. (1999), ‘Effects of reward on intrinsic motivation – negative, neutral, and positive: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan’, Psychological Bulletin, 125: 6, pp. 677–91.

Elliot, A. J. and McGregor, H. A. (2002), ‘A 2×2 achievement goal framework’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80: 3, pp. 501–19.

Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K. M. (2006), ‘The economics of fairness, reciprocity and altruism – experimental evidence and new theories’, in S. C. Kolm and J. M. Ythier (eds), Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity vol. 1, Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier B. V., pp. 615–91.

Fischer, G., (2001), ‘User modeling in human in computer interaction’, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11: 1–2, pp. 65–86.


Flanagan, M. and Nissenbaum, H. (2007), ‘A game design methodology to incorporate social activist themes’, CHI, San Jose, California, USA, 28 April–3 May.

Fleming, P. and Spicer, A. (2003), ‘Working from a cynical distance: Implications for power, subjectivity and resistance’, Organisation, 10: 1 pp. 157–79.

Fleming, P. and Sturdy, A. (2010), ‘“Being yourself” in the electronic sweats-hop: New forms of normative control’, Journal of Human Relations, 64: 2, pp. 177–200.

Fogg, B. J. (2002), Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do, Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann.

Foreman, J., Gee, J. P., Herz, J. C., Hinrichs, R., Prensky, M. and Sawyer, B. (2004), ‘Game-based learning: How to delight and instruct in the 21st century’, EDUCAUSE Review, 1 January, http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/game-based-learning-how-delight-and-instruct-21st-century. Accessed 12 December 2013.

Freeman, R. E. (1994), ‘The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future direc-tions’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 4: 4, pp. 409–21.

Friedman, B. and Kahn, P. H. Jr (1992), ‘Human agency and responsible computing: Implications for computer system design’, Journal of Systems Software, 17: 1, pp. 7–14.

Friedman, B. and Hendry, D. G. (2012), ‘The envisioning cards: A toolkit for catalyzing humanistic and technical imaginations’, CHI, Austin, Texas, USA, 5–12 May.

Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H. and Borning, A. (2008), ‘Value sensitive design and information systems’, in K. E. Himma and H. Tavani (eds), The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons Inc, pp. 69–101.

Fullerton, T. (2008), Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games, Burlington, MA, USA: CRC Press.

Gallup (2013), ‘State of the global workplace’, http://www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/164735/state-global-workplace.aspx. Accessed 1 June 2014.

Gartner (2011), ‘By 2015, more than 50 percent of organizations that manage innovation processes will gamify those processes’, http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/1629214. Accessed 5 December 2012.

—— (2012a), ‘Why projects fail? Hint – It’s not technical skills’, http://blogs.gartner.com/mike-rollings/2013/03/28/why-projects-fail-hint-its-not-technical-skills/. Accessed 15 January 2013.

—— (2012b), ‘Gamification: Engagement strategies for business and IT’, http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2251015. Accessed 5 December 2012.

—— (2012c), ‘Gartner says by 2014, 80 percent of current gamified applica-tions will fail to meet business objectives primarily due to poor design’, http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2251015. Accessed 30 December 2013.

Georganta, K. (2012), ‘Fun in the workplace: A matter for health’, The European Health Psychologist, 14: 2, pp. 41–5.

Gray, D. and Brown, S. (2010), Gamestorming: A Playbook for Innovators, Rulebreakers, and Changemakers, USA: O’Reilly Media Inc.

Grimshaw, D., Ward, K. G., Rubery, J. and Beynon, H. (2001), ‘Organisations and the transformation of the internal labour market’, Work, Employment and Society, 15: 1, pp. 25–54.


Hagel, J., Seely-Brown, J. and Davison, L. (2009), Measuring the Forces of Long Term Change: The 2009 Shift Index, San Francisco: Deloitte Centre for the Edge.

Hamari, J. (2013), ‘Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service’, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12: 4, pp. 236–45.

Hamari, J., Koivisto, J. and Sarsa, H. (2014), ‘Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification’, Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA, 6–9 January 2014.

Hanson, J. D. and Kysar, D. A. (1999), ‘Taking behaviouralism seriously: Some evidence of the problem of market manipulation’, Harvard Law Review, 112, pp. 1420–572.

Hohmann, L. (2006), Innovation Games: Creating Breakthrough Products Through Collaborative Play, Upper Saddle River: Addison-Wesley.

Huotari, K. and Hamari, J. (2012), ‘Defining gamification – A service marke-ting perspective’, Proceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference, Tampere, Finland, 3–5 October, New York: ACM Press pp. 17–22.

IDEO (2003), IDEO Method Cards: 51 Ways to Inspire Design, Palo Alto: IDEO.Kanter, E. M. (2009), Supercorp: How Vangard Companies Create Innovation,

Profits, Growth and Social Good, USA: Crown Business.Kennedy, D. (2003), ‘Better game design through data mining’, Gamasutra,

15 August, http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2816/better_game_design_through_data_.php. Accessed 20 December 2013.

Khaslavsky, J. and Shedroff, N. (1999), ‘Understanding the seductive expe-rience’, Communications of the ACM, 42: 5, pp. 45–49.

Khatib, F., Cooper, S., Tyka, M. D., Xu, M., Makedon, I., Popovic, Z., Baker, D. and Players, F. (2011), ‘Algorithm discovery by protein folding game players’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108:7, http://www.pnas.org/content/108/47/18949.full?sid=1c903a55-2fe2-4818-9a9e-4575f00d4149. Accessed 21 December 2013.

Kuka, D. and Oswald, D. (2012), ‘Visual rhetoric of self-optimization systems’, 10th Congress of the International Association of Visual Semiotics, Buenos Aires, Argentina, pp. 1–6.

Kumar, V. (2012), 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organisation, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Linden Lab (2014), ‘Second Life’, http://lindenlab.com/products/second-life Accessed 12 June 2014.

Llagostera, E. (2012), ‘On gamification and persuasion’, Brazilian Symposium on Computer Games and Digital Entertainment, 2–4 November, Brazil, pp. 12–21 http://www.click4it.org/images/4/4b/On_Gamification_and_Persuasion_Enric_Llagostera.pdf. Accessed 20 January 2014.

Lyon, D. (2003), ‘Surveillance as social sorting: computer codes and mobile bodies’, in D. Lyon (ed) Surveillance as Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk, and Digital Discrimination, London: Routledge. pp. 13–30.

Manders-Huits, N. and Zimmer, M. (2009), ‘Values and pragmatic action: The challenges of Introducing ethical intelligence in technical design commu-nities’, International Review of Information Ethics, 10; 2, pp. 37–44.

Marache-Francisco, C. and Brangier, E. (2013), ‘Perception of gamification: Between graphical design and persuasive design’, in A. Marcus (ed.)


Design, User Experience, and Usability: Health, Learning, Playing, Cultural, and Cross-Cultural User Experience: Second International Conference (DUXU 2013), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 8013, 21–26 November, Las Vegas: HCI International, pp. 558–67.

Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2009), Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

McGonigal, J. (2011), Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World, London: Penguin.

Medler, B. (2011), ‘Player dossiers: Analyzing gameplay data as a reward’, Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 11: 1, http://gamestudies.org/1101/articles/medler. Accessed 29 December 2013.

Mendel, J. (2012), ‘A taxonomy of models used in the design process’, ACM Interactions, XIX:1, January–February, pp. 1–7.

Mollick, E. and Rothbard, N. (2014), ‘Mandatory fun: consent, gamification and the impact of games at work’, The Wharton School Research Paper Series, 30 April, Philadelphia: The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2277103. Accessed 20 May 2014.

Mootee, I. (2013), Design Thinking for Strategic Innovation, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Nacke, L., Niesenhaus, J., Engl, S., Canossa, A., Kuikkaniemi, K. and Immich, T. (2010), ‘Bringing digital games to user research and user experience’, Proceedings of the Entertainment Interfaces Track 2010 Interaktive Kulturen, 12–15 September, Duisburg: Germany.

O’Brien, H. L. and Toms, E. G. (2008), ‘What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology’, Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 59: 6, pp. 938–55.

Oinas-Kukkonen, H. and Harjumaa, M. (2009), ‘Persuasive systems design: Key issues, process model, and system features’, Communications of the Association of Information Systems, 24: 28, pp. 485–500.

Prensky, M. (2001), Digital Game-Based Learning, Chicago: McGraw-Hill.PricewaterhouseCoopers (2012), ‘Enterprise Gamification: Buzzword or busi-

ness tool, PriceWaterhouse Coopers Australia’, http://www.pwc.com.au/consulting/assets/publications/Enterprise-Gamification-Sept12.pdf. Accessed 12 January 2013.

Reeves, B. and Read, J. L. (2009), Total Engagement: Using Games and Virtual Worlds to Change the Way People Work and Businesses Compete, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Roos, J. (2006), Thinking From Within: A Hands-On Strategy Practice, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Schell, J. (2008), The Art of Game Design: A Deck of Lenses, USA: Schell Games.

—— (2011), ‘The Pleasure Revolution’, http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/05/jesse-schell-talks-about-the-pleasure-revolution/. Accessed 14 May 2014.

Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation, London: Random House.

Shneiderman, B. (2004), ‘Designing for fun: How to make user interfaces more fun’, ACM Interactions, 11: 5, pp. 48–50.

Siorpaes, K. and Hep, M. (2008), ‘Games with a purpose for the semantic web’, IEEE Intelligent Systems, 23: 3, pp. 50–60.

Sutton-Smith, B. (1997), The Ambiguity of Play, USA: Harvard University Press.


Thom, J., Millen, D. and DiMicco, J. (2012), ‘Removing gamification from an enterprise SNS’, in Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, New York: ACM Press, pp. 1067–70.

Towers Perrin Global Workforce Study (2011), ‘Closing the engagement gap: A road map for driving superior business performance 2007–2008’, http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.simnet.org/resource/group/066D79D1-E2A8-4AB5-B621-60E58640FF7B/leadership_workshop_2010/towers_perrin_global_workfor.pdf. Accessed 30 December 2013.

von Ahn, L. (2006), ‘Games with a purpose’, IEEE Computer Magazine, 39: 6, pp. 96–98.

von Ahn, L. and Dabbish, L. (2008), ‘Designing games with a purpose’, Communications of the ACM, 51: 8, pp. 58–67.

Werbach, K., and Hunter, D. (2012), For the Win: How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your Business, Philadelphia: Wharton Digital Press.

Yoo, D., Huldtgren, A., Woelfer, J. P., Hendry, D. G. and Friedman, B. (2013), ‘A value sensitive action-reflection model: Evolving a co-design space with stakeholder and designer prompts’, Proceedings of CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Changing Perspectives, 27 April–2 May, Paris, France. New York: ACM Press pp. 419–28.

Zichermann, G. and Linder, J. (2010), Game-Based Marketing: Inspire Customer Loyalty Through Rewards, Challenges, and Contests, Hoboken: Wiley.

Zimmerman, E. and Salen, K. (2004), The Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals, USA: MIT Press.

Zureik, E. (2003), ‘Theorizing surveillance: The case of the workplace’, in D. Lyon (ed) Surveillance as Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk, and Digital Discrimination, London: Routledge. pp. 32–56.

Raftopoulos, M. (2014), ‘Towards gamification transparency: A conceptual framework for the development of responsible gamified enterprise systems’, Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds 6: 2, pp. 159–178, doi: 10.1386/jgvw.6.2.159_1

Marigo Raftopoulos is a doctoral researcher in Enterprise Innovation at the Games and Experimental Entertainment Laboratory at RMIT University. In her research, she focuses on how game design thinking can benefit enterprise innovation and improve engagement, collaboration and knowledge sharing. She is owner and director of StrategicGamesLab, which designs and offers game-based learning tools for business applications, a partner in Enterprise Gamification Consultancy, and co-chair and co-founder of Games for Change Australia-New Zealand. Raftopoulos has an undergraduate degree in econom-ics and an M.B.A. from Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.

Contact: GEELab, RMIT University, Design Hub Building 100, Level 4, Room 2, GPO Box 2476, Melbourne VIC 3001, Australia.E-mail: [email protected]

Marigo Raftopoulos has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work in the format that was submitted to Intellect Ltd.


Towards Gamification Transparency: A conceptual framework for the development of responsible...

Documents

Transcript of Towards Gamification Transparency: A conceptual framework for the development of responsible...