This is a presentation I made at DiGRA 2015 in Luneburg Germany on my published research paper. The full paper can be found here: https://rmit.academia.edu/MarigoRaftopoulos

1. DiGRA 2015 * Luneburg * Germany
Towards a Taxonomy for
Enterprise Gamification
Marigo Raftopoulos * Steffen Walz * Stefan Greuter

2. Hello 
Marigo Raftopoulos
PhD candidate: Year 3 ¾
Thesis - How organisations play: The
building blocks for successful enterprise
gamification implementations
RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
GEELab – Games Research Centre
Supervisors:
Associate Professor Steffen Walz,
Associate Professor Stefan Greuter

4. Warning!
5 Death by PowerPoint Slides approaching…

5. The Research Gap
• Comprehensive enterprise gamification taxonomy did not exist
• Taxonomies are key tools for enterprise environments– IT, IS, KM, HR
• To date, focus on enterprise gamification centered on motivational
affordances, not on holistic enterprise systems and processes
• Mixed messages on definitions and descriptions of what gamification is,
what it does, and how it can be applied
• Common language & terms of reference specializing in enterprise
gamification

6. Purpose of the Research
• Identify how the market defines and interprets enterprise gamification by
evaluating the artifacts they have created
• Locate where organisations are investing in gamification projects and for
what purpose by looking at self-identified cases of gamification
• Identify the design decisions they are making
• Develop a classification system to form a baseline to compare (and inform)
gamification design strategies and investment decisions
• This was essential to the next phase of my research on capabilities and
competencies required for successful implementations

7. Methodology – Grounded Approach
1. Initial scan of self-identified examples of enterprise gamification (60)
– Conceptualization & categorization of key parameters
– Open coding to explore emerging themes (code book)
– 3 orientations, 5 key elements, over 40 sub-elements
– Initial 60 examples (Glaser’s ‘theoretical saturation’ point)
2. Literature review
– At the mid-point of the project
– Data source on taxonomies; contextualize the data
3. Detailed industry survey or audit (304 examples)
– ABI/INFORM, OneFile Gale, Google Scholar, Google Search (190k hits)
– Filter examples to set criteria of ‘enterprise gamification’
– Coding of examples; analysis of results
4. Develop a theory of the taxonomy inductively

8. Foundation built on serious games taxonomies
• SGs are already well versed in enterprise systems and processes
– Solving enterprise problems
– Integrate with enterprise systems
– Already tested and validated in complex enterprise environments
• Extensive literature review to evaluate different models
– To contextualize the research on the survey/audit
– Ongoing discourse in this domain (incl entertainment games)
• Key sources for SG: Klabbers 2003, Sawyer et al. 2008, Djaouti et al.
2011, Bedwell et al. 2012, Pereira et al. 2012, Ratan et.al. 2009, Zyda
2005, Michael et al. 2005, Alvarez et al. 2008, Bergeron 2006, Robinson
et al 2013
• Gamification schemas: Deterding et al. 2011, Kappen et al. 2013,
Hamari et al. 2014

9. Methodology - Limitations
• Self-identified not peer reviewed as focusing on industry interpretation
• Grounded approach is interpretative & guided by researchers’ world view
– Pragmatist research paradigm, design-science PhD
• Some level of ambiguity is unavoidable in enterprise taxonomies
– Organisational constructs are conceptual & contextual
– Ditto for games studies and design
• Not intended as a substitute for business acumen or creative design
• Gamification is in part a create endeavor, therefore it cannot be
completely codified

10. • Three orientations
– Market-based
– Technology-based
– Design-based
• Five key elements
– Primary purpose
– Target audience
– Technology strategy
– Core gameplay
– Key game mechanics
Enterprise
gamification
taxonomy
elements
Primary
purpose
Target
audience
Technology
strategy
Core
gameplay
Key
mechanics
Outline of Key Findings

11. Proposed Taxonomy
Enterprise
Gamification
Taxonomy
Market based
Target Audience 5
Key Purpose 16 (6)
Technology Based
Games and
simulations
Mobile
Web
Game platforms
Enterprise
Platforms
Vendor supplied
Self built
Product
Modifications
2
Playful
Experiences
2
Design Based
Core Gameplay 12*
Key Mechanics 10*
Orientations Elements Sub-Elements

12. Market-Based Elements

13. Market-Based Elements
* Distilled from a list of 17 different items

14. Market-Based Elements

15. Technology-Based Elements
Secondary technologies
often used in parallel:
• Augmented reality
• Virtual reality
• Geo-location
• Social media

16. Technology based elements
in close-up

17. Enterprise Platforms (46%)

18. 46% of cases were identified as
enterprise platform solutions
Equally divided between vendor
supplied and self-built solutions
PHD Media gamified collaboration platform
SAP CRM application

19. Games & Simulations (25%)

20. 25% of cases identified as a
gamification project were either
games (19%) or simulations (6%)

21. Playful Experiences (8%)

22. 8% of cases were identified as playful experiences (i.e. events,
scavenger hunts, gamestorming & other physical activities) both
digital and analogue that also offered real world experiences

23. Product Modifications (20%)

24. 20% of cases identified as having
modified their product/service offering
using gamification elements
BBVA optimized digital service offerings
Innovation challenge introduced
new services

25. Design-Based Elements

26. Common Design-Based Elements
Core gameplay
• Collection (56%)
• Territory acquisition
• Prediction
• Survival
• Building
• Chasing/evading
• Trading
• Puzzle solving
• Social
• Destruction
• Racing
• Spatial navigation
Key mechanics
• Points (43%)
• Achievements (badges/trophies) (52%)
• Leaderboards
• Narrative
• Missions/quests (29%)
• Currency
• Rewards (35%)
• Social
• Experiences
• Progression

27. • No new or novel design patterns
• Only simple forms of gameplay and game mechanics evident
– Practitioner skills and/or organisational readiness
– Availability of applied research limited
– Often referred to as “experiments”
– Still early days
• Reinforce existing organisation constructs and management paradigms
• Creating new constructs and paradigms not evident (but creating new
processes and approaches within existing constructs is)
• Reality is not really broken after all..
Reality Check

28. • Self identified examples used in the research
– Lacked analytical/design rigor
– Marketing/public relations motivations to report as gamification
– Self justification bias in reporting
• High level overview
– limited deep application into specific enterprise domains (marketing,
human resources, training, information systems, knowledge
management, finance, compliance)
• Taxonomies are human constructs, and are highly contextual and open to
different interpretations
Limitations

29. • Develop gamification taxonomies specific enterprise domains
• Tie to motivational affordances and psychological outcomes
for a more complex taxonomy
• Detailed framework covering design orientations (game design patterns)
• Convergence of other forms of games and play into a redefinition of
enterprise gamification
Opportunities for Further Research

30. The components for enterprise gamification that have become apparent:
• A process AND an artifact AND an experience
• Enhances a product, service, process or system
• Affordances for gameful experiences through games, play and game
design patterns
• Integration of design, technology and organisational capabilities
• Results in value creation for organisational stakeholders
Towards a (re)definition?

31. All feedback welcomed and appreciated

32. Contact:
Email: marigo.raftopoulos@rmit.edu.au
Twitter: @marigo
Research papers: https://rmit.academia.edu/MarigoRaftopoulos