From Game Design to Service Design

Service Design

At a time in which the value in business has shifted its focus to experiences (Miettinen, 2009), the delivery of experience-centric services (Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010, 2011) requires the systematic management and design of customer experiences through careful planning of tangible and intangible elements in the service delivery system (Pullman & Gross, 2004). Linked to it, new service perspectives are emerging focused on intangible resources, co-creation of value and relationships (Vargo & Lusch, 2004).

However, considering that experiences are constructed by customers in human-to-human interactions (Polaine, 2012) according to their interpretation of a series of encounters and interactions (Hume, Mort, Liesch, & Winzar, 2006), they cannot be fully controlled. Rather than offering experiences per se, experience-centric service providers create or stage the prerequisites that enable customers to have the desired experiences (Edvardsson & Olsson, 1996; Gupta & Vajic, 2000). The prerequisites typically include the central concept/activity of the experience and the context in which that takes place.

A key characteristic of experience-centric services is that they are designed to engage customers, enabling connection with the service in a personal, memorable way (Pine & Gilmore, 1999; Pullman & Gross, 2004). Engagement can be emotional, physical, intellectual or even ‘spiritual’, and different types of engagement can be achieved depending on the level of customer participation and connection with the experience. Customers can, for example, enjoy the aesthetics, escape from reality, and/or be entertained or educated (Metters, King-Metters, Pullman, & Walton, 2006; Pine & Gilmore, 1998). It is this engagement that builds the emotional connections and promotes the desired experiences.

Service experience is considered as the design of a series of encounters and interactions that users live over time (Hume et al., 2006), which take place in a ‘servicescape’ (Bitner, 1992; Vilnai-Yavetz & Rafaeli, 2006) and may involve human elements (Czepiel, Solomon, & Surprenant, 1985; Gwinner, Bitner, Brown, & Kumar, 2005). The Service Journey model (Ghobadian, Speller, & Jones, 1994) is a key element in the design of services from a user perspective. In this way, service experiences can be seen as the way users interpret this series of encounters and interactions through touchpoints, defined as points of contact between a service provider and its customers (Hume et al., 2006).

While many service elements that affect customer experiences have been addressed, such as the physical or virtual ‘servicescape’ (Bitner, 1992; Vilnai-Yavetz & Rafaeli, 2006) and the human interactions and experiences in service encounters (e.g., Cipolla & Manzini, 2009; Czepiel et al., 1985; Gwinner et al., 2005; Patrício, Fisk, & Cunha, 2008; Patrício, Fisk, Cunha, & Constantine, 2011), the design of service delivery systems from a customer-experience perspective warrants further examination. This is particularly true, as described next, in relation to research activities undertaken in the game design field regarding ways of promoting and sustaining user engagement.

Game Design and Gamification

Game design is an activity that creates and defines game structures and rules, targeting the generation of meaningful experiences (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). Their goal is to create game activities through the interaction of users’ actions and game system responses. Game designers do not directly design gameplay or game experiences, but rather the structures and contexts in which these can occur, indirectly shaping the users’ actions, their scope of possibilities, the place where they can occur and their possible meanings (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004; Schell, 2008). It is the interaction with the game system that builds behaviors and allows the experiences to occur (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004).

In more recent years, this approach has been shifting. Previously considered more as a tool for the development of games, game design has been increasingly applied in other areas. This transposition has basically occurred in two ways: firstly, using games as a complementary (in some cases even primary) element to potentiate certain practices, as in Simulation Games (Faria, 2001; Faria & Wellington, 2004; Fumarola, Van Staalduinen, & Verbraeck, 2012), Educational Games (Butler, 1998; Herz & Merz, 1998; Saqer, De Visser, Strohl, & Parasuraman, 2012), the New Games Movement (Pearce, Fullerton, Fron, & Morie, 2007) and Serious Games (de Freitas & Jarvis, 2007; Dibbell, 2011; Poplin, 2012); secondly, applying game design concepts from game development practices, outside the context of games to improve engagement, as in Gamestorming (Gray & Macanufo, 2010), Game-Based Marketing (Zichermann & Linder, 2010) and currently, Gamification, (Deterding, Khaled, et al., 2011; Huotari & Hamari, 2012; Law, Kasirun, & Gan, 2011; Michaelides, 2011; Simões, Redondo, & Vilas, 2013; Teresa & Kramer, 2011; Thom, Millen, & DiMicco, 2012). Among these are also those who apply the principles of game design to social change (McGonigal, 2011). This study is in line with the second way – using game design to promote engagement.

Gamification, which investigates the use of game design elements in non-game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011), is a set of recent practices and is, therefore, still in the process of conceptual definition, methodological verification and academic validation (Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014). However, reports and research already exist that indicate that the use of gamification practices has been generating positive results: increasing user’s interest, awareness, participation and loyalty; and generating revenue growth.

From the academic side, Hamari, Koivisto, and Sarsa (2014) monitored an increase in the number of gamification papers published from 2010 to 2013. According to this research (24 papers), a majority of studies indicated positive effects and benefits in the use of gamification practices, and considered gamification to be mostly positive due to its ability to increase motivation, engagement and enjoyment. However, only two studies found positive effects in all tests, and its main results indicated that these may not be long-term and can be more effective when applied in shorter periods of time.

A report from Aberdeen Group (2013) indicated that the use of gamification techniques by companies has led to a faster annual revenue growth and better overall results. It also highlighted the benefits and growth trends for the companies that put gamification practices in motion. According to the company Bunchball (2010), the use of gamification for promotion of products, brands or services can increase: user base and overall participation; visibility and perception of a brand, campaign or service; web traffic and time spent on websites; and company’s sales. Gigya (2012) reported that while it is a recent methodology, gamification has caused significant impact on corporate marketing, increasing social service resources and making them potentially more participatory. Anderson and Rainie (2012) corroborated the benefits of gamification through a survey that measured public perception. Their findings indicated that from a survey of 5,000 people, 53 percent agreed that game mechanics will become a part of everyday life for most internet users by 2020. It also reports that a great majority of respondents believe that game elements will play a vital role in health and education. However, some respondents warn that people will resist if gamification appears in too many aspects of everyday life.

Gartner (2012) also described future scenarios where gamification, combined with other emerging trends and technologies, may result in significant changes in areas like innovation, employee performance, education, personal development and customer engagement. It also stated that gamification improves experiences by utilizing social capital, self-esteem, fun, motivation, extrinsic rewards and, by 2016, will be essential to drive loyalty.

However, according to Deterding (2012), gamification, as well as other design practices, depends on the quality of its application to work properly and generate positive results. The simple use of badges, points or other concepts, without design procedures seeking to achieve a thorough understanding of the users’ needs, is not gamification. Another important fact stressed is that ‘bad’ or inappropriate products or services cannot be made ‘good’ or valuable by using gamification. Inherent quality and meaning must be present.

Gamification and Services

With regard to the relations and similarities between service and game design fields, Huotari and Hamari (2012, p. 19, 2016) advance further and offered a deeper gamification understanding from the perspective of service marketing, as a “process of enhancing a service with affordances for gameful experiences in order to support user’s overall value creation.” For the authors, it’s a logical choice to tie gamification to service marketing “because majority of gamification implementations aim towards goals of marketing” (Huotari & Hamari, 2012, p. 17). This definition intends to exalt the goal of gamification, which is focused on (gamified) experiences. So, where Deterding et al. (2011) sought to focus on what constitutes gamification, Huotari and Hamari (2012) focused on its consequences.

Furthermore, Huotari and Hamari (2012, 2016) indicated that merging findings from game studies with service marketing research can provide a framework on how gameplay can be part and/or supports services, or helps the development of gamified services; all pretty close with the research presented here. In this line of thought, both fields can be understood from a point of view where game design elements can be described as services and games as service systems. Games can be regarded as systems that require the active involvement of users (Huotari & Hamari, 2011, 2012, 2016), where the quality of this service is strongly determined by the functional quality of the experience. The authors still considered that the literature of game studies and service marketing are complementary in large parts; the central focus, which is the improvement of experiences, appears to be the same. This article, thus, considers and works with these similarities in order to promote a greater integration between these two fields.

Principle 1: Practice-Inspired Research

The aim of the research was driven by the need for an IT artifact that supports gamification in service design processes, as already discussed in Background Research. The main objective is, therefore, the development of a gamification tool for services. It is important also to highlight that the novelty of the GSF is in the organization of already researched motivational game design concepts into a framework that facilitates their understanding and application and not in the presentation or research of new concepts.

Principle 2: Theory-Ingrained Artifact

The way the GSF was structured and understood emerged through the iterative development of two interrelated studies that occurred simultaneously:

While the game design concepts were gathered and analyzed (Research 2), we, the authors, were observing patterns that fit best to a particular component of game activity (Research 1), and so on. Naturally, the more we analyzed the reviewed concepts (Research 2), more patterns and relationships with the components used were found (Research 1). This process has been evolving and providing nonlinear and cyclical feedback, taking shape by the observation of the relationship between the game design concepts and the game activity components.

Research Stage 1: Game activity conceptualization

According with Huizinga (1949), play can be understood as a free activity outside ordinary life, not serious but intensely absorbing with no material interest and no profit possibility, which has its own boundaries of time and space, controlled by rules in an orderly manner, promoting socialization, and stressing the difference from the ‘common world’ through disguise. So, one can interpret that a game activity can be understood as a voluntary and artificial activity with boundaries of time and space, controlled by rules, capable of provoking sensations, and to occur ‘outside’ real life. For Caillois (1958), a game activity is essentially: free, nonobligatory, separate (from ordinary life), uncertain (as the results), unproductive (with no profits), governed by rules, and fictitious (not real). Additionally, for Avedon and Sutton-Smith (1971) a game is an exercise of voluntary control systems with a conflict between forces, controlled by rules, with an unbalanced outcome. So, a game is voluntary, structured by logic, has a control system and an active conflict that aims towards a result. Suits (1978), on the other hand, defined (simplified form) a game activity as an attempt (activity) to achieve a specific state (goal), using less efficient means (actions) permitted by (accepted) rules. More recently, Salen and Zimmerman (2004) defined a game as a system (structure/logic) were players engage (voluntarily) in an artificial conflict (activity), defined by rules (rules) and which results in a quantifiable outcome (goal/feedback). Finally, McGonigal (2011) pointed out that, except for the differences, all games have the following features: objectives, rules, feedback systems and voluntary participation.

The author’s keywords (table’s rows) above can be summarized in a table that relates to the proposed components (table’s columns) in the following way (Table 1):

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Game Activity Keywords, by Author.

By synthesizing the definitions above, a game activity can be conceptualized as: a voluntary, uncertain, unproductive (regarding their alleged lack of impact in real life) and intrinsic activity; limited spatially and temporally; parallel to reality; which provokes sensations, and; controlled by rules. Based on these keywords, we present a definition that focuses on the distinct but integrated components that compose a game activity:

A voluntary (voluntariness) and intrinsic (objective/feedback) activity, which operates in parallel to reality (perception/rules/social interaction), endowed with a predictable (control/objective), but uncertain (control/perception) end (objective), limited and controlled by rules (rules/control), and capable of provoking reactions (perception) through experiences (social interaction/perception/feedback).

Research Stage 2: Game design motivational concepts

In this stage we performed some extensive review about game design motivational concepts (see selection criteria in Section 3.3). These concepts have been grouped into seven game activity components, according to the game activity definition above: voluntariness, rules, control, objective, feedback, social interaction and perception. Every component is presented and has its concepts listed in separate tables, bellow (Tables 2-8).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Voluntariness Concepts.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Rules Concepts.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Control Concepts.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

Objective Concepts.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 6.

Feedback Concepts.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 7.

Social Interaction Concepts.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 8.

Perception Concepts.

About the Theoretical Conceptualization and Sources Selection

Conceptually and structurally, the model closer to the organization of components described in this article comes from Csikszentmihalyi (1991) and refers to the conditions that lead to the Flow state, whose relevance in the game studies field is widely known. In relation to its effectiveness in gamification, the Flow model has already been tested in this context with positive initial results (Hamari & Koivisto, 2014). Consequently, we openly claim this model as the most important reference to the game activity organization in this study. However, considerable differences also exist between the two.

Csikszentmihalyi’s research is not solely focused on game activities, being that it is a comprehensive study of people’s state of mind when performing a variety of activities. Also, for the author, voluntary participation is not considered as one of the Flow components, even as its importance is indicated as a precondition for greater engagement. Besides, in the present study some Flow components (‘awareness of concentration’ and ‘the paradox of being in control over an uncertain activity’) are combined in one game activity component that represents both (Control). Finally, logical and technical aspects (Rules) – important when dealing with game activities – are not presented in Csikszentmihalyi’s model, which deals with a broader range of activities.

Regarding more specifically the research of game design concepts, several other references have been reviewed, but not included. The criteria used for inclusion examined two main types of references: historically relevant authors from the game studies field and the most ‘suitable’ and relevant (according to the study proposal) works from the game design and gamification fields. The focus here, with a few exceptions, is on the classical and empirical design-centered assumptions, rather than on academic research and data. Thereby, references who had already ‘translated’ academic research into an ‘applicable state’ in the scope of game design and service design were sought out.

Another important design and project decision was to exclude the discussion of ‘player types’ and how they react differently to each type of stimulus or concept placed in game environments. At this stage of research, this decision was made in order to simplify (and at the same time generalize) the structuration of the GSF. However, this does not mean that in future stages this subject cannot be used to offer more specific support.

All references utilized in the research of game design concepts (or not, in case of player types) are found in Table 9:

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 9.

References Utilized.

Principle 3: Reciprocal Shaping

At this stage we refined the research in stage 1, assembling, through the iterative research, the two constituent parts of the GSF: the Game Activity Structure and the Synthesis of Game Design Concepts. It is still worth noting that the objective of this study was not to bring forth new game design concepts, but to organize the researched material in a new way. However, the classification of the motivational concepts according to the game activity basic components is indeed a novel contribution from this article.

GSF, Part 1: Game activity structure

The basic components of game activities form the structure on which the motivational components of game design are organized and, therefore, how the Gamification Service Framework is structured. It is organized into four major groups: the first one, ‘Voluntariness’, is a precondition, while the other three deal with the activity itself; Logic (technologies, materials, game rules and game mechanics, also called ‘Rules’) refers to all the logical and technical aspects that constitute a game; Actions (‘Control’, ‘Objective’ and ‘Feedback’) refer to everything the player performs and the game system responds to put the game in motion; and Reactions (physical and psychological sensations, feelings and emotions: ‘Perception’) refer to everything that happens inside the user’s body and mind when he is playing. One more basic component, Social Interaction, is related with the social needs and connected both to Actions and Reactions.

Besides the Flow model, another game activity model analyzed was the MDA (Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics) framework, described as a model to understand games, which tries to fill the gap between game design and development, game criticism and technical game research (Hunicke et al., 2004). MDA divides a game activity into three components: rules, system and fun; moreover, this relates to their respective design counterparts: mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics. Generally speaking, relating the MDA approach to the model presented in this article, the first one seems to correspond to the game logics, the second to the system (game) and player actions and the third to the emotional responses. The similarities with the structure in Figure 2 are sufficiently clear, with logic corresponding to rules, actions to system and reactions to aesthetics. The main difference, (besides a more detailed division between components) however, is that the GSF tries to link the components more specifically to the corresponding game design concepts, in a way that facilitates its understanding and implementation from a design perspective.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Structuring the GSF based on the basic components of game activities.

GSF, Part 2: Synthesis of the game design concepts

The Synthesis of motivational concepts researched is presented in Table 10. They are organized in two ways: horizontally, according to the basic components of game activities and, vertically, focusing on common key points among them.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 10.

Synthesis of the Game Design Concepts.

Principle 4: Mutually Influential Roles

Service journey mapping

The service journey presented below divides the CarUni in the following steps:

First Contact; Visit the website; Sign up; Search for a ride; Ride approved; Schedule a ride; Journey; Parting; and Service Feedback. These steps are distributed through the five standard service journey stages, which are: Engagement (First Contact, and Visit the website); Entry (Visit the website, Sign up, and Search for a ride); Immersion (Search for a ride, Ride approved, and Schedule a ride); Exit (Schedule a ride, Journey and Parting); and Extension (Parting and Service Feedback).

An initial analysis (consisting of data analysis, interviews with the service’s creator, service utilization and analysis of the journey steps) identifies that CarUni, in its current format, focuses mainly on intermediate service journey stages, particularly on: requesting and booking rides, looking for right matches between demand and offer, and the assurance of a safe and trustworthy environment for those involved in the booking process. The other stages are underdeveloped or unexplored; for example: after users have committed to a ride, the rest of the process runs outside of the system, with them having to communicate and interact almost entirely on their own initiative. No provision for service quality evaluation or rating after completion currently exists.

The Table 11 describes and analyzes the CarUni service journey mapping with the expected user conditions in each stage.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 11.

The Service Journey Mapping (Before the GSF Application): Expected Rider Experience.

Principle 5: Authentic and Concurrent Evaluation

Journey analysis and gamification process

The journey was analyzed as a whole, with major issues identified, including:

A lack of effective direct media to promote the service as something interesting, innovating and that ‘really works’;

An easier and less bureaucratic way to initiate its use;

A need for better social and interacting tools between users;

More contact options to schedule rides;

A necessity for a goal/reward system that contributes to engage users;

A lack of feedback options (posting or receiving opinions about the passenger or driver) after finishing the journey.

Keeping these main issues in mind, we brainstormed new ideas by:

Analyzing and understanding each feature of each journey step (i.e., journey step Search for a ride, in Entry/Immersion);

Analyzing the game activity structure (GSF, part 1) and evaluating which components could be suitable for use in these particular features (i.e., Rules, Objective, Feedback and Social Interaction components);

Verifying which game design concept (GSF, part 2) could be suitable to use in that particular case (i.e., Rules: clearer information, improved and user-oriented system rules; Objective: ride recommendations; Feedback: reward points; ride recommendations; Social Interaction: clearer information/visualization of profiles; inviting friends).

Every feature of every step was analyzed in terms of what components would be appropriate for use and what game design concept of this component could be used to improve or modify that feature. It is worth it to highlight also that this analysis, when put into practice, occurs in a more iterative and less linear fashion than the way it is demonstrated here, as is usual in design oriented methods. The intention is not to create a rigidly straight method, but a dynamic, iterative and imaginative one.

The brainstorming process for the selection of components and concepts, and the ideas developed for application in each feature of each stage are summarized in Table 12.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 12.

Simulated Application of Game Design Concepts for CarUni (Main Organizational Focus in the Service).

Gamified Service Journey Mapping

The (simulated) modified service journey presented below considers the same steps previously presented in Table 11. The same earlier journey steps are distributed through the same five standard service journey stages. Regarding the previous general analysis (CarUni focuses mainly on its intermediate stages, while the others are underdeveloped or unexplored, limiting the provisions for evaluation), the general changes proposed that are best suitable to address the outlined issues, from our understanding, are:

The Table 13 shows the new simulated service journey mapping, highlighting its new features, the game design components utilized and the expected user conditions with these modifications. After, we present a step-by-step description of the ‘new’ journey.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 13.

The Service Journey After the GSF Application (Rider’s Point-of-View).

First contact: The service entry now has more (in terms of quantity and efficiency) options compared to the previous unmodified journey. The main objective is to make the user become more familiar with the service and its features. The user’s expected conditions are now: renewed curiosity, better understanding about the service, the same transportation need and ideological identification.

Visit the website: The user accesses the reformulated service website for the first time and, more thoroughly than before, learns about its main features, aspects, objectives, ways to participate, and social/environmental benefits. All important information is presented to the user in a more accessible and meaningful way. Thereby, it is expected that the user may have a quicker, better, broader and easier understanding about the service, realizing that he can also make some social/environmental positive impact and could be rewarded/recognized for doing so.

Sign up: The user can now choose two ways to register – a quick registration or a complete one – gaining equivalent reward points for each subscription type. The service system now provides a ‘to-do list’ with system generated usage suggestions based on the user’s profile. These modified features are expected to make the process less bureaucratic and more rewarding, and to promote more active participation.

Search for a ride: The user now can access the driver list and visualize more clearly their data, allowing him to make a more grounded selection. He now can receive ride recommendations based on his profile, and gain reward points (linked to ranking, reward and level systems) for ride requests. Another feature enables the user to see his social network friends, enabling invitation to join and gaining points for each new user registration invited by him. With all this, it’s expected that the user feels more motivated to participate, and feels that his participation will be recognized and rewarded.

Ride approved: The user continues to receive a driver confirmation message, but now has new and more readily available contact options. He can now verify the rider’s profile and reputation through a rating/voting system, and gain reward points for ride confirmations, ‘level up’ and win rewards. With these changes, it’s expected the user will offer/receive more frequent feedbacks and feel optimistic and rewarded.

Schedule a ride: the users are now rewarded with points for scheduling a ride. The system now provides new ways of direct interaction between users and verification about personal affinities. The expectation is that these modifications will reduce uncertainty and anxiety, induce rewarding sensations and renew motivation.

Journey: The users now receive system instructions by e-mail with etiquette tips about how to behave and what to expect during the ride. This way, it’s expected that uncertainty and anxiety will be reduced; consequently, providing ease for interpersonal interaction.

Parting: This step did not suffer major changes, except that now the system (in the previously mentioned etiquette-tips e-mail) reminds users about the importance of their pay commitment (if previously agreed). After the ride, the system e-mails the users a congratulation message. Now is expected at this stage a feeling of goal accomplishment: success, positive feedback and contribution to social and environmental causes.

Service feedback: The user returns to the service site, and now he can evaluate and post information and personal opinions about the experience. He also can stay in touch and become network friend with users that he has, had or would like to have an interaction with. Users are now included in a ranking system and receive to-do lists with ‘missions’ to accomplish. The expected conditions entail renewing feedback (in a variety of ways), extending the experience, and motivating the users to return.

Principle 6: Guided Emergence

At this stage we provide evaluation and reflection about the process of development and application of the GSF seen in previous stages.

In stage 1, Problem Formulation, the researchers encountered two main endeavors. The first concerns the proposition of an IT artifact that addresses the problem observed in the service field: how to properly and systematically apply gamification to services. The logic employed considers that if the aim is to gamify a service, a possible way to do this (in addition to the use of game design concepts) is by structuring a service like a game activity. As previously indicated, game design and service design are related, have similarities and can be tied together; and game design can be used to improve experiences in services. The second principle (Theory-Ingrained Artifact), per se, deals with the early research stages for the GSF development. At that moment, initial researches and reviews were conducted in order to build an outline about game activity and what constitutes it, using these constituent components as guidelines to (posteriorly) classify and organize different game design concepts in an applicable model. This was the most laborious stage, when a large volume of resources were examined, selected (or discarded) and, lastly, reviewed.

Stage 2, Building, Intervention and Evaluation, had three parts/principles. Here the GSF was properly developed, shaped and ‘applied’. The first part deals with the organization of the game activity model in seven components, and with the synthesis and organization of the game design concepts previously researched in relation to the mentioned components. The second covers the selection and analysis of the service where the application of the GSF was simulated. To understand the service more thoroughly we utilized the Service Journey tool (Table 11). The last part concerns the application itself of the GSF. In it, we presented the proposed the modifications, components and concepts utilized in each moment (Table 12). Subsequently, we presented the ‘new’, modified journey, with its new service features and the expected results (Table 13). At this stage, the major issues were related to the service journey detailed analysis, to understand which components and concepts would best fit the identified needs and to what potential results these modifications would bring.

At the end of the gamification process, it’s possible to note several modification propositions spread throughout all stages. However, it is valid to state that the majority of the proposed changes are not radical or structural in essence. It’s clear that in a general way the service has maintained its previous basic structure and some of its original features (but mostly with modifications). So, the changes proposed are more subtle, primarily if we look at them separately. From our point of view, however, it is the ensemble of modifications that justifies and validates the process. When both journeys are compared, the proposed combined changes highlight the differences between ‘before and after’: from a technology oriented service (with some gaps) to a user-oriented and experience-oriented one. At the end, the journey has to be looked at as a system to make appropriate sense. That way, the GSF can be understood at this stage of developing as a tool for modifications in existing services in order to gamify them; but not for the ‘development from scratch’ of gamified services.

Principle 7: Generalized Outcomes

In this final development stage, we conclude the IT artifact proposing a simplified application model for the GSF tool, also based on the ADR methodology. The proposed model starts with Stage 1 (Problem Formulation), but focuses on the Stage 2 triad (Building, Intervention and Evaluation). The model is utilized running these two stages cyclically, as many times as necessary to develop an appropriate (following particularly defined criteria) gamified solution. Below, the Figure 3 illustrates the process:

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Gamification service framework application model.

The GSF application using a simplified ADR-based methodology has eight cyclical steps, divided into four stages, according to the figure above. In Problematization, we have the initial recognition that drives the rest of the process – the need for a service to be gamified (or to be improved, if the model is running in a subsequent cycle).

In Building, we have the research, analysis and modeling of the service in its actual state. In the first step, a model is constructed using research tools like data collection, interviews, and data analysis in order to understand and to document how the service actually works. Posteriorly, a Journey Map (based on the previous gathered data) is assembled. And lastly, the journey steps and features are analyzed in order to understand what needs to be changed, improved or unmodified.

In Intervention, we have the proposition and implementation of the proposed changes. A new, modified model is constructed through a two phases brainstorming plus a new service journey assembly. The brainstorming process consists of two steps: (brainstorm 1) multiple analysis of how (and if) a game activity component (see Figure 2) could fit into a particular feature/step in the journey; analysis of which game design concept (see Table 10) of that particular component can be meaningfully utilized in that case, and; (brainstorm 2) proposition of ideas or modifications (based on the game design concepts) aiming to improve user’s experience. At the last step of this stage, the journey is assembled.

In Evaluation, the process until this point is analyzed and tested. If the results are satisfactory, the process ends. If not, the process starts again in a new round of multiple journey features or/and journey steps analysis and modifications, starting from the recently modified state at the end of the previous cycle. This modified state is now the ‘new’ service problem and the new starting point, and all eight steps are executed again. The number of cycles depends on if the goals of the endeavor are reached (or not).

It is worth noting that the application of this model, in practice, is far less linear than when described and shown in figures. Design is not a linear and sequential discipline, but something iterative and dynamic. The sequence of steps usually tends to occur in this way, but the use of game design concepts and the transformation of service features within each of these steps, not.

The GSF Application Model, in summary, can be understood as a quick prototyping method that mixes ADR methodology (Action Research and Design Research), Game Design (Gamification) and Service Design (Service Journey) together to gamify services in an uncomplicated way.