Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
"I kind of disagree. I think an important use case for gamification is where the value accrues to the organisation, not the individual. In fact, isn't this kind of the point? To encourage things which aren't naturally being done to get done?"
Not really sure what you're disagreeing with here. I didn't say that that use cases shouldn't benefit the organisation (that's kind of obvious). My point is that you should first check to see if your system is actually giving users value before you put a gamification layer on top of it. If it's not then you should give that some thought first.
"I would also be cautious about prizes and acknowledgements. What you're doing is designing a game with extrinsic rewards, which are harder to sustain than intrinsic rewards. Extrinsic rewards the same problem as pay increases or "expected" bonuses: they rapidly become just part of the status quo. If we must gamify, then as far as possible the activities should be intrinsically rewarding."
Disagree. There seems to be a current orthodoxy that instrinsic = good and extrinsic = bad. In fact it's sometimes hard to peel the two apart. Have I become an expert in a domain because I find it intrinsically pleasing or because I like the status it gives me? Probably a bit of both. Leaderboards have an extrinsic element. As does the awarding of points. Going back to your earlier point about value not accruing to the individual, the whole issue that gamification attempts to tackle is that lots of the behaviours you want to drive are NOT intrinsicallty rewarding. IMHO the trick is to combine the extrinsic & intrinsic in an appealing package.