Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
Thanks for contributing - do you have a link to your APQC slides? I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. Is the Accenture example in the APQC Gamification in KM pack?
"Gamification works – both in the short term and long term – *if designed properly*. Why does it work? Science. Science is the secret sauce of gamification. Let’s put the word “gamification” aside and talk about what’s behind the curtain – motivation design, user engagement, behavioral economics, habit formation, neuroscience, etc."
The basis of science is a method where you make hypotheses and then test them. What I've found a bit frustrating about the gamification thing is the lack of empirical research about what works & doesn't work in organisations (rather than, say, the lab studies loved by behavioural economists). From my perspective, gamification is at the top of the hype cycle and we need to get this empirical understanding quickly or the fall into the trough of disillusion will be a hard one. N.B. The "what doesn't work" part is as important as success stories.
It's also interesting to see that several game designers have been critical of the gamification movement as taking their thing & making lame stuff from it.
"Correct me if I’m wrong, but there seems to be a misconception that gamification is ultimately about incentives and rewards, and that it’s only effective it if’s tied to pay and promotion."
There is that general impression. Most gamification efforts seem to focus on points (pointsification) and leaderboards. People need examples that do more than that to understand the possibilities. And, again, to be fair to APQC, some of their case studies do that.
As for the comments about pay & rewards, my point would be slightly different. It's that our organisations are already gamified so you are not working in a greenfield site. Games you develop have to take account of this. But that doesn't mean there has to be a direct link to, say, pay for everything you do.
"Gamification is so much more complex than that. There are many other forms of extrinsic motivation besides pay and promotion that are often more meaningful. As already mentioned, there is also intrinsic motivation as well – we are more than rats in a maze. This is similar to the misconception that gamification has to include a competition – cooperation and social connectedness is often a much more powerful motivator."
This I agree with very strongly. And I've had some long arguments about this with people. Coincidentally (or not) those of us who argued that collaboration had role to play were from a KM background.
"I agree 100% with many of the points – gamification is NOT a silver bullet. Sponsorship is critical to success of any cultural change. Tying all of this into performance management is important. KM must offer value to have long term success. Well-designed gamification draws you in initially, but then helps you quickly build mastery so you start to realize the value and intrinsic rewards in collaboration and develop the right habits. That’s when you get sustained behavior change."
Nothing to disagree with there.