Agon: an Acceptance Requirements Framework based on ... · SE-Seminars Agon: an Acceptance...

Agon: an Acceptance Requirements Framework based on Gamification

FBK Software Engineering Seminars

18 May 2017, Trento - Italy

Luca Piras

University of Trento, Trento - Italy

[email protected]

SE-Seminars Agon: an Acceptance Requirements Framework Based on Gamification – [email protected] 2

▪ Acceptance Requirements and Gamification Research:

▪ European Projects:

o PACAS (http://www.pacasproject.eu/)

o VISION (http://www.visioneuproject.eu/)

▪ ERC Project: Lucretius (http://www.lucretius.eu/)

Who are we?

Paolo Giorgini, John Mylopoulos, Elda Paja, Mattia Salnitri and Luca Piras

Software Engineering, Formal Methods and Security Group

Department of Information Engineering and Computer Science

University of Trento (Italy)

Roberta Cuel and Diego Ponte

Department of Economics and Management

University of Trento (Italy)


What is this seminar about?

▪ How to support the requirements analyst in analyzing and designing

software systems that can be really be accepted and used by users

▪ Supporting the requirements analyst in executing a Systematic

Acceptance Requirements Analysis

▪ Acceptance Factors & Acceptance Strategies

▪ Human Behavior, Cognitive Science, Psychology, Organizational Behavior

▪ We should analysis and design software systems according to (and

considering) those aspects

▪ Incentive Mechanisms

▪ Gamification


Why do we need this?

▪ Systems are important for people

▪ People are fundamental for systems (above all, for the ones that highly depend on the human contribution)


Process A

• Machine

Process B

• Human

Process C

• Machine

The Software Acceptance Problem

Process D

• Machine

Process D

• Human

Process E

• Group

Process F

• Machine

Goal 1

Goal 2

▪ Success Factors:

o Acceptance

o Motivation

▪ Methodologies for analyzing and designing software systems

have to consider those new factors


Acceptance and Gamification Research

Holistic

Acceptance

Requirements

Framework

Requirements

Engineering

+

Human Sciences

Organizational

Behavior,

Mechanism

Design

Theories

MAF:

Motivational

Antecedents

Framework

[Simperl ’13,

Tokarchuk ’12]

Agon:

Acceptance

Requirements

Framework

Human Behavior,

Cognitive Science,

Psychology

+

Technology

Acceptance

Models

[Piras RE’16]

Comparison Integration

Guidelines

L. Piras, E. Paja, R. Cuel, D. Ponte, P. Giorgini and J.

Mylopoulos, “Gamification Solutions for Software

Acceptance: A Comparative Study of

Requirements Engineering and Organizational

Behavior Techniques”, in 11th IEEE International

Conference on Research Challenges in Information

Science (RCIS), IEEE, Brighton (UK), 2017.

Software Acceptance and Gamification

Case Study

Comparison Results

Integration Guidelines

Evaluation

Conclusions


Outline


Case Study

Comparison Results


Evaluation

Conclusions



Outline


Acceptance, motivation, behavior change

▪ Speed limit

▪ Environmental respect

▪ Attention and

collaboration


How to motivate people? Gamification

▪ The Speed limit problem

▪ The speed camera lottery:

o Stockholm (Sweden), 2010

o Game

o Fun road signs

o Honest drivers are rewarded by speeders’

fines

▪ Visual feedback

▪ Unpredictability and Curiosity

▪ Potential achievement

▪ Avoidance of potential loss

Video above: https://youtu.be/iynzHWwJXaA


How to motivate people? Gamification

https://youtu.be/iynzHWwJXaA


Points

Badges

Leader

boards

▪ Gamification concepts:

o Core:

o Advanced:

• Levels, paths, challenges,

stories, feedback, progress, …

▪ “The use of game design elements in non-game contexts” [1]

Gamification

▪ Success cases:

▪ Case studies:

[2] [3] [4] [5]


▪ Time-consuming

▪ Not automatized

▪ High-costs -> Expensive

▪ Complex:

▪ Which gamification concepts should I use?

▪ Which parts are to be gamified?

▪ How could I put together gamification concepts?

▪ Which are the best practices/design patterns?

Gamification Engineering

Computer

Scientists

Psychologists

Sociologists

▪ Heterogeneous

professionals:

▪ How could I motivate

particular kinds of

Users/Players?

…Incentive Mechanisms

User Characterization and

Psychological Factors


Requirements Engineering and concepts,

techniques from other fields▪ Objective: to help the analyst in conducting a systematic acceptance

requirements analysis

▪ Focus: Requirements Engineering

▪ Concepts from other fields -> Human Behavior, Psychology,

Organizational Behavior, etc. -> for individuating:

o Acceptance Factors

o Acceptance Strategies

▪ By extensively analyzing gamification,

behavioral, cognitive, psychological,

social/economic studies [2], [3], [11]–[15],

we derived context variables relevant

for acceptance and gamification.

▪ Tools able to consider these context

variables


Gamification Frameworks

Analysis

Design

Development

Agon: an Acceptance

RequirementsFramework

[Piras RE ‘16]

MobilityGamification

Engine [Kazhamiakin

ISC2 ‘15]

Enterprise Gamification

Platform [Herzig ’12]

Service Oriented

Gamification Platform

[Sripada ’16]


▪ Our contributions:

o 1. compare the 2 frameworks concerning their methodology, theories and

variables -> Comparison

o 2. merge the 2 in a holistic framework -> Preliminary Guidelines for

integration

Candidate Frameworks

▪ Agon [Piras RE’16]: an Acceptance Requirements Framework -> Human

Behavior and Psychological perspectives

▪ MAF [Simperl ’13, Tokarchuk ‘12]: the Motivational Antecedents

Framework -> Organizational Behavior perspective

Agon

MAF

[Piras RCIS’17]


Case Study

Comparison Results


Evaluation

Conclusions


Outline

Case Study


The Doodle-like Meeting Scheduler Exemplar

▪ Main objective: obtain favorite dates for scheduling a meeting by using

Doodle

▪ Target Users: professors


Main Elements


Case study

Using Agon, an Acceptance

Requirements Framework


▪ Agon (in Greek Αγων) means “game” or “competition”, as in Olympic Games

(Ολυμπιακοι Αγωνες)

Agon: An acceptance requirements framework



The framework offers a metamodel

of acceptance requirements,

gamification solutions and the links

in-between

▪ Acceptance model – considers

psychological factors and how to

address them

▪ Tactical model – links

acceptance problems to

gamification solutions

▪ Gamification model – describes

gamification solutions along

multiple dimensions, e.g., user

profiles, gaming concepts, best

practices/guidelines



▪ Framework characteristics:

o generic

o flexible

▪ Multiple solutions:

o Gamification

o Serious Games

o Tangible Incentives

o …

▪ Current focus:

Gamification


The Models


▪ https://pirasluca.wordpress.com/home/acceptance/

▪ Goal Modeling techniques (NFR Framework) [L. Chung, B. Nixon, E. Yu, and

J. Mylopoulos ‘12]

▪ Acceptance model – encompasses several models from the literature:

o Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT),

o the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM2),

o the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA),

o the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB),

o the Combined TAM and TPB (C-TAM-TPB),

o etc.

▪ Gamification model:

o point systems (i.e., experience, redeemable, skill, karma, reputation and

training points), badges, leader–boards, levels, paths, gamified training (i.e.,

suggestions, tricks, tours, tutorials, training paths), gamified market (i.e.,

rewards and market policies of redeeming, making gifts, purchasing), game

roles, powers, unlockable powers, etc.

o best practices/guidelines

Metamodels


▪ https://pirasluca.wordpress.com/home/acceptance/

▪ Tactical model:

captures alternative tactics for fulfilling acceptance requirements by using

gamification requirements; provides our framework with enough flexibility

to add alternative solution models (serious games model, tangible

incentives model, …)

▪ Context model - User Context Model and Context Dependant Rules:

critical user dimensions, adopted from the literature [6], [9], [17], [18], that

in the real life make difference in the way of people reacting to acceptance

and gamification techniques

Metamodels and the context model


Metamodels and the context model (2)

https://pirasluca.wordpress.com/home/acceptance/

▪ Statistics: 270 goals, 376 relationships (refinements,

operationalizations, positive/negative contributions, …)


An example

Instance

Layer


User Context Model

▪ Extension of the [Orsi and Tanca ‘11] notation and framework


User Context Model


User Context Model


User Context Model and Context Dependent Rules

▪ The kind of game offered greatly depends on the intended user group, e.g.,

young, technology-savvy users prefer very different games than elder

technology-adverse ones …

▪ We model context using an extension of the [Orsi and Tanca ‘11] framework.

In that framework, contexts are defined along several dimensions.

▪ Our extension consists of allowing dependency rules between different

context points

Example from the

acceptance model

Example from the

gamification model


The Systematic Acceptance Requirements

Analysis


Case study: using Agon, an Acceptance


System

Psychological Strategies

Incentive Mechanisms

Gamification

Model

User/Player Model

User Characterization

Gamified

System


▪ Base system Requirements modeling

▪ Acceptance requirements elicitation and analysis

▪ Context characterization

▪ Context–based analysis of acceptance requirements

▪ Acceptance requirements refinement and selection of high-level

incentive mechanism requirements

▪ Context–based operationalization via incentive mechanism

(gamification) requirements

▪ Domain-dependent instantiation of incentive mechanism

(gamification) requirements

Case study: using Agon, an Acceptance


Gamified Solution



Base system requirements modeling


Initial Requirements Model (1)


Initial Requirements Model (2)


Acceptance requirements elicitation and

analysis


Acceptance Requirements

▪ We represent them as quality requirements [FengLinLi14].

▪ meaning that N% of intended users (Participants) shall use the set of

functions (Functions)

▪ To define acceptance requirements it is needed to identify, among all the

functions of the software, the ones that:

o cannot be fulfilled automatically just by IT procedures;

o need human contributions;

o the human has to be to stimulated, engaged to carry out the activity.

▪ Such a requirement can be operationalized by a gamification mechanism

to be selected by taking into account the intended users, the user context

and other parameters.


Acceptance Requirements for the case study


Context Characterization


Context Characterization


Context–based analysis of acceptance

requirements


Context–Based Reasoning over Acceptance


Context–Based Reasoning over Acceptance

▪ Examples:


Acceptance requirements refinement and

selection of high-level incentive mechanism

requirements


Requirements Selection


Context–based operationalization via

incentive mechanism (gamification)

requirements


Context–Based Reasoning over Gamification


Context–Based Reasoning over Gamification

▪ Examples:


Domain-dependent instantiation of incentive

mechanism (gamification) requirements


Gamified Operationalization


Gamified Operationalization

▪ Examples:


Case study

Using MAF, the Motivational

Antecedents Framework


Case study: using MAF, the Motivational

Antecedents Framework

▪ Analysis

▪ Mechanism Design Theories; analyst’s expertize and experience


Case study

The gamified meeting scheduler in a

nutshell


Case Study: the gamified meeting scheduler in a

nutshell

▪ Acceptance Requirement:

▪ Main solution elements:

▪ Tour:

▪ Improve Perceived Ease of Use -> Improve System Perception by IT -> Provide

Tours

▪ Propose Tour Before Compiling

▪ Set Skip The Tour

▪ Badges

▪ First Compiling Badge

▪ Second Compiling Badge

▪ …

▪ Leader-board (First Doodle compilers LB)

▪ Redeemable points (Win 100 RP points)

▪ Gamified market (Real rewards; Redeemable policies)

▪ …


Case Study

Comparison Results


Evaluation

Conclusions


Comparison Results

Outline


Comparison results

▪ Our comparison covers:

o 1) the context variables used by each framework;

o 2) how acceptance and gamification concepts and best practices

are captured and supported by the two frameworks;

o 3) the analysis supported by each framework for each of the

gamification phase.


Context variables

▪ Disjointed variables

▪ Concept overlaps

▪ Hidden aggregated concepts (e.g., complexity of the task, individual

aspects VS. social aspects)


Comparison of analysis


Case Study

Comparison Results


Evaluation

Conclusions



Outline


Preliminary guidelines for the integration

▪ Starting from Agon and including MAF concepts

▪ For the integration, we envision the following activities:

o 1) design of a common context model;

o 2) collection of psychological strategies and gamification best

practices;

o 3) translation of collected elements in Context Dependant Rules

(CDRs) and application of them in Agon models;

o 4) intra–model and inter–model revision for the entire framework to

ensure balance and coherence


Case Study

Comparison Results


Evaluation

Conclusions


Evaluation

Outline


▪ 2 Preliminary Qualitative Evaluations:

o (H1) Agon and its methodology can support experts (Table below);

o (H2) Agon and its methodology can support non-experts (Table below).

Evaluation

▪ Non-experts:

o Doodle-Like Meeting Scheduler

o 2 hours of Gamication introduction (individual);

o 2 hours of introduction on Acceptance (individual);

o gamication exercise without using Agon (individual);

o 2 hours of Agon introduction (individual);

o gamication exercise by using Agon (individual);

o comparison of the 2 experiences with an interview

(individual).

▪ Experts

o Real Case Study

o PACAS European Project Platform

▪ Results:

o H1 and H2 validated

o Clear guidance

o Useful suggestions at

each different layer

o Ready-to-use

gamification design

(structure)

o …


▪ 4 students

▪ Theses on Gamification of:

o A Decision-Making platform for Air Traffic Management (ATM)

(PACAS European Project http://www.pacasproject.eu/)

o Privacy Platform (VISION European Project

http://www.visioneuproject.eu/)

o Mobility Platform

o Children Independent Mobility (CIM) Platform

Heterogeneous Case Studies


Case Study

Comparison Results


Evaluation

Conclusions


Conclusions

Outline


▪ Acceptance through gamification by considering human

factors (other relevant fields)

▪ Most relevant variables for acceptance and gamification

▪ A systematic acceptance requirements analysis

▪ Candidate frameworks

▪ Case study

▪ Comparison of the frameworks and methodologies

▪ Preliminary guidelines for integration

▪ Evaluation with Experts and Non-experts

▪ 4 Heterogeneous case studies (4 students)

Conclusions


▪ On-going:

o Integration

o evaluation (PACAS European Project, Vision European

project, students, case studies from heterogeneous fields)

▪ Future work:

o Conclude the integration

o additional dimensions/characterizations

o alternative operationalizations for acceptance

requirements

o adaptive gamification solutions

On-going and Future work


1. J. Beer and L. Takayama, “Mobile Remote Presence Systems for Older Adults: Acceptance,

Benefits, and Concerns,” in Proc. of the 6th international conference on Human-robot

interaction. ACM, 2011.

2. K. Arning, B. Trevisan, M. Ziefle, and E. Jakobs, “Eliciting User Requirements and Acceptance

for Customizing Mobile Device System Architecture,” in Design, User Experience, and

Usability. Design Philosophy, Methods, and Tools. Springer, 2013, pp. 439–448.

3. F. Davis and V. Venkatesh, “Toward Preprototype User Acceptance Testing of New Information

Systems: Implications for Software Project Management,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering

Management, 2004.

4. R. Poston and A. Calvert, “Vision 2020: The Future of Software Quality Management and

Impacts on Global User Acceptance,” in HCI in Business. Springer, 2015, pp. 748–760.

5. M. Kaptein, P. Markopoulos, B. De Ruyter, and E. Aarts, “Personalizing Persuasive

Technologies: Explicit and Implicit Personalization Using Persuasion Profiles,” Intern. Journal

of Human-Computer Studies, 2015.

6. G. Zichermann and C. Cunningham, Gamification by Design: Implementing Game Mechanics

in Web and Mobile Apps. "O’Reilly", 2011.

7. J. Schell, The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses. CRC Press, 2014.

8. L. Piras, G. Valetto, A. Marconi, and M. Pistore, “Virtual Coaches for Mission-Based Gamified

Smart Communities,” in CHI-PLAY 2015 Workshop, Personalization in Serious and Persuasive

Games and Gamified Interactions. ACM, 2015.

References (1)


9. V. Venkatesh, M. Morris, G. Davis, and F. Davis, “User Acceptance of Information Technology:

Toward a Unified View,” MIS quarterly, 2003.

10. V. Venkatesh and F. Davis, “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model:

Four Longitudinal Field Studies,” Management science, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 186–204, 2000.

11. B. Sheppard, J. Hartwick, and P. Warshaw, “The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-Analysis

of Past Research with Recommendations for Modifications and Future Research,” Journal of

Cons. Research, 1988.

12. I. Ajzen, “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 179–211, 1991.

13. S. Taylor and P. Todd, “Assessing IT Usage: The Role of Prior Experience,” MIS quarterly, pp.

561–570, 1995.

14. J. Mylopoulos, L. Chung, and B. Nixon, “Representing and Using Nonfunctional Requirements:

A Process-Oriented Approach,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 18, no. 6, pp.

483–497, 1992.

15. L. Chung, B. Nixon, E. Yu, and J. Mylopoulos, Non-Functional Requirements in Software

Engineering. Springer, 2012, vol. 5.

16. J. Hamari, “Do Badges Increase User Activity? A Field Experiment on the Effects of

Gamification,” Computers in Human Behavior, 2015.

17. J. Koivisto and J. Hamari, “Demographic Differences in Perceived Benefits from Gamification,”

Computers in Human Behavior, 2014.

References (2)


18. R. Bartle, “Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs,” Journal of MUD

Research, 1996.

19. G. Orsi and L. Tanca, “Context Modelling and Context-Aware Querying,” in Datalog Reloaded.

Springer, 2011, pp. 225–244.

20. L. Piras, P. Giorgini, and J. Mylopoulos. Full models of this work. [Online]. Available:


21. R. Kazhamiakin, A. Marconi, M. Perillo, M. Pistore, G. Valetto, L. Piras, F. Avesani, and N.

Perri, “Using Gamification to Incentivize Sustainable Urban Mobility,” in 1st Intern. Smart Cities

Conf. (ISC2). IEEE, 2015.

22. A. Sutcliffe, P. Rayson, C. Bull, and P. Sawyer, “Discovering Affect-Laden Requirements to

Achieve System Acceptance,” in 22nd International Requirements Engineering Conference

(RE). IEEE, 2014.

References (3)

Thanks for your attention

Luca Piras

University of Trento, Trento (Italy)


[email protected]

Date post:	15-Feb-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lenguyet
View:	231 times
Download:	0 times

Agon: an Acceptance Requirements Framework based on ... · SE-Seminars Agon: an Acceptance...

Documents