Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance:
A Comparative Study of Requirements Engineering and
Organizational Behavior Techniques
11th IEEE Int. Conf. on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS)
May 11, 2017, Brighton (UK)
Luca Piras, Elda Paja, Roberta Cuel, Diego Ponte, Paolo Giorgini and John
Mylopoulos
University of Trento, Trento (Italy)
{luca.piras, elda.paja, roberta.cuel, diego.ponte, paolo.giorgini,
john.mylopoulos}@unitn.it
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 2
Software Acceptance and Gamification
Case Study
Comparison Results
Integration Guidelines
Conclusions
Outline
Software Acceptance and Gamification
Case Study
Comparison Results
Integration Guidelines
Conclusions
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 3
Software Acceptance and Gamification
Outline
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 4
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]
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 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
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 6
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
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 7
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]
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 8
▪ 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
Software Acceptance and Gamification
Case Study
Comparison Results
Integration Guidelines
Conclusions
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 9
Case Study
Outline
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 10
Case study: the Doodle-Like Meeting Scheduler
▪ Main objective: obtain favorite dates for scheduling a meeting by using
doodle
▪ Target Users: professors
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 11
Case study: key elements
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 12
Case study
Using Agon, an Acceptance
Requirements Framework
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 13
▪ 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
Requirements Framework
Gamified Solution
https://pirasluca.wordpress.com/home/acceptance/
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 14
Case study: using Agon, an Acceptance
Requirements Framework
System
Psychological Strategies
Incentive Mechanisms
Gamification
Model
User/Player Model
User Characterization
Gamified
System
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 15
Case study
Using MAF, the Motivational
Antecedents Framework
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 16
Case study: using MAF, the Motivational
Antecedents Framework
▪ Analysis
▪ Mechanism Design Theories; analyst’s expertize and experience
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 17
Case study
The gamified meeting scheduler in a
nutshell
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 18
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)
▪ …
Software Acceptance and Gamification
Case Study
Comparison Results
Integration Guidelines
Conclusions
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 19
Comparison Results
Outline
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 20
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.
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 21
Context variables
▪ Disjointed variables
▪ Concept overlaps
▪ Hidden aggregated concepts (e.g., complexity of the task, individual
aspects VS. social aspects)
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 22
Comparison of analysis
Software Acceptance and Gamification
Case Study
Comparison Results
Integration Guidelines
Conclusions
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 23
Integration Guidelines
Outline
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 24
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
Software Acceptance and Gamification
Case Study
Comparison Results
Integration Guidelines
Conclusions
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 25
Conclusions
Outline
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 26
▪ 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
Conclusions
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 27
▪ 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
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 28
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)
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 29
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)
RCIS-17 Gamification Solutions for Software Acceptance – [email protected] 30
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:
https://pirasluca.wordpress.com/home/acceptance/
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
Q&A
Luca Piras
University of Trento, Trento (Italy)
https://pirasluca.wordpress.com/home/acceptance/