From Game Design to Service Design: A Framework

From Game Design to Service Design: A Framework to Gamify Services Sol Klapztein ([email protected]), Carla Cipolla ([email protected]) Universidade Federal Fluminense (Fluminense Federal University), Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro), Brazil

Abstract Backgroung: Game designers have long been developing strategies to foster engagement, pleasure and a variety of sensations in game experiences, increasingly applying their research to areas beyond games. This has led to a growing recognition of the use of game elements in non-game settings. In parallel, service designers have been seeking to improve user experience and engagement in services. Method: Drawing on relevant literature about game design, the authors develop a framework that gathers a variety of game design research endeavors to form a practical tool to support service development from a user experience perspective. Its application is exemplified and simulated in a methodological approach to Action Design Research on a selected service. Results: The service is then analyzed and compared ‘before and after’ the utilization of the framework, with no measurement of results. At last, a simplified method to gamify services, the GSF Application Model, is presented, Conclusions: This article presents and describes the development of the Gamification Service Framework, an IT artifact designed to solve a class of problems related to the service field: the gamification of services. The central aim is to provide a new tool for service designers to use game design concepts in their practices, by structuring services in an analogous way to games.

Keywords action design research; design, game design; gamification; gamification service framework; IT artifact; service design; service journey; user engagement; user experience

This article focuses on two design fields: game design and service design. Game design is a multidisciplinary field that exchanges knowledge and research from a variety of grounds: humanities, education, arts, engineering, computer sciences and others (Mäyrä et al., 2013). Over time, research activities have been accumulating knowledge – mainly from investigations in ludology, psychology, anthropology and design – seeking the development of more attractive, enjoyable and meaningful game experiences (Schell, 2008). The practical applications of game design are gradually diversifying and, currently, receiving much attention from media and academia (Deterding, 2012). Recently the field has been shifting more dramatically from one that is focused on ‘pure games’, to one that includes the application of acquired knowledge in diverse areas: Simulation Games, Serious Games, HCI, Persuasive Technologies, Gamestorming and Gamification (Deterding, 2012, Hamari et al., 2014a, Hamari et al., 2014b). With regard to the second field, based on design thinking principles (Brown, 2008), Mager (2008) defines service design as an activity focused on the client’s point-of-view, without forgetting supplier demands and requirements. This definition confirms the role of this activity in organizations that are moving towards a service-dominant logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2008, 2010) and the design of experiences or, more precisely, experience-centric services (Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010). At the same time, the importance of these services and the development of tools and methods to properly design them (Pullman and Gross, 2004; Zomerdijk and Voss, 2011) have been increasingly recognized in new service development. Considering the context of these two fields, this study aims to present an IT artifact, the Gamification Service Framework: a new tool to apply game design concepts in service design practices. Being a major focus in game design research – the understanding, description and application of concepts that make game users deeply involved in game experiences – the transposition of these motivational concepts to service design could be a helpful tool in the design process for the development of engaging experience-centric strategies. Towards this research problem and based on an extensive literature review, this study has identified and classified a variety of game design concepts, and organized them into a framework (GSF) targeting the development of gamified services. This article is divided in seven sections. The first presents the background research from both fields and discusses some of its combination possibilities. Session two summarizes the methodological process of development and application of the GSF with an

approximation to Action Design Research (Sein et al., 2011). Section three reports the iterative research that forms the basis of the GSF. In section four the tool is assembled and its application simulated in a service. In section five the authors evaluate and reflect about the process. In section six, a simplified application model is proposed. Lastly, section seven concludes the article with some considerations about the research process and its future possibilities.

1. Background Research 1.1 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 et al., 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 (Pine & Gilmore, 1998; Metters et al., 2006). 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 et al., 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., Czepiel, Solomon & Surprenant, 1985; Gwinner et al., 2005; Cipolla & Manzini, 2009; Patrício et al., 2008, 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. 1.2 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 & Zimmeman, 2004; Schell, 2008). It is the interaction with the game system that builds behaviors and allows the experiences to occur (Hunicke et al., 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 (Fumarola et al., 2012; Faria et al., 2004; Faria, 2001), Educational Games (Saqer et al., 2012; Herz et al., 1998; Butler, 1988), the New Games Movement (Pearce et al., 2007) and Serious Games (de Freitas et al., 2007; Poplin, 2012; Dibbell, 2011); secondly, applying game design concepts from game development practices, outside the context of games to improve engagement, as in Gamestorming (Gray, 2010), Game-Based Marketing (Zichermann & Linder, 2010) and currently, Gamification, (Thom

et al., 2012; Michaelides, 2011; Deterding et al., 2011; Law et al., 2011; Teresa & Kramer, 2011; Huotari & Hamari, 2012; Simões et al., 2013). 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 et al., 2014a). 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 et al. (2014a) monitored an increase in the number of gamification papers published from 2010 to 2013. According to this research (24 papers), a majority of studies indicate 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 indicate 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) indicates that the use of gamification techniques by companies has led to a faster annual revenue growth and better overall results. It also highlights 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 Inc. (2012) reports 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 & Rainie (2012) corroborate 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 describes 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 states 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. 1.3 Gamification and Services With regard to the relations and similarities between service and game design fields, Huotari & Hamari (2012, p. 19; 2016) advance further and offer 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) seeks to focus on what constitutes gamification, Huotari & Hamari (2012) focus on its consequences. Furthermore, Huotari & Hamari (2012, 2016) indicate 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 consider 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.

2. Methodological Introduction The method employed in the development and application of the GSF is an approximation to Action Design Research (ADR) (Sein et al., 2011) methodology. ADR (a fusion between Action Research and Design Research) is an investigation method that generates design knowledge about a specific organizational problem mainly through a process of ‘building, intervention and evaluation’. The result is an IT artifact that addresses the particular problem using theory, practice and design resources together (Sein et al., 2011). In this study, the development of the GSF is divided in the same four stages and by the seven ADR’s principles: stage 1 - Problem Formulation (with Practice-Inspired Research and Theory-Ingrained Artifact); stage 2 - Building, Intervention and Evaluation (with Reciprocal Shaping, Mutually Influential Roles, Authentic and Concurrent Evaluation); stage 3 - Reflection and Learning (with Guided Emergence); and stage 4 - Formalization of Learning (with Generalized Outcomes). The main difference here for ADR’s methodology observed by Sein et al. (2011) is that in the present article the development occurs only by way of the researchers – the authors of this study –, and not with practitioners and end-users. Therefore, it is important to highlight that the GSF cannot be viewed as an integral exemplar of ADR; for this reason it was referred to beforehand as a close approach. As noted by Lee (2007), there are many ways to organize design research and action research to work together. The main objective in this study is to introduce a design tool, show this development and simulate its application possibilities – and not to collect or validate results. Here, the ADR method follows the determined sequence: Stage 1: Principle 1 (Practice-Inspired Research) addresses the need for a tool (IT artifact) to gamify services; Principle 2 (Theory-Ingrained Artifact) deals with initial research and literature review about the game activity’s conceptualization and the game design motivational concepts. Stage 2: Principle 3 (Reciprocal Shaping) involves the refinement of the research, achieved through iterative research of the two constituent parts of the GSF: the game activity structure and the synthesis of game design concepts; Principle 4 (Mutually

Influential Roles) deals with the selection, analysis and application per se of the GSF in a selected service; Principle 5 (Authentic and Concurrent Evaluation) presents the first results of this application, showing the service’s new features. Stage 3: In Principle 6 (Guided Emergence) occurs the evaluation of the GSF development process and the expected changes and effects of the simulated application. Stage 4: In Principle 7 (Generalized Outcomes) a simplified application model for the GSF is presented, also based on ADR methodology. Figure 1: Visual summary of the methodology

3. ADR - Stage 1: Problem Formulation 3.1. 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.

3.2. 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: Research Phase 1: Selection of six game activity definitions; synthesis of their main components; comparison and contrast with game design concepts (reviewed in Research 2); and grouping and synthesis of the components in a new practical definition to be used in the organization of the game design concepts in Research 2. Research Phase 2: Literature review of game design concepts related to pleasure, engagement and motivation; collection and grouping of these concepts according to the game activity components (addressed in Research 1); and analysis about where each concept would fit in each class of components. 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. 3.2.1 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 Sutton-Smith & Avedon (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, defines (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 & Zimmerman (2004) define 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) points 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: 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).

3.2.2 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. Table 2: Voluntariness concepts

Table 3: Rules concepts

Table 4: Control concepts

Table 5: Objective concepts

Table 6: Feedback concepts

Table 7: Social Interaction concepts

Table 8: Perception concepts

3.3 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, 2014c). 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:

Table 9: References utilized

4. ADR - Stage 2: Building, Intervention, Evaluation 4.1 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. 4.1.1 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.

Figure 2: Structuring the GSF based on the basic components of game activities

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. 4.1.2 GSF, Part 2: Synthesis of the Game Design Concepts The Synthesis of motivational concepts researched is presented in the next table. They are organized in two ways: horizontally, according to the basic components of game activities and, vertically, focusing on common key points among them.

Table 10: Synthesis of the game design concepts

4.2 Principle 4: Mutually Influential Roles 4.2.1 Service Selection and Characteristics In order to exemplify the implementation of the GSF, we selected and simulated its application in a Brazilian internet carpooling system (which is actually deactivated), called CarUni (abbreviation for ’Carona Universitária‘: Universitary Ride). The service organized shared rides for students who attended universities in the city of Rio de Janeiro. The selection criterion was simple, seeking social innovation services inside universities – preferably from Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro – whose developers were available for collaboration (information and data providing). At the time two projects were considered, and one selected for the purpose of this research. The service sought to attend to two complementary needs: on one hand were students who needed cost-effective, convenient solutions for mobility, and on the other, drivers eager to attenuate their expenses. The three major service values were security (access is allowed only for registered, certified members), comfort (avoiding the city’s inadequate public transport system), and socialization (enabling new interpersonal encounters). A declared commitment to issues related to sustainability was also present, in terms of environmental impact reduction (more people per car, less cars on streets, reducing fuel use, less traffic, etc.) – a benefit that is increasingly being recognized (Minett & Pearce, 2011). Operationally, important service features included decentralized use and management (rides were organized autonomously between registered users), and lowcost management (the service runs on a website). The major service design challenge for CarUni was to empower what would be considered exceptional behavior in an urban setting such as Rio de Janeiro (i.e., riding in a car with a stranger). Solo driving is mainly related to cost, comfort and convenience, but a recent analysis has identified cost-saving benefits as a major reason to start carpooling, while the lack of suitable carpooling matches is the main barrier (Abrahamse & Keall, 2012). In this sense, trust between carpoolers is mentioned as a major challenge to be addressed in the design of these services (Correia & Viegas, 2011). These and other previously described considerations had been pondered in the design of CarUni. It is worth noting that in a broader sense, and beyond the specific objectives of this article, the application of the GSF to CarUni also integrates the efforts to develop strategies to increase average vehicle occupancy, which can be expected to lie at the forefront of energy conservation policies (Minett & Pearce, 2011).

4.2.2 Design and Analysis Tools Frameworks are useful when creating, specifying and structuring service offerings, making the design process more controllable (Koivisto, 2009). In order to define the GSF as a tool for service designers, its application was combined with the Service Journey tool (Norton & Pine, 2013), allowing for a more controlled analysis and reassembly of the service through each stage/touchpoint, and targeting a better control over the results (the desired user experience). Here, service and game designers are not supposed to (and nor able to) design user’s experiences directly. They can only design, indirectly, the elements through which they can occur (Forlizzi & Ford, 2000; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). Users themselves co-create unique experiences through their interactions across all touchpoints (Patrício et al., 2011; Verhoef et al., 2009), and the application of the GSF is proposed as a resource to help to define the desired aspects of the service experience. To simulate and exemplify the application of the GSF, the CarUni service was broken down into steps (the journey mapping).These were analyzed and changes were proposed using the game design concepts, in order to generate a new (simulated) journey concept. The focus here is on the presentation of the Gamification Service Framework and not to provide, collect or validate any data, which would be well beyond the scope of the article. 4.2.3 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 below describes and analyzes the CarUni service journey mapping with the expected user conditions in each stage.

Table 11: The service journey mapping (before the GSF application): expected rider experience

4.3 Principle 5: Authentic and Concurrent Evaluation 4.3.1 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 the next table.

Table 12: Simulated application of game design concepts for CarUni (main organizational focus in the service)

4.3.2 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:  An improved service promotion strategy in its entry stages;  An easier and less bureaucratic system for entry and general utilization;  The implementation of more broader social dynamic tools;  More and new contact options for shared-ride scheduling;  Implementation of a reward system;  A new and improved feedback system in which users can rate and post their opinions about the service and the other users. The next table 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.

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.

5. ADR - Stage 3: Reflection and Learning 5.1 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.

6. ADR - Stage 4: Formalization of Learning 6.1 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 4 illustrates the process: 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.

7. Concluding Discussion This article had two main objectives: first, to present a new IT artifact – the Gamification Service Framework – describing its development process through the ADR methodology; second, to simulate and describe the application of the GSF in a selected service. Regarding the first objective, the research that gave origin to the GSF was constructed by structuring a game activity model and synthesizing motivational concepts applied in the game design field. These concepts have been already successfully utilized and well documented inside and outside the scope of games; but the way its use is proposed, based on structuring a service like a game activity, is a novel contribution. Concerning the second objective, the authors seek to demonstrate its possible application using a simplified version of the ADR methodology, combining a Game Design tool (the GSF itself) with a Service Journey tool (the Service Journey). From this combination derived yet the proposition of the GSF Application Model, a simplified template to gamify services. However, it still considered that the application process needs further

examination and testing to be considered a valid tool for gamifying services. The goal here is to demonstrate its potential applicability, and not to present concrete results. At the moment, two possible interrelated future paths for this line of research are envisaged. The first, and more theoretical, would be the development of a conceptual basis for the GSF through further and broader investigation. It would occur by refining the GSF

system and breaking

its various components down into

more detailed

subcomponents, with indications of its potential effects, ways and situations it can be best applied and its limitations. The second and more practical line would be the application, evaluation and measurement of data (concerning mainly users’ aspects, like engagement, motivation, participation increase and experience improvement) about the GSF application ‘for real’ in an up-and-running service. This way, results could be monitored, documented and assessed in comparison with those from prior to the GSF application, clarifying what its implementation had brought to the service, particularly by: assessing the changes that has occurred in the service structure; the changes occurred in the service utilization itself and; the changes perceived by users.

References Aberdeen Group. (2013). Sales Effectiveness 2013: The Rise of Gamification. Available at: http://www.aberdeen.com/Aberdeen-Library/8346/RB-gamification-saleseffectiveness.aspx Abrahamse, W. & Keall, M. (2012). Effectiveness of a web-based intervention to encourage carpooling to work: A case study of Wellington, New Zealand. Transport Policy, 21, 45-51. Anderson, J. & Rainie, L. (2012). Gamification and the Internet: Experts Expect Game Layers to Expand the Future, with Positive and Negative Results. Games for Health Journal, 1(4), 299-302. Avedon, E. & Sutton-Smith, B. (Ed.). (1971). The Study of Games. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDS. Available at: http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Bateman & Boon. (2006). 21st Century Game Design. Massachusetts: Charles River Media.

Bitner, M. J., (1992). Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees, The Journal of Marketing, 56 (2), pp 57-71. Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review. Bunchball. (2010). Gamification 101: An Introduction to the Use of Game Dynamics to Influence

Behavior

(White

Paper).

Available

at:

http://www.bunchball.com/gamification/g101-banner.shtml _________. (2011). Winning with Gamification: Tips from the Expert’s Playbook (White Paper). Available at: http://bunchball.com/playbook/pb-banner.shtml Butler, J.T.

(1998). Games and

simulations:

Creative

educational alternatives.

TechTrends, 33 (4), 20-23. Caillois, R. (1958). Les jeux et les hommes. Paris: Librairie Gallimard. Caillois, R. (2001). Man, Play and Games. Illinois: University of Illinois Press. Chatfield, T. (2010a), Fun Inc. New York: Pegasus Books. ________, T. (2010b). Seven Ways Games Reward the Brain. Available at: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/tom_chatfield_7_ways_games_reward_the_brain.html Cipolla, C., & Manzini, E. (2009). Relational Services: service design fostering sustainability and new welfare models. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Sustainable Design (II ISSD). Correia, G., Viegas, J.M. (2011). Carpooling and carpool clubs: Clarifying concepts and assessing value enhancement possibilities through a Stated Preference web survey in Lisbon, Portugal. Transportation Research Part A, 45(2), 81-90. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperCollins. Czepiel, J., Solomon, M. R., Surprenant, C.F. (1985). The Service Encounter, New York: Lexington Books. de Freitas, S., Jarvis, S. (2007). Serious games - Engaging training solutions: A research and development project for supporting training needs: Colloquium. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38 (3), 523-525.

Deterding, S., O'Hara, K., Sicart, M., Dixon, D., Nacke, L. (2011). Gamification: Using game design elements in non-gaming contexts. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 2425-2428. Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L., Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Toward a definition. Available at: http://gamification-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/02-DeterdingKhaled-Nacke-Dixon.pdf Deterding, S. (2012). Gamification: Designing for motivation. Interactions, 19(4), 14-17. Dibbell, J. (2011). Serious games. Technology Review, 114 (1), 74-76. Edverdssom, B. & Olsson, J. (1996). Key concepts for new service development. Service Industries Journal, 16(2), 140-164. Faria, A. J. (2001). The changing nature of business simulation/gaming research: A brief history. Simulation and Gaming, 32(1), 97-110. Faria, A. J., Wellington, W.J. (2004). A survey of simulation game users, former-users, and never-users (2004). Simulation and Gaming, 35(2), 178-207. Forlizzi, J. & Ford, S. (2000). The building blocks of experience: an early framework for interaction designers. Proceedings of Designing Interactive Systems, ACM. New York. Fumarola, M., Van Staalduinen, J.P., Verbraeck, A. (2012). A ten-step design method for simulation games in logistics management. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 12(1). Gartner. 2012. Gamification (2020): What Is the Future of Gamification?. Available at: http://www.gartner.com/id=2226015 Ghobadian, A., Speller, S., Jones, M. Matthew. (1994). Service Quality: Concepts and Models. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 11(9), 43 -66. Gigya. (2012). Gamification: Five plays for winning the Game (White Paper), Available at: http://info.gigya.com/gamificationwhitepaper.html?gclid=CMTN7r6L0rcCFWIV7AodwmIAjw Gray, D., Brown, S. and Macanufo, J. (2010). Gamestorming: A Playbook for Innovators, Rulebreakers, and Changemakers. O'Reilly Press.

Gupta, S., Vajic, M., (2000). The contextual and dialectical nature of experiences. In: Fitzsimmons, J., Fitzsimmons, M. (Eds.), New Service Development – Creating Memorable Experiences. (pp. 33–51). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gwinner, K. P., Bitner, M. J., Brown, S. W., Kumar, A. (2005) Service Customization through Employee Adaptiveness‖. Journal of Service Research, 8(2), 131-148. Hallford, N. & Hallford, J., (2001), Swords and Circuitry: A designer's guide to computer role playing games. Roseville, CA: Prima Publishing. Hamari, J., & Eranti, V. (2011). Framework for designing and evaluating game achievements. Proc. DiGRA 2011: Think Design Play, 115, 122-134. Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2013). Social motivations to use gamification: an empirical study of gamifying exercise. Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., Sarsa, H. (2014a). Does Gamification Work? – A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification. In Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA, 6-9. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Pakkanen, T. (2014b). Do Persuasive Technologies Persuade? A Review of Empirical Studies. In: Spagnolli, A., Chittaro, L., & Gamberini, L. (Eds.), Persuasive Technology, LNCS 8462, pp. 118-136. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland. Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2014c). Measuring Flow in Gamification: Dispositional Flow Scale-2. Computers in Human Behavior, 40, 133-143. Hamari, J., & Tuunanen, J. (2014). Player Types: A Meta-synthesis. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association, 1 (2), 29-53. Herz, B., Merz, W. (1998). Experiential learning and the effectiveness of economic simulation games. Simulation and Gaming, 29(2), 238-250. Huizinga, J. (1949). Homo Ludens. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.. _______, J. (2008). Homo Ludens. São Paulo: Perspectiva.

Hume, M., Mort, S. M., Liesch, P. W., Winzar, H. (2006), Understanding service experience in non-profit performing arts: Implications for operations and service management. Journal of Operations Management, 24 (4), 304-324. Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI. pp. 04-04. Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2011). “Gamification” from the perspective of service marketing. In Proceedings of CHI’2011 (Gamification workshop), Vancouver, Canada, May 7-12. Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012). Defining gamification: a service marketing perspective. In Proceeding of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference, New York, USA, 1722. Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2016). A definition for gamification: anchoring gamification in the service marketing literature. Electron Markets, 1-11. Koivisto, M. Frameworks for Structuring Services and Customer Experiences. Miettinen, S. (2009).

(ed.)

Designing

Services

with

Innovative

Methods.

Helsinki:

TAIK

Publications/University of Art and Design Helsinki. 136-148. Koster, R. (2005), A Theory of Fun for Game Design. Arizona: Paraglyph Press. Law, F.L., Kasirun, Z.M., Gan, C.K. (2011). Gamification towards sustainable mobile application. 5th Malaysian Conference in Software Engineering, MySEC, art. no. 6140696, 349-353. Lazzaro, N. (2004). Why We Play Games: Four Keys to More Emotion Without Story”. XEODesign, Inc. Available at: http://xeodesign.com/xeodesign _whyweplaygames.pdf _______, N. (2005). Diner Dash and The People Factor. XEODesign, Inc. Available at: http://xeodesign.com/xeodesign_dinerdashcasestdy500n031405.pdf _______, N. (2005). Why we play games together: the people factor. Game Developers Conference.

Available

at:

http://xeodesign.com/xeodesign_

whyweplaygamestogether100n031005.pdf LeBlanc, Mark. (2000). Game developers conference. Available at: http://8kindsoffun.com/.

Lee, A. (2007). Action is an Artifact: What Action Research and Design Science Offer to Each Other, in Information Systems Action Research: An Applied View of Emerging Concepts and Methods, N. Kock (ed.), New York: Springer, 2007, pp. 43-60. Mager, B. (2008). Service Design. In Erlhoff, M., Design Dictionary. Perspectives on Design Terminology. Basel: Birkhauser. Mäyrä, F., Looy, V.L., Quandt, T. (2013). Disciplinary Identity of Game Scholars: An Outline. Proceedings of DiGRA 2013: DeFragging Game Studies. Mcgonigal, J. (2011). Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World. New York: The Penguin Press. Metters, R., K. King-Metters, M. Pullman and S. Walton (2006). Successful Service Operations Management, 2nd edition, Thomson South-Western, Mason, Ohio. Michaelides, D. (2011). Will gamify those processes. The art of innovation in the public sector International. Journal of Innovation Science, 3(3), 117-125. Miettinen, S. Designing Services with Innovative Methods. Miettinen, S. (2009). (ed.) Designing Services with Innovative Methods. Helsinki: TAIK Publications/University of Art and Design Helsinki. 10-25. Minett, P. Pearce, J. (2011). Estimating the Energy Consumption Impact of Casual Carpooling. Energies, 4(1), 126. Norton, D. W.; Pine II, J. (2013). Using the customer journey to road test and refine the business model. Strategy & Leadership, 41(2) 12-17. Patricio, L, Fisk, R. P., & Cunha, J.F. (2008). Designing multi-interface service experiences: The service experience blueprint. Journal of Service Research, 10(4), 318334. Patricio,L., Fisk, R.P., Cunha, J.F., Constantine, L. (2011). Multilevel Service Design: From Customer Value Constellation to Service Experience Blueprinting. Journal of Service Research, 14 (2), 180-200. Pearce, C., Fullerton, T., Fron J., Morie J.F. (2007). Sustainable play: Toward a new games movement for the digital age. Games and Culture, 2(3), 261-278.

Pine, B. J., Gilmore J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review, 76 (4): 97-105. Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre and every business a stage. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Polaine, A. (2012), Play, interactivity and service design: towards a unified design language. Miettinen, S.; Valtonen, A. (2012) (ed.) Service Design with Theory. Vantaa: Hansabook. 160-168. Poplin, A. (2012). Playful public participation in urban planning: A case study for online serious games. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 36(3), 195-206. Pullman, M. E., & Gross, M. A. (2004). Ability of Experience Design Elementsto Elicit Emotions and Loyalty Behaviors. Decision Sciences. 35 (3), 551-578. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67. Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. K. (2006). Motivation pull of video games: A Self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 347-365. Saqer, H., De Visser, E., Strohl, J., Parasuraman, R. (2012). Distractions N' Driving: Video game simulation educates young drivers on the dangers of texting while driving. Work, 41 (SUPPL.1), 5877-5879. Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Schell, J. (2008). The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses. Massachusetts, Morgan Kaufmann Books. Sein, M., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action design research. MIS Quarterly, 35 (1), 37-56. Simões, J., Redondo, R. D., & Vilas, A. F. (2013). A social gamification framework for a K6 learning platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(2), 345-353. Suits, B. (1978). The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia. Canada: Broadview Press. Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Teresa, A., Kramer, S. (2011). The Progress Principle: Using Small Wins to Ignite Joy, Engagement, and Creativity at Work. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Thom, J., Millen, D., DiMicco, J. (2012). Removing gamification from an enterprise SNS. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW, 1067-1070. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1−17. Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F. (2008). From goods to service(s): Divergences and convergences of logics. Industrial Marketing Management, 37, 254-259. Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., (2010). It’s all B2B…and beyond: Toward a systems perspective of the market. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 181-187. Verhoef, P.C., Lemon, K.N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M. and Schlesinger, L.A. (2009). Customer experience creation: determinants, dynamics and management strategies. Journal of Retailing, 85, 31-41. Vilnai-Yavetz, I. & Rafaeli, A. (2006). Managing organizational artifacts to avoid artifact myopia. In A. Rafaeli & M. Pratt (Eds.) Artifacts and Organizations: Beyond Mere Symbolism, (pp. 9-21). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum associates Inc. Yee, N. (2006). The Demographics, Motivations and Derived Experiences of Users of Massively-Multiuser Online Graphical Environments. PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 15, 309-329. Yee, N. (2007). Motivations of Play in Online Games. Journal of CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9, 772-775. Zhang, P. (2008). Technical opinion Motivational affordances: reasons for ICT design and use. Communications of the ACM, 51(11), 145-147. Zichermann, G. and Linder, J. (2010). Game-Based Marketing: Inspire Customer Loyalty Through Rewards, Challenges, and Contests. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Zomerdijk, L. G., Voss, C.A. (2010). Service Design for Experience-Centric Services. Journal of Service Research, 13(1), 67-82.

Zomerdijk, L.G, Voss, C.A. (2011). NSD Processes and Practices in Experiential Services. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(1), 63-80.

Bios Carla Cipolla has been involved in projects for social innovation in Europe, Africa and Brazil, where she is now associate professor at the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro/COPPE. Her research and design activities are focused on interpersonal relational qualities in design for social innovation. Awarded a PhD in Design from Politecnico di Milano

in

2007,

she

coordinates

the

COPPE/UFRJ

DESIS

Lab.

Contact:

[email protected]. Sol Klapztein has been involved with games since his youth. Awarded with a MSc from the Production Engineering program at COPPE/UFRJ, his research dealt with the use of game design concepts to promote engagement in sustainability-related initiatives1. He actually works as a graphic designer at Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF), and as a casual researcher at DESIS Lab, in Rio de Janeiro. He is currently working towards his doctorate. Contact: [email protected].

1

Klapztein, S. (2012). O jogo em que todos ganham: a utilização de conceitos de "game design" para o aumento do engajamento e participação em serviços para a sustentabilidade. Unpublished master’s dissertation. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Available at: http://146.164.2.115/F/C4HMK9QCXCP7YPB2EQHIKUV1RJATF5DN3UMBGSKU2KX5YIE2U2-29665?func=full-setset&set_number=011564&set_entry=000001&format=999.