Get A Copy. Paperback , pages. Published May 8th by Mokita Press first published May 2nd More Details Original Title. Other Editions 1. Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Building Enterprise Taxonomies , please sign up. Be the first to ask a question about Building Enterprise Taxonomies. Lists with This Book. Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 3.
Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Start your review of Building Enterprise Taxonomies. Shelves: nonfiction. I have a new job and someone recommended this book to me in connection with that. It is the first book of its kind that I've read, so I can't compare it to any others yet.
I found the writing to be clear and the author made liberal use of helpful illustrations and examples. Humorous quotes and sidebars helped to enliven a rather dull subject, and sometimes added insight as well. My only quibble with this book is that it sorely needed proofreading. It had more errors than any galley I have ever r I have a new job and someone recommended this book to me in connection with that.
It had more errors than any galley I have ever read, and the types of errors made it clear that the publisher felt spell-checking for errors was proofreading enough. It wasn't. Jason Payne rated it liked it Mar 27, Marc rated it liked it Dec 11, Marilee rated it really liked it Jan 21, Chloe rated it really liked it Nov 20, Trish rated it liked it Mar 08, Darin Stewart rated it it was amazing Jul 05, Laurie Lee rated it really liked it Oct 22, Larry Smith rated it it was amazing Jul 11, Karen rated it liked it Apr 14, Alexia rated it really liked it May 18, Eric Herr rated it liked it Jun 17, Dave Mills rated it really liked it Aug 08, Amy rated it liked it Nov 02, Michele rated it really liked it Aug 07, Ralph rated it liked it Nov 27, Andy rated it liked it Jan 01, Clarissa rated it it was amazing Sep 27, Brian Smith rated it liked it Dec 23, Lucinda Smith Duvall rated it it was amazing Apr 13, Stuart Maxwell rated it it was amazing Nov 30, Tatjana rated it liked it Apr 26, Bonnie rated it liked it Sep 10, John rated it really liked it Oct 11, Maggie rated it liked it Feb 08, Tavi rated it really liked it Sep 15, Our research identifies and proposes in this paper, an enterprise gamification taxonomy comprising of five core elements as illustrated in Figure 1.
Primary purpose Key Target mechanics audience Enterprise gamification taxonomy elements Core Technology gameplay strategy Figure 1: Core elements of the proposed enterprise gamification taxonomy These core elements are primary purpose, target audience, technology strategy, core gameplay and key mechanics.
Each core element comprises of several sub-elements that are further discussed in the following sections of this paper. However, we found this definition provided a limited lens of how game design elements can be utilized from a strategic management point-of-view.
For a guide to the selection of case studies, we used Huotari et al. While this definition lacks crispness, it does: a offer a more holistic perspective on enterprise gamification, and b better align with the enterprise focus of stakeholder engagement for value creation.
Contemporary strategic objectives such as, personalized consumer experiences, and co-creating value with staff and customers Prahalad et al. Enterprise motivations in undertaking gamification projects have not been well-covered or understood in academic research to date. To develop a better understanding of enterprise motivations in gamification projects, we have grounded our work on evaluating the self-identified cases where organizations have attempted to create business value.
Thus we have included case studies of enterprise gamification from private and public companies, government organizations, and not-for-profits, engaged in an activity that serves internal or external stakeholders. Our approach was informed by Glaser ; method of starting with data collection, building up categories and then forming a theory.
There are several challenges that we saw with our approach. From our perspective, we have taken a pragmatist research paradigm given that enterprise gamification is essentially practice- based. Glaser himself claimed that the grounded theory methodology largely occupies a pragmatist position Glaser , Age Secondly, some level of ambiguity is unavoidable in enterprise taxonomies as business concepts and structures are essentially conceptual and contextual to the environment in which an organisation operates Delphi Therefore they are human constructs, compared to scientific taxonomies where categories are not ambiguous, and as such any attempt at developing an enterprise gamification taxonomy will engender some debate.
We duly acknowledge that these issues as limitations of this research. The most important point about using taxonomies that already exist is that they have been tested before, are validated, and therefore have produced reliable results in their domain. As such, we viewed taxonomies of serious games and simulations as precursors to the development of an enterprise gamification taxonomy. Our methodology was organised in three phases: 1 conduct an initial industry survey to identify cases or examples where organizations had self-identified as having undertaken gamification projects, 2 conduct a literature review to ascertain the broad elements and categories used in serious games taxonomies and use this data to inform the development of the key parameters of an enterprise gamification taxonomy, and 3 conduct a detailed industry survey of self-identified case studies of enterprise gamification to a refine the initial categories, and b validate the findings.
Our methodology was as follows: 1. Stage one: Initial industry survey. We commenced our data collection phase by undertaking a survey of self-identified enterprise gamification projects.
Cases that met these criteria were listed in a spreadsheet along with a weblink to the source, and then were systematically analysed for emerging themes. At times, several weblinks were sought on individual cases to obtain more detail where it was required. In the grounded theory tradition, we carried out open coding to allow for an open exploration of themes that emerged Glaser , and a codebook was maintained MacQueen et al.
The initial industry scan involved 60 cases and we stopped at this number as we reached what Glaser calls a theoretical saturation, and we felt we could commence the conceptualisation process Strauss and Corbin by bringing the codes together to form an early concept to then test and further develop through a review of other taxonomies.
Stage two: Literature review. In this stage we conducted a literature review on taxonomies used in serious games and simulations, as well as other established enterprise taxonomies in areas such as management decision support systems DSS , knowledge management KM and information systems IS , to identify potential categories or elements for the gamification taxonomy.
While it is an unresolved issue as to when a literature review should be conducted when using grounded theory Dunne , we decided to undertake the literature review mid- project as we viewed it as a reliable source of data on types of taxonomy categories in use.
We believe that this constituted a contextualisation of the research, rather than a traditional literature review, an approach that has precedence in Dunne The outcomes of our literature review are discussed in more detail in the next section. Stage three: The detailed industry survey.
A survey instrument was created using Qualtrics, and a research assistant was employed to assist with the further collection, reading and coding of case studies against the proposed taxonomy. Before we commenced the detailed survey, we ran a pilot to test for quality and accuracy of the draft taxonomy by randomly selecting 20 case studies from the database for a detailed examination.
Further minor adjustments were made until we were confident that the draft taxonomy and survey instrument contained all the variables that accurately reflected the nature of the full range of enterprise gamification projects.
The final stage was concluded with the coding of identified cases in the database against the draft taxonomy and analysis of the results. In grounded theory, once the conceptualisation and categorisation processes are completed, researchers are in a position to develop a theory Glaser , For our research project, we developed a theoretical model of an enterprise gamification taxonomy that we will present in this paper. The twelve areas of application are business administration, public administration, educational institutions, environment, health care, human services, international relations, military, religion, technology, human settlements and imaginary worlds.
The six foci of interest are competence, communication, knowledge and skills, management and organization, policy, and fun. This model was informative to our draft taxonomy, as it covered a broad range of activities common to enterprises, however the fields did not appear to reflect the range in the case studies we collected, particularly in marketing and business processes and technology.
A key reference point in serious games taxonomies is the model developed by Sawyer et al. Items in the market criteria include government and non-government organizations, defence, health care, marketing and communications, education, corporate, and industry.
Items in the purpose criteria included games for health, advergames, games for training, games for education, game for science and research, production, and games as work.
This model has strong application to a potential gamification taxonomy, but was also unable to cover the scope of the cases studies we accumulated. This classification was a particularly interesting reference point for our research, as the depth of categories they include are an extension of the Sawyer et al.
For example, the Djaouti et al. This model came closest in reflecting our gamification case study range, and became instrumental in evolving our draft taxonomy framework. Other frameworks were also useful in informing the development of our proposed taxonomy. For example, Bedwell et al. Pereira et al. Ratan et al. Outside of serious games, our search for specific enterprise gamification taxonomies produced limited results. The field of gamification is still in an early stage of development and there is limited substantive work on the advancement of classifications, schemas or taxonomies.
Robinson et al. Deterding et al. However, the authors situated gamification in the game and design fields, which lacked an adequate grounding of enterprise needs and motivations in the business context. In another example, Kappen et al.
Hamari et al. However, only eight of the 24 projects can be classified as enterprise gamification projects and the study is based on human factors of motivational affordances, psychological outcomes and behavioural outcomes. In addition to reviewing serious games taxonomies and gamification classifications and schemas, we also looked at existing corporate taxonomies.
These already have an important role to play in the development, organization and access of enterprise knowledge across all key functions, ranging from knowledge management, legal, accounting, finance, human resources and IT. Responsible application of gamification in an enterprise means treating it like any other strategic management tool Reeves et al. However, robust enterprise gamification models and frameworks have been noticeably absent and have largely relied on anecdotal evidence of success Hamari ; Deterding et al.
The purpose of this taxonomy is not to determine gamification effectiveness, or to describe how to combine optimal variables to optimize the design or performance of a gamified application.
This is not the purpose of a taxonomy, as it is not intended to be a substitute for business acumen or creative design — it only provides a common language and terms of reference, and indicates key points of decision-making required to build a gamified application. Gamification is in part a creative endeavour and therefore cannot be completely codified. The lack of coherent and agreed common frameworks, definitions and classifications within game design, games and serious games which have been in operation for several decades is testament to this.
All projects also incorporated data analytics to quantify player participation, feedback, actions undertaken, or engagement, as well as specific financial analytics such as sales, revenue raised, or return on investment. The result was the development of a proposed taxonomy that features five core elements — primary purpose, target audience, technology strategy, core gameplay and key mechanics — which provide a streamlined classification of the various enterprise gamification projects in use.
We further refined the classification of these core elements by distinguishing them by their orientation as either a market-based, b technology-based, or c design-based elements. An outline of these key core and sub- elements is summarized in Figure 2.
KEY RESEARCH INSIGHTS Our review of the enterprise gamification case studies has enabled us to form the following insights into the key characteristics of our proposed taxonomy: Technology strategy Technology options were not immediately obvious, as we initially hypothesized that the most common technology would be platform offerings by vendors such as Badgeville and Bunchball, given that there are 80 other similar providers of gamification software as a service offering Technology Advice However, on closer investigation of our case studies, we found we needed to split the technology category into eight sub-categories.
A close inspection of the games labelled as gamification indicates that at one time they may have been called advergaming, edugaming or training games, which are technically in the domain of serious games. However we have included these technologies in this proposed taxonomy as we are reporting on our grounded research findings that industry believes gamification to be a collective term that is broader than that of the research community, and perhaps more useful to its internal decision making, organisation and communication.
This phenomenon may be an early signal, or opportunity, for the continued evolvement of the domain. It was evident from the cases that each of the eight technology strategy options would require a unique set of design and investment decisions that are tailored to specific business needs. A further challenge would be deciding whether organizations are seeking or receiving balanced advice on the optimal technology options available to them to meet their specific business needs, given that each option is marketed by different vendors.
For example, vendors selling games are different to those selling platforms, and those selling simulations or playful experiences. We flag this as an opportunity for further research and investigation. Target audience We identified five key mutually exclusive target audience categories for enterprise gamification.
Given that the primary goal for many enterprises is value creation, we identified the necessity of player or user profiling tools that reflect business realities, rather than the popular game-world constructs.
This is particularly important when considering that there is no guaranteed outcome of game or gamification experience will be as the designer intended, as the player or user is an active agent in creating and defining their experience Hamari et al. Primary purpose Most gamification projects were reported as having several objectives, and many noted spinoff or contingency benefits that were either sought or unexpected.
For our research we aimed to pinpoint the primary purpose within each project to ascertain the design decisions influenced by it. We mapped a total of 17 categories of primary purpose for enterprise gamification projects, and we then aggregated these into six key areas for ease of use. We found there was a reasonably even spread of purpose, which shows that organizations are experimenting with enterprise gamification across a broad range of business areas. Core gameplay We initially debated the significance of gameplay in gamification projects; however, on closer inspection of the case studies it was evident that in most projects gameplay was just as important as game mechanics in the design and delivery of the core user experience.
We mapped 12 common types or genres of gameplay or styles of play with core rules that constitute a game used in enterprise gamification projects that were also consistent with the types used in the design of both entertainment and serious games Braithwaite et al.
Note that this was not intended as an exhaustive list, only an indication of the more common types of gameplay we found in key examples. We acknowledge that this is a complex topic in entertainment games, however is still largely simplistic in enterprise gamification. The focus on collection gameplay could be explained as a reflection of the early days of enterprise gamification.
Organizations are still experimenting with simple forms of gameplay while workplaces or markets are getting used to the idea of gamefulness in traditional business functions.
In addition it could be an indication of the limited range of capabilities of vendors and consultants of gamification solutions, or the technologies that are available. Once again, the skew towards simple mechanics can be explained by the early days of trial and experimentation, and also the size of the loyalty market, and the platform market, which tend to employ very simple mechanics in their systems. This may be attributed to the lack of rigorous definitions, frameworks and tools within enterprise gamification that are required to build consensus.
From an enterprise perspective, however, gamification, games and simulations fall under a single umbrella of tools that can potentially be used to improve the performance of existing business processes and applications across multiple domains. Our research has mapped five key parameters that have been explored by organizations in their gamification projects — primary purpose, target audience, technology strategy, core gameplay, and key mechanics — and we propose that these form the basis of a preliminary enterprise gamification taxonomy.
It is important to note that we consider this the beginning of an evolving construct as gamification technologies and design practices continue to grow and develop. This proposed taxonomy can be potentially used in providing researchers and practitioners with an initial framework from which to develop the following tools: 1.
Common language and communication tool 2. Objective diagnostic tool of mapping problems and potential solutions 3.
0コメント