3 ms·
I spent almost a decade in public sector digitalisation in Denmark as a software developer, enterprise architect and later manager, and you wouldn’t believe the
by devjab 3y ago
I spent almost a decade in public sector digitalisation in Denmark as a software developer, enterprise architect and later manager, and you wouldn’t believe the amount of gamification attempts that I have seen fail. I’m not sure where they come from. Ok, maybe I should clarify that. I understand how gamification is a very effective psychological tool to get people to spend a lot of time on things they wouldn’t otherwise spend time on. Which means they are great tools for making money on various things, but I never understood how gamification made its way into anything “positive”. Positive is maybe the wrong word, but I’m not sure how else to put it. The incentive to put gamification into public sector digitisation is basically always good. You did it because you wanted better surgeons. We did it because we wanted people to take their medicine, the jobless to get jobs, parents to take more interest in their children and so on. Basically all good intentions, but the tool isn’t for good intentions. It’s a tool to make people spend time on something they might not want to spend time on, so why did we ever think it would be a fitting tool for our good intentions?
The results were always somewhat similar to yours. Recipients engaged more on the whole. There were rebels, people who gamed the systems and a range of other outliners, but as a whole people engaged more. The process also failed to cultivate any of the developments that the process people had hoped for. I was never really surprised to see the attempts fail. I know I’m a little “special” in that I have ADHD, and that it manifests in a way where it’s basically impossible for me to engage in anything I find boring. So aside from being terrible at meetings (and yes, I quickly quit management), it also renders me sort of immune to gamification while also being weirdly inflicted by it as anyone with ADHD will likely attest to. Anyway, those systems, the ones that give you a “win-streak” for taking your medicine every day, they aren’t fun. I want the streak, but I also don’t care because it’s not fun, and so I forget to take my medicine just as much, and at some point, it becomes more fun to break the streak.
All of this is obviously very anecdotal, but my personal experience with these systems, and how they aren’t actually fun, seems to correlate with how they seem to fail to incentivise the development their creators want, unless that development is for people to spend a lot of money on video games. I do wonder if there is any actual science on the subject, it would be interesting to see if my anecdotal stories here are just silly stories. They likely are, there must be a reason “gamification” won the hearts and minds of good intended, highly educated and very professional people who want to use the methods for good things.
- greazy 3y agoThere is a good bit of research in the medical field. Eg here's a meta study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33128662/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33128662/ I found this bit of the abstract interesting: > However, most studies lacked well-defined control groups and did not apply and/or report theory to understand underlying processes. This paper seems to be a good overview of the theories underlying gamification https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563221002867 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074756322... > Gamification can illustrate goals and their relevance, nudge users through guided paths, give users immediate feedback, reinforce good performance and simplify content to manageable tasks. Gamification mechanics can allow users to pursue individual goals and choose between different progress paths, while the system can adapt complexity to the user's abilities. The above section is extremely interesting and matches my experience. Where gamification has really excelled in incentivising me to continue is when I had a path to follow, I can see progress and improvement. A good example is the Odin project study paths, or Khan Academy courses. At their core they represent a skill tree that you progress through and use. Giving me badges (github/SO), accomplishments (Steam)for the sake of magic points, are all in my opinion useless non engaging and shallow. In my opinion SO is the biggest culprit in shallow badges.
- Karellen 3y ago> A good example is the Odin project study paths, or Khan Academy courses. One other example that has a few of my friends hooked is Duolingo. Learning another language was something they'd wanted to do, and had tried to do in the past. They just had trouble sticking to putting the work in. But Duolingo's particular brand of gamification has got them doing the thing they always wanted to do, but never got round to before, and they now compare streaks of activity of more than a year.
- Suppafly 3y agoGamification definitely works better when it's in conjunction with something you already want to do, or feel like you should do. It gives you an excuse to push a little harder to keep on task. It mostly seems to not work at all when it's for something you don't care about.