How to apply Design Science Research in the gamification space?

What is Design Science Research?

The term Design-Science-Research (DSR) is of great importance for information systems research, in that it has a strong focus on relevance in the application domain and the aim of creating innovative artifacts to solve real-world business problems (Hevner et al., 2004; Simon, 1968). In a nutshell, DSR describes a scientific methodology of problem solving, where new knowledge is being created, but also to foster change or improve existing solutions. The fundamental work in the design science community of Hevner et al. (2004) reveals the following framework, which helps to understand the idea and concept of DSR, organized in three cycles:

• The relevance cycle reflects the requirements by analysing business needs within the environment. There should be clarity on the following topics: Which actors are involved? What are the organizational structures? What are the technological structures? What are the problems and opportunities? The aim in the relevance cycle is to define the application context as well as the definition of requirements of the artifact.
• The rigor cycle demonstrates ensures the grounding of the research in foundations, methodologies and theories while adding new knowledge to the existing knowledge base. In this cycle existing knowledge and theories are informing the design process of the planned artifact.
• The design cycle highlights the design, development and evaluation of the artifact.

What is Gamification?

The approach describes the application of game design elements in non-game contexts, defined by Deterding et al. (2011). This means that game-design elements, which have been successful in games, are being integrated seamlessly into more serious contexts. Typical gamification elements include badges, leaderboards, points, progression, status or levels. Prominent gamification examples include the Starbucks Reward Programme, DuoLingo, Stackoverflow or enterprise gamification solutions like Centrical.

Generally, the maturity of gamification evolved over time, while the first wave of gamification research covered definitions, frameworks or taxonomies and addressed the research question of “Does Gamification work?” (Nacke & Deterding, 2017). In the second wave, the research field gained maturity and the overall design covered more theory-driven empirical studies (e.g., self-determination theory SDT, goal-setting approach). Research studies are highlighting the application areas as well as the performance of individual gamification elements with a strong focus on revealing the fact - “How does it work and when?”.

Although classical application domains such as marketing (Huotari & Hamari, 2012), health (Miloff et al., 2015) and education (Domínguez et al., 2013; Hanus & Fox, 2015) have played a major role, the use of game design elements in non-game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011) in the workplace is also becoming increasingly important (Perryer et al., 2016; Suh, 2015; Suh et al., 2017). Accordingly, the concept of gamification has revealed that there is considerable potential for increasing the range of available outcomes for employees, in order to foster the achievement of long-term organizational and strategic goals.

Development of a Design Theory

Although the literature has provided controversial opinions on whether or not design theory is an outcome of DSR (J. R. Venable, 2013), Gregor and Jones (2007) show the vital importance of the way in which design knowledge is expressed in terms of theory; these authors classify IS design theories as “type V” theories for design and action. Moreover, “understanding the nature of IS design theories supports the cumulative building of knowledge, rather than the re-invention of design artifacts and methods under new labels” (Gregor & Jones, 2007, p. 314).

Our recent publication covers the development of a design theory for the gamification score mechanic to foster work-related competencies and engagement: "Toward a Design Theory of User-Centered Score Mechanics for Gamified Competency Development".

Our paper follows the eight structural components of design theory development, proposed by Gregor and Jones (2007) where an existing information system in the health domain has been gamified in order to foster individual competency development and increase engagement like knowledge creation and sharing activities at the same time.

In a nutshell, the design theory describes the mapping of digital tasks and work-related competencies including the definition and link towards the appropriate score classes. The lead-user analysis provides insights and a solid basis for the definition of score thresholds (level design). Finally the progress is being visualized in the front-end layer where incentives inform and motivate the end-user to grow in certain directions.

Where to read about Gamification research?

Gamification group: https://webpages.tuni.fi/gamification/

CHI Conference Proceedings: https://chi2021.acm.org/

HCI – Games: https://hcigames.com/

HICSS Conference Proceedings: https://hicss.hawaii.edu/

GamiFIN - https://gamifinconference.com/

References

Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28 (1), 75–105.

Simon, H. A. (1968). The sciences of the artificial. M.I.T. Press.

Venable, J. R. (2013). Lecture Notes In Computer Science: Vol. 7939. Design science at the intersection of physical and virtual design. DESRIST 2013. In J. vom Brocke, R. Hekkala, S. Ram, & M. Rossi (Eds.), Rethinking design theory in information systems (pp. 136–149). Springer.

Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(5), 313–335.

Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. A. (1992). Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 36–59.

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011, September 28–30).From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification.” Proceedings of the 15th national academic mindtrek conference: Envisioning future media environments, Tampere, Finland.

Nacke, L. E., and Deterding, S. (2017). “The maturing of gamification research”, Computers in Human Behavior, 71, pp. 450-454

Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012, October 3–5).Defining gamification: A service marketing perspective Proceeding of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference, Tampere, Finland.

Miloff, A., Marklund, A., & Carlbring, P. (2015). The challenger app for social anxiety disorder: New advances in mobile psychological treatment. Internet Interventions, 2(4), 382–391.

Perryer, C., Celestine, N. A., Scott-Ladd, B., & Leighton, C. (2016). Enhancing workplace motivation through gamification: Transferrable lessons from pedagogy. The International Journal of Management Education, 14(3), 327–335.

Suh, A. (2015, December 13–16).Applying game design elements in the workplace. Proceedings of the 36th international conference on information systems: Exploring thetion frontier, Fort Worth, TX, United States.?

Suh, A., Cheung, C. M. K., Ahuja, M., & Wagner, C. (2017). Gamification in the workplace: The central role of the aesthetic experience. Journal of Management Information Systems, 34(1), 268–305.