Governmental service gamification : central concepts

(1)

DOI: 10.4018/IJIDE.2019070101

Volume 10 • Issue 3 • July-September 2019

Governmental Service Gamification:

Central Principles

J. Tuomas Harviainen, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland

Lobna Hassan, Hanken School of Economics and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland

ABSTRACT

Theintroductionofgamificationofgovernmentalservicesisatopicofinteresttopolicymakersand

gamificationresearchersandpractitionersalike.Nonetheless,governmentalgamificationstillremains

anunderstudiedarea,despitethepracticalgovernmentalgamificationinitiativesalreadytakingplace,

facingincreasedimplementationrisksfromthelackofguidingimplementationprinciples.Such

risksandlackofunifiedguidelinesforgovernmentalgamificationnecessitatestheexaminationof

governmentalgamificationfromtheperspectiveofexistingknowledgetosynthesizekeyknowledge

fatheredonitsimplementation.Thisarticleexaminesexistingresearchinordertoprovideguidelines

forapplyinggamificationingovernmentservices.Byusingacombinationofresearchongamification

incivicengagementandtheGamifiedServiceFrameworkofKlapzteinandCipolla,thearticlecreates

abasicroadmapforrecognizingfactorsthatneedtobeconsideredwhenapplyinggamification

techniquesandmethodsingovernmentservicesandthepublicsectoringeneral.

KEywoRDS

Gamification, Government Services, Public Sector, Public Services, Theory Development

INTRoDUCTIoN

Gamificationisatrendthatcanberoughlydescribedastheadditionofgameelementstonon-gaming

contexts(Deterdingetal.,2011).Despitesomefluctuationinitspopularity,itstillappearstobea

growingtrendinbusinesscontexts(Warmelinketal.,2018),crowdmobilization(Morschheuseretal.,

2017),andpersonalhealthmanagementandeducation,amongstmanyotherfields(Hamari,Koivisto,

&Sarsa,2014;Koivisto&Hamari,2017).Nonetheless,thestudyofgamificationinmanagement

andorganizationisstillrare(Vesaetal.,2017;Vesa&Harviainen,inpress).Thisisalsotrueinthe

widercaseofthestudyofplayinorganizations(Statler,Roos,&Victor,2009;Statler,Heraclous,

&Jacobs,2011,Vesa,denHond,&Harviainen,2018).Thestudiesthataredoneintheseareasare

sometimesfurthermorestilltoofixedonlookingatthewrongthings,suchasmethods,orpromotion,

insteadofcertifiedresults(Landers,inpress).Inthisarticle,weprovideinsightsforre-profilingthe

studyofgamificationinorganizationalcontextsandespeciallygovernmentalservicecontexts,an

organizationalcontextinheightenedneedforcontextualizedinsight(Hassan,inpress).

http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/IJIDE.2019070101

(2)

Gamificationreliesontheplayfulnatureofhumans.Asaspecies,weareinherentlydrawnto

play,evenasadultlifemayplaceastigmauponitas“immature”behavior(Sutton-Smith,1997).

Notallplayisfun(Stenros,2015),norisincreasedfunthecentralgoalofallgamification(Landers

etal.,2018).Gamificationattemptstoinduceappropriate,enjoyablepsychologicalexperiencesthat

theuserswouldfindengaging.(Huotari&Hamari2017).Theseexperiencesarecountless,often

groupedundertheumbrellagoalexperienceofgamefulness.Someoftheseexperiences,goalof

gamification,areintuitivelyconsideredenjoyableandengaging,suchasexperiencesofmotivation,

happinessorflow,whileothersareonlyconsideredenjoyableifappropriatelyexperiencedsuchas

experiencesoftension,challengeorfear.Theseexperiences,overall,arethoughttobethereasonwhy

gamesareenjoyableandengagingtolargepopulationsegments(McGonigal,2011).Asgamification

drawsinspirationofgamedesign(Deterdingetal.,2011,Huotari&Hamari,2017;Vesaetal.,2017),

thisenjoyabilityisoneofthemaintargetsofgamificationdesign.Hence,forthesakeofbrevity,we

referinthisarticleto“enjoyment”andcloselyrelatedterms,inreferencetotheentirespectrumof

emotionalandcognitivepossibilitiesofgamification.

Peoplecanoftenswitchbetweentheirenjoyablyplayfulandseriousmind-states,evenin

conditionsofworkandothermenialtasks(Apter,2007).Ingamification,thereal-worldenvironment

andmundanetasksarecombinedwithgamefulandplayfuldesign,throughakindofmake-believe

(Deterding,2016).Thismakesthemind-stateswitchesbetweenenjoyablyplayfulandseriousmore

likelytooccurthantheywouldotherwisewithoutthisstimulus.Thismind-stateswitchisbeneficial

inmanycontexts,asitcanmakepeopleawareofboththeenjoyabilityandthepotential,external

benefitsofthemundaneactivitywithwhichtheyareengaged.

Gamificationinthecontextofgovernanceandgovernmentalserviceshasbeenofsome

popularity(Bista,Nepal,Paris,&Colineau,2014;Opromollaetal.,2015;Thiel,2016a).Thecontext

ofgamificationimplementationandprovisioninthepublicsectorisofinteresttoushere,inthis

article,asithasbeensuggestedthatcivicengagementandgovernmentalservicescanbeimprovedby

gamifyingcertainpartsofthem(Asquer,2014;Deterdingetal.,2011;Hassan,2017;forthcoming).

Civicengagementisoftenconsideredamundaneactivity,withnodirectorimmediatereturnon

thecitizenengagedwithit.Itisadditionallyaseriousactivitywithlittleenjoyabilityandhenceit

isveryunlikely,asisoftenobserved,thatindividualswouldactivelyandvoluntarilyengagewith

it.Ifgamificationcanhelpswitchindividuals’stateofmindfromperceivingcivicengagementas

amundaneactivitytoexperiencingitplayfully,thenitisverylikelythatindividualswouldengage

withitmoreoften.

Suchincreasedengagementwithgovernmentalservicesasisthegoalofgamificationisof

highimportancetomost,ifnotallsocieties.Thecentralreasonisthatsincepeopleoftencannot

betrustedtomakethebestdecisions(oreventoactintheirbestinterest)iftoomanyoptionsare

available,governmentsneedtousevarioussystemsandmethodstoincentivizepositiveandprosocial

behavior(Thaler&Sunstein,2009).Severalsuchtechniqueshavebeensuggestedbefore,including

theapplicationofpsychologyandbehavioraleconomicsthroughpre-selections,choicearchitecture

andotherformsof“nudging,theprovisionofadditionalinformation(e.g.,health-relateddata)to

citizens,andgamification(Lieberoth,Jensen,&Bredahl,2018).Incentivizing“good”citizenbehavior

hasbeenasignificantfocusofsomeoftheresearchconductedongamificationingovernanceareas

(e.g.,Al-Yafi&El-Masri,2016;Williamson,2017).

Research,however,focusedonthecreationof“good”citizensoftenraisesdebates.Whilewe

canintuitivelyseeenvironmentalandfinancialbenefitsingovernments,forexample,incentivizing

responsiblebehaviorsuchastheuseofsustainabletransport,theethicalnessofsuchinitiativesandtheir

outcomesaredebated(Mahnic,2014).Suchinitiativesdefine“good”throughatop-downapproach

thatmightnotalwaysagreewithhowcitizensthemselveswoulddefine“good”.Inauthoritarian

regimes,thatmightleadtotheimplementationofgovernmentalobjectivesthatdonotagreewith

societalobjectivethroughthesoft,engagingforceofgamification.Engagementwithsuchgamification

mayhencenotbefullyvoluntary,enjoyable,norplayful.

(3)

Theseaforementionedmethodstooptimizegovernanceofsociety,andthebehaviorofits

individualcomponents,arenotmutuallyexclusive.Theycancreatesynergies,buttheycanlikewise

workatcross-purposes.Inthefewcomparativeteststhathavebeenimplementedsofar,gamification

appearstoproducebetterresultsthandothebaseline,nudging,andinformation-provisionversions

ofthesameactivity(Lieberothetal.,2018).Suchobservationsareinlinewithgeneral,empirical

gamificationresearchthatsuggeststhatgamificationworksandisabletocreatepositiveeffectsand

changes(Hamarietal,2014;Koivisto&Hamari2017).Inasignificantportionofthatresearch,

gamificationisseenasawaytomaximizeperformanceand/orprofit,andthusplayisnotconsidered

thereasaninherentpartofhumannature(Sørensen&Spoelstra,2012).Forgovernmentalprocesses,

somethingelseishoweverneeded.Hence,inthistheorybuildingarticle,welookatgovernmental

gamificationinanattempttobridgethegapbetweenexistingdesignpracticesandexpectation,and

thespecificcontext,whichrequirescertainadditionalconsiderations.

BACKGRoUND

Governmentsexist,atthecore,toprovideorderandservicesfortheircitizens.Someofthemdoit

muchbetterthanothers,butthecoreprincipleisthesame.Here,wespecificallyfocusontheservice

sideofthatfunction,asthatiswheregamificationappearstomanifestthemost.Severaldefinitions

forgamificationexist(e.g.,Deterdingetal.,2011;Huotari&Hamari,2017).Forthepurposesof

thisarticle,however,wefollowingHassan’sframing(2017),builtuponthatofHuotariandHamari

(2017),defineitas“…theutilizationofmotivationalaffordancesthatcreatevalue-addingexperience

inthedesignofservices…”Byexamininggovernmentalgamificationfromaserviceperspective,

weaddtotheknowledgeofbothservicegamificationandthegamificationofgovernmentservices.

Gamificationisaboutnudgingindividualstowardsdesirablebehavior(Rigby,2014).Often,

especiallyontheshortrun,behavioralshiftsresultantfromgamificationtowardsdesirablebehavior

couldbeattributedtonoveltymorethananythingelse(Bogost,2015).Whennoveltywearsoff,the

gamifiedelementsactuallymakepeoplelesslikelytocontinueusingtheservice(Koivisto&Hamari,

2014).Gamification,however,canworkdifferently,arguablywithlongerlastingbehavioralaffects,if

itisdesignedtofocusontheneedsandpreferencesofitspotentialusersaswellasonitspotentialuser

context(Hassan,inpress;Morchheuseretal.,2018).Suchuserandcontextcentricgamificationfocus

onatfirstcreatingenjoyableexperiencesforitsusersthatmakethemwanttoengagemorewiththe

gamifiedtoolandthatincreasedengagementwiththegamifiedtooliswhatisnextchanneledtowards

desiredbehavior(Hamarietal.,2014;2018).Thisunderstandingofgamificationhasbeenextended

tothegamificationofgovernmentalservices(Hassan,2017;inpress)andempiricalresearchfocused

onunderstandingusersandcontextsofgovernmentalserviceshasbeenobservedtoreportpositive

andlastingeffectsfromgamificationimplementations(e.g.,Lindley&Coulton2015;Mulyana,

Hindersah,&Prihatmanto,2015;Sandoval-Almazan&Valle-Cruz,2017).

Acentralchallengeinthistopicisthatgamificationandgovernmentalservicesareinmanyways

atodds.Publicservicesshouldbydefaultbeavailabletoeveryonewhoneedsthemandhastheright

toaccessthem(Harviainen,Ekström&Ojasalo,2018).Games,inturn,arebasedoninefficiency.

Theyaresystemsofrules,inwhichartificiallimitationsarecreatedforthepurposesofheightened

challengelevelandenjoyability(Suits,1978).Therefore,turninganactivityintoagamemakesit

hardertoaccess,whichisofsignificantconcerntointroducinggamificationtogovernmentalservices

(Mahnic,2014).Gamification,however,doesnothavetorelyonturningsomethingintoagame,

justonmakingitmoregame-likethroughadditionalelements.Thisisapracticewithalonghistory,

exemplifiedbye.g.,“employeeofthemonth”leaderboards(Vesaetal.,2017).Itisnecessarytoensure

thatinanyattemptatgovernmentalorcitizenparticipationgamification,democraticprinciplesare

observed,followedandsupported(Mayer,2009;Hassan,2017).

Asecondchallengeisthatgamificationisimprecise.Itishenceoftenplacedinacategoryofits

ownwithregardstotheutilizationofgame-basedapproachestogovernance(Oceja&Fernández,

(4)

2017)andisoftenmisunderstoodinpracticebyimplementingpolicymakersandofficialsthemselves

(Ampatzidouetal.,2018).AsnotedbyCallan,BauerandLanders(2015),gamificationcaneasily

guidepeopletodothewrongthingsintheirquestsforpointsandothermerits.Despitetheproblems,

civicengagementhassofarusedtailoredgamesforciviclearningorincreasingmotivation(Thiel,

2015).Itis,however,possibletonarrowthetaskscope,sothatmoreusefulresultscanbegathered

fromthesideofgamesproper,andthentranslatedintoprobablegamifiedbehaviors.Attheendof

thatspectrumliesthefearofsocialcreditssystemslikethatofChina(Botsman,2017),inwhichbig

dataisusedtorateaperson’ssocialcreditrating,agamifiedratingthatthenaffectstheirpossibilities

inlife.Itisthereforenecessarytokeepinmindthatthecoreofefficient,instrumentalplayisinits

voluntariness(Deterding,2016),andtousethatthoughtasthekeyofdesign.Noteveryonelikesto

play,andthosewhodomaystillwishtolimitittojustgames,nottheirwork-lives–orcivicservice

use(Warmelink,2014).Andwedonotyetknow,whethergamificationcanactuallymotivatepeople

whoarenotinterestedinthetopicorthecontexttosomeextentalready(Hamari,2013).

METHoD

Thisarticleutilizedanexplanationbuildingliteraturereview,throughwhich,researchersstudythekey

literatureofafieldtowardstheconstructionofanewtheory(Paré,Trudel,Jaana,&Kitsiou,2015).

Byusingexistingresearch,thisarticleprovidesadeeperlookattheprocessesandrequirementsof

governmentalgamification.Thisisamethodknowntobringforthnewdataandnewpropositions

forfurtherresearch(Galliers,1992).Thearticleanswerstheresearchquestion:Whichfactorsshould

betakenintoaccount,whengamifyinggovernmentalservices?

Duetothefactthatveryfewarticlesongovernmentalgamificationcurrentlyexist,wehavehere

appliedthoseexistingsourcesinthecontextofotherrelevantgamificationresearch,forthepurpose

ofcreatingatestablesynthesis.AsHassan(2017)hasalreadyreviewedexistingliteratureonthe

topicofgamifyingcivicengagement,weherefocusoncreatingaroadmapfromthatliterature.For

thispurpose,weusetheGamifiedServiceFramework(GSF)developedbySolKlapzteinandCarla

Cipolla(2016),combinedwithHassan’s(2017)summaryofdeliberationmodes(Figure1),which

arebasedontheideathatdemocraticprocessesarebestfosteredthroughsocietaldiscussionsthat

createinformedindividuals.

Webelievethatsuchsocietaldiscussionsalsobestimpacttheuseofgovernmentalandmunicipal

publicservices.

GAMIFIED SERVICES FoR GoVERNMENTS

TheGSFframeworkisasimplifiedtoolforapplyinggamificationtoservices(Klapztein&Cipolla,

2016).ItisbasedontheconceptsandstructureofActionDesignResearch(Seinetal.,2011).

Drawingfromtheuseofseriousandsimulationgames,theframeworkintroducesasimplified

systemforintegratinggamificationwithservicedesignandprovision,yetwithagoalofavoiding

Figure 1. Summary of deliberation modes in gamified civic engagement (Hassan, 2017)

(5)

theshallownessofwhatLanders(inpress)definedasrhetoricalgamification.Througharesearch

process,KlapzteinandCipolla(2016)identifyfourcentralelementstotheprocess:voluntariness,

logic,actions,andreactions(Figure2).

Voluntariness,asalsonotedbyotherresearchers(e.g.,Deterding,2016)isaprerequisitewithout

whichaplayfulmindsetcannottakeplace.Itispossibletoattendorplayagamewithoutbeing

playful,andtobeplayfulwithoutbeingatplayorplayingagame(Stenros,2015).Yetformeaningful

engagementwithagamifiedactivitytotakeplace,voluntaryparticipationwiththerightkindof

mindsetisnecessary.Logicincludesboththenecessarytechnologiesandmaterials,aswellasrules

fortheorganizationofplayorgames.Forgamification,rulesorganizetheactivityandguideitto

therightdirections.Theymayalsofocustaskselectionandtaskresolution,andtherebyguidethe

processtowardsthedesiredobjectives.Actionscovereverythingdoneduringplayandthegame’s(or

gamifiedsystem’s)responsestothat,andReactionsisthephysiologicalandpsychologicalreactions

oftheparticipants.Finally,asocialinteractioncomponentrunsthroughthelasttwocategories.

Severaloftheseelementsaredirectlyrelevantforcasesofgovernmentalgamification.For

example,ithasbeendocumentedthatsocialinfluence(e.g.,thenumberoffriendsusingtheservice)

hasadirectinfluenceonpeople’sinterestinusingagamifiedsystem(Hamari&Koivisto,2015).

Socialgamificationappearstobesimilarlyaseffectiveintherealmofgovernmentalservices(Thiel,

2016b).Agamifiedgovernmentserviceneedstosupportsocialplay,ifitseekstostayinuse,and

findnewusers.

Governmentsarealsooftenforcedbyoutsourcingandprocurementregulationstoselectcertain

technologies,includinginformationsystems,overothermoreoptimallysuitedones.Thismeansthat

thelogicofsomegamificationapplicationsmaybecomedistorted,orprevented,earlyon.Actions

madepossiblebytheLogicofthesystemwillproduceReactions,andthoseneedtobecontrolledif

apositiveresponseisdesired.ThisisinlinewiththeidealsofwhatThalerandSunstein(2009)call

“libertarianpaternalism”,theguidanceofpeopletowardschoicesthatarebeneficialtothemwithout

resortingtoanykindsofcoercion.

AN oUTLINE FoR THE GoVERNMENTAL GAMIFICATIoN PRoCESS

Intheircaseexample,KlapzteinandCipolla(2016)outlineaprocessfortheuseofgamifiedservices

inacontextwebelievetobeapplicablealsotogovernmentservices.ItsstagesareEngagement,

Entry,Immersion,Exit,andExtension.Eachofthesestepsisnecessaryinthecontextofgamified

governmentalservice,foravarietyofreasons.Wethereforeseeitofincreasedvaluetogovernmental

Figure 2. GSF framework structure (Klapztein & Cipolla, 2016)

(6)

gamificationtoextendtheKlapzteinandCipolla(2016)gamificationprocesstothecontextof

gamifiedgovernmentalservices.

Engagementrequiresthatthedesignersunderstandbothmarketingandhuman-centereddesign.

Gamificationdesign,ingeneral,isoftenamultidisciplinaryprocess(Morchheuseretal.,2018).

Withoutsufficientandsufficientlywell-donemarketing,peoplewillnotfindthegamifiedservicein

thefirstplace,ormaynotconsideritworthtryingandtesting,eveniftheydofindit.Thisisalreadya

designstagethatrequiresanunderstandingofhumanisticgamification(Deterding,inpress),instead

ofjustrhetoricaldesignprocesses.Engagementisatrickysubject,oftenequatedwithimmersion,

butwhenanalyzedonitsown,engagementshowsspecialrequirements.Insomecases,justframing

anactivityasagameissufficientforittobeconsideredengaging(Lieberoth,2015).Inothercases,

framingthegamifiedactivityase.g.,“thisthingwedo”(i.e.,asanot-game)maybemoreefficient

(Harviainen&Savonsaari,2013).Engagementisincreasinglyachievedthroughnotanyovert

marketingcampaigns,butratherthroughvirallyspreadingreportsonboththeenjoyabilityofthe

activityandonasenseofindividualsbeingabletomakeadifferencebyusingit.Socialinfluence

nowadayscruciallyaffectstheselectionofanyhedonicinformationsystems(Venkatesh&Davis,

2000).Thissocialmarketingeffectextendstogamifiedversionsofotherwisenon-hedonicsystems

(Koivisto,2018).Itisthereforeimportanttocreatecuriosityinthepotentialusersofthegamified

system,sothattheywanttoexploreandplaywithit.

Entryisthepointatwhichcuriosityturnsintoactualusageofasystem.Asmanypotentialusers

arelostattheearlystagesoftheirtryingthesystemout,centralelementstoensuretheirusageofthe

systemincludebothperceivedeaseofuse,aswellasperceivedusefulnessofthesysteminquestion

(asperDavis,1989).Nonetheless,incasesofhedonicsystems,peoplehaveatendencytochoose

theenjoyableoverthemostusefuloption,ifthetwoarenotthesame(VanderHeijden,2004).As

peopleareexpectedtochoosethegamifiedversionofaserviceoveranon-gamifiedoneinorderto

avoide.g.,theboredomassociatedwithdealingwithbureaucracy,theyshouldnotbeturnedawayby

thingssuchasdifficultinterfacesorannoyinguserexperiences.Gamificationisoftenunsuccessful

inthelongrunbecauseofthispossiblelackofattentiontoitsusabilityandeaseofuse.

Immersion,intheKlapzteinandCipolla(2016)context,referstothesystemusagestageat

whichpeoplestartgettingbenefitsfromthesystem.Inthecaseofagamifiedsystem,itcanalso

meanimmersioninthegamingsense,i.e.,thattheuser’sprimaryperceptionfocusesontheactivity

itself,nottheperceivedbenefitsthatcanbegainedbyusingit(aspere.g.,Ermi&Mäyrä,2005;

Turner,2016;seealsoHamarietal.,2016).Nevertheless,theinstrumentalbenefitsofusingthe

systemmustbealignedwiththeplayatthispoint.Ifthisisnotdone,playerswillquicklyfeelasense

ofdissonancebetweenthegamifiedsystemandthegoals,andtheymaybecomemorelikelytostop

playing(Schrier,2016).

Exitisnotjustthepointofleavingthesystemorpausingduringitsuse,butalsothewaysin

whichinstrumentalbenefitsaregainedortakenoutofthesystem.itisnotsufficientthatthegamified

activitybeentertainingandenjoyable.Ifitisonlythat,itremainsatthelevelofmarketinghype,and

becomesagameonitsown,insteadofagamifiedservice.Afterall,themainaimofgamificationis

dual:enjoymentaswellasusefulness,thelackofoneisthreateningtoasystemoraservicebeing

consideredgamified.Furthermore,theservicethatisbeingprovidedneedstobeatthemostvisible

partatthestageofexit,orpeoplewillneverenterthestageofextension.

Extensionincludesusers’continuedinterestinthesystem,eitherforitsenjoyableplay,itsbenefits,

or(hopefully)both.Ifthistakesplace,thesystemcanbeconsideredadesignandanimplementation

success.Extensionalsofeaturestheopportunitiesforfeedbackandfurtherinteractionwiththeservice

providers.Whenthestageworks,currentorformeruserswillfunctionasagentswhofurtherother

people’slikelihoodofenteringtheEngagementstagewiththegamifiedservice.

Ininformationsystemsterms,thegamifiedsystemhastoexcelatthecognitive,economicaland

managerialsystemsaspects(asperBuckland,1991):ithastoleadtoactual,beneficialchangesinits

users’state,situationorknowledge;ithastobeperceivedasbeingabletoefficientlydoso;andits

(7)

usemustbeperceivedasbeneficial,enjoyable,worthwhile,andeasy.Itdoesnothavetobethemost

cost-effectiveoptionavailable,perse,ifpeoplethinkthatthefungainedthroughplaymitigatesextra

costsine.g.,timeoreffortrequiredtoaccomplishamundanetask(asperVanDerHeijden,2004).

Allofthisrequiresadiveintoconceptsofhuman-centereddesign,throughwhichthesefactorscan

beifnotascertainedbeforehand,atleastmademorelikely.KlapzteinandCipolla(2016)provide

oneprocessmodelforthispurpose(Figure3).

Thisdiscussedgamificationdesignprocesscanbecombinedwithexistingmethodsfromservice

design(seee.g.,Stickdornetal.,2018).Itisimportant,however,tonotethatconceptswhichwork

ingamesdonotnecessarilyfunctionaswellforgamification(Landers,2014).Adifferentapproach,

onethatcombinesdesignknowledgeofindividualgameelements,theirpotentialeffects,andthe

subjectmatter,isrequired.Thisiswhysuccessfulgovernmentalgamificationshouldbedoneinlarge

enoughteams,encompassingthevarious,necessarytypesofexpertise.

DISCUSSIoN

Landers(inpress)separatestwoversionsofgamification:themedia/saleshypeofrhetorical

gamification,andgamificationproper.Thefirstoftheseisabouttheshallowintroductionofsome

game-likeelements(e.g.,points,badges,leaderboards)toanon-gamingactivity,withmassivepromises

ofincreasedinterestandprofit,oftencriticizedbygamificationscholars(Bogost,2015;Landers,in

press;Nicholson,2012;2015).Thesecondoneisacareful,contentandprocesstailoredintroduction

ofelements,doneusingahumanisticapproachandtestedforimpact(seee.g.,Hamari,Hassan&

Dias,2018;Morschheuseretal.,2018).Undermostcircumstances,thesecondgamificationoption

isfarsuperior,whilethefirstonequicklyburnsoutuserinterestinthegamifiedservice,evenasthat

toomayprovidesomepositiveresultsintheshortterm(Rigby,2015).

We,however,believethatsomegovernmentalservicesmayprovetobeakeyexceptionto

thisformula.Duetothewaysinwhichtheyhavetobeaccessibleandeasytouseforthecitizens,

theyoftendonotbenefitfromgame-likehindrances.Engagementinthegovernmentalcontextis

alsosometimesintendedtolastforashortperiodoftimeandforspecificpurposessuchasvoter

engagementduringelections(e.g.,Foxman&Forelle,2014).Hence,complexgamificationdesigns

thatarguablyleadtolongerlastingengagementmaynotbeneeded.Themainwaytohandlethelevels

ofcomplexityintroducedbyholisticgamificationappearstobeconstanttracking(Hamarietal.,2018)

Figure 3. Gamification service framework application model (Klapztein & Cipolla, 2016)

(8)

combinedwithadjustmentsinthedesignprocess(Morschheuseretal.,2017)toaccommodatethe

neededdesigncomplexitytoarriveatuserandcontextappropriate,complexgamification.Atthe

sametime,optionsforcomparison,self-trackingandconvenientachievementsmayincreasesome

users’interestincontributingtothesystemandinimprovingit,whilebeingineffectiveininducing

similarengagementwithothers(Hamarietal.,2018).Thequestionthereforeishowtooptimizethe

gamificationsothatitdoesnotbecometoocomplexortooshallow?

Werecommendthegamificationofjustpartialtasks,ratherthanholisticprocesses,withnoother

parallelun-gamifiedprocessforifgamificationfailstoattainthedesirablebehavioraloutcomesitis

intendedtoattain.AsnotedbyHassan(2017),rootedintheself-determinationtheory(e.g.,Ryan&

Deci,2000),theengagementandbehavioraleffectsofgamificationthatisbasedonrewardspersists

aslongastherewardsareperceivedasvaluable.Elementssuchasleaderboards,self-trackingand

socialcomparisonsmayprovefruitfulresultsbutnotcontinuously.Atthesametime,however,it

isimportanttorealizethatunlikeorganizationalplay(e.g.,Statleretal.,2009),gamificationdoes

notfunctionwellforinterventions.Rather,itbuildsonsystematicprocessesofrules,guidelinesand

pleasurableachievements.Itneedsenoughdurationinordertoworkitsmagic,andtogetpeopleto

enjoyeverythingfromtheEngagementtotheExtension,aswellastofindalloftheinteractionuseful

andbeneficialalsointhelongrun.

CoNCLUSIoN

Inthisarticle,wehavepresentedastructureforapplyinggamificationingovernmentalservice

contexts,aswellaskeyspecialelementsnecessarytoconsiderandtakeintoaccountwhiledoingso.

Byexaminingaselectedsetofworksongamification,governmentalcivicengagementtools,and

informationsystemsaspectsinthecontextoftheGamifiedServiceFramework,wehavebrought

forthnewknowledgeontheprocessofgamificationinpublicservices.Designersneedtoconsider

Engagement,Entry,Immersion,ExitandExtension,aswellasdosotogetherwithstakeholderswho

thoroughlyunderstandthegovernmentserviceprocessesthataretobegamified.Thisrequiresdeeper

engagementthanhassofarbeenappliedintheexamplesprovidedintheexaminedliterature.The

studyhasalsorevealedthatduetothepeculiaritiesofgovernmentalservices,asopposedtoe.g.,

servicesonthefreemarket,somemethodsofgamificationtypicallyconsideredtobeoflesservalue

mayinfactturnouttobeuseful,especiallyifextendedovertime.

Designinggovernmentalgamificationwiththeseprinciplesinmind,andbasedonsomeofthe

designknowledgealreadygatheredinthegamificationfield,willincreasethelikelihoodthatthe

implementedgovernmentalgamificationissuccessful.Itwillbebetterabletoengageusersandprovide

themwithenjoyabilityfrominteractionwithmundanegovernmentalservices,aswellasconnect

themmoreefficientlytothenaturalbenefitstheywantfromtheuseoftheserviceinquestion.This

hasthepotentialtoimproveperceptionsofgovernments,andwillprovideapositiveimpactonsome

citizens’qualityofliving.

Thecentrallimitationofthisworkisthatitdoesnotengagewithanygamificationexperimentsof

itsown,andbuildsuponexistingtheoryandresearch.Thisisnecessaryfortheorydevelopment,but

mayalsocausegapsintherecommendations.Furtherfieldtestsoftheframeworkprovidedhereare

thereforerequired,asisadeeperconnectiontoexistingresearchthroughsuchgood,deepexperiments.

(9)

REFERENCES

Al-Yafi,K.,&El-Masri,M.(2016).Gamificationofe-governmentservices:Adiscussionofpotential

transformation.InProceedings of the 22nd Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS2016: Surfing the IT Innovation Wave).

Ampatzidou,C.,Gugerell,K.,Constantinescu,T.,Devisch,O.,Jauschneg,M.,&Berger,M.(2018).Allworkand

noplay?Facilitatingseriousgamesandgamifiedapplicationsinparticipatoryurbanplanningandgovernance.

Urban Planning, 3(1).

Apter,M.J.(2007).Reversal theory: The dynamics of motivation, emotion and personality(2nded.).Oxford:

OneworldPublications.

Asquer,A.(2013).Notjustvideogames:Gamificationanditspotential.InE.F.Halpin(Ed.),Digital public administration and e-government in developing nations: Policy and practice(pp.146–165).doi:10.4018/978- 1-4666-3691-0.ch008

Bista,S.K.,Nepal,S.,Paris,C.,&Colineau,N.(2014).Gamificationforonlinecommunities:Acasestudyfor

deliveringgovernmentservices.International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems,23(2).doi:10.1142/

S0218843014410020

Bogost,I.(2015).Whygamificationisbullshit.InS.P.Walz&S.Deterding(Eds.),The gameful world:

Approaches, issues, applications(pp.65–79).Cambridge:MITPress.

Botsman,R.(2017,October21).BigdatameetsBigBrotherasChinamovestorateitscitizens.Wired.Retrieved

fromhttp://www.wired.co.uk/article/chinese-government-social-credit-score-privacy-invasion Buckland,M.(1991).Information and information systems.NewYork,NY:Praeger.

Callan,R.C.,Bauer,K.N.,&Landers,R.N.(2015).Howtoavoidthedarksideofgamification:Tenbusiness

scenariosandtheirunintendedconsequences.InT.Reiners&L.Wood(Eds.),Gamification in education and business(pp.553–568).Cham:Springer.

Davis,F.D.(1989).Perceivedusefulness,perceivedeaseofuse,anduseracceptanceofinformationtechnology.

Management Information Systems Quarterly,13(3),318–339.doi:10.2307/249008

Deterding,S.(2016).Make-believeingamefulandplayfuldesign.InP.Turner&J.T.Harviainen(Eds.),Digital make-believe(pp.101–124).Basel:Springer.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29553-4_7

Deterding,S.(inpress).Gamificationinmanagement:Betweenchoicearchitectureandhumanisticdesign.

Journal of Management Inquiry.

Deterding,S.,Sicart,M.,Nacke,L.,O’Hara,K.,&Dixon,D.(2011).Gamification:Towardadefinition.In

Proceedings of the CHI 2011 Gamification Workshop,Vancouver,BritishColumbia,Canada.

Ermi,L.,&Mayra,F.(2005).Fundamentalcomponentsofthegameplayexperience:Analysingimmersion.

InS.DeCastell&J.Jenson(Eds.),Selected papers of proceedings of the DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views – Worlds in Play(pp.15–27).

Foxman,M.,&Forelle,M.(2014).Electingtoplay:MTV’sFantasyElectionandchangesinpoliticalengagement

throughgameplay.Games and Culture,9(6),454–467.doi:10.1177/1555412014549804

Galliers,R.D.(1992).Choosinginformationsystemsresearchapproaches.InR.D.Galliers(Ed.),Information systems research: Issues, methods and practical guidelines(pp.144–162).Oxford:BlackwellScientific.

Hamari,J.(2013).TransformingHomoeconomicusintoHomoludens:Afieldexperimentongamificationin

autilitarianpeer-to-peertradingservice.Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,12(4),236–245.

doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2013.01.004

Hamari,J.,Hassan,L.,&Dias,A.(2018).Gamification,quantified-selforsocialnetworking?Matchingusers’

goalswithmotivationaltechnology.User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction,28(1),35–74.doi:10.1007/

s11257-018-9200-2

Hamari,J.,&Koivisto,J.(2015).“Workingoutforlikes”:Anempiricalstudyonsocialinfluenceinexercise

gamification.Computers in Human Behavior,50,333–347.doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.018

(10)

Hamari,J.,Koivisto,J.,&Sarsa,H.(2014).Doesgamificationwork?Aliteraturereviewofempiricalstudies

ongamification.InHawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).

Hamari,J.,Shernoff,D.J.,Rowe,E.,Coller,B.,Asbell-Clarke,J.,&Edwards,T.(2016).Challenginggames

helpstudentslearn:Anempiricalstudyonengagement,flowandimmersioningame-basedlearning.Computers in Human Behavior,54,170–179.doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.045

Harviainen,J.T.,Ekström,M.,&Ojasalo,J.(2018).Tacticalservicefailure:Publicsectorfundingasamarketing

phenomenon.Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing.

Harviainen,J.T.,&Savonsaari,R.(2013).Larpsinhighschools.InA.Moseley&N.Whitton(Eds.),New traditional games for learning(pp.134–145).London:Routledge.

Hassan,L.(2017).Governmentsshouldplaygames:Towardsaframeworkforthegamificationofcivic

engagementplatforms.Simulation & Gaming,48(2),249–267.doi:10.1177/1046878116683581

Hassan,L.(inpress).Means to gameful Ends: How to design and develop gamification?Helsinki:Hanken

SchoolofEconomics.

Huotari,K.,&Hamari,J.(2017).Adefinitionforgamification:Anchoringgamificationintheservicemarketing

literature.Electronic Markets,27(1),21–31.doi:10.1007/s12525-015-0212-z

Klapztein,S.,&Cipolla,C.(2016).Fromgamedesigntoservicedesign:Aframeworktogamifyservices.

Simulation & Gaming,47(5),566–598.doi:10.1177/1046878116641860

Koivisto,J.(2018).Gamification: A study on users, benefits and literature.Tampere:UniversityofTampere.

Koivisto,J.,&Hamari,J.(2014).Demographicdifferencesinperceivedbenefitsfromgamification.Computers in Human Behavior,35,179–188.doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.007

Koivisto,J.,&Hamari,J.(2017).The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification literature(Workingpaper).

Landers,R.N.(inpress).Gamificationmisunderstood:Howbadlyexecutedandrhetoricalgamificationobscures

itspotential.Journal of Management Inquiry.

Landers,R.N.,Auer,E.M.,Collmus,A.B.,&Armstrong,M.B.(2018).Gamificationscience,itshistoryand

future:Definitionsandaresearchagenda.Simulation & Gaming,49(3),315–337.doi:10.1177/1046878118774385 Lieberoth,A.(2015).Shallowgamification:Testingpsychologicaleffectsofframinganactivityasagame.

Games and Culture,10(3),229–248.doi:10.1177/1555412014559978

Lieberoth,A.,Jensen,N.H.,&Bredahl,T.(2018).Selectivepsychologicaleffectsofnudging,gamificationand

rationalinformationinconvertingcommutersfromcarstobuses:Acontrolledfieldexperiment.Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour,55,246–261.doi:10.1016/j.trf.2018.02.016

Lindley,J.,&Coulton,P.(2015).Gameofdrones.InProceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer- Human Interaction in Play(pp.613-618).NewYork,NY:ACM.doi:10.1145/2793107.2810300

Mahnic,N.(2014).Gamificationofpolitics:Startanewgame!Teorija in Praksa,51(1),143–161.

Mayer,I.S.(2009).Thegamingofpolicyandthepoliticsofgaming:Areview.Simulation & Gaming,40(6),

825–862.doi:10.1177/1046878109346456

McGonigal,J.(2011).Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world.London:

Penguin.

Morschheuser,B.,Hamari,J.,Koivisto,J.,&Maedche,A.(2017).Gamifiedcrowdsourcing:Conceptualization,

literaturereview,andfutureagenda.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,106,26–43.doi:10.1016/j.

ijhcs.2017.04.005

Morschheuser,B.,Hassan,L.,Werder,K.,&Hamari,J.(2018).Howtodesigngamification?Amethod

for engineering gamified software.Information and Software Technology,95, 219–237. doi:10.1016/j.

infsof.2017.10.015

(11)

Mulyana,A.,Hindersah,H.,&Prihatmanto,A.S.(2015).Gamificationdesignoftrafficdatacollectionthrough

socialreporting.In4th International Conference on Interactive Digital Media (ICIDM)(pp.1-4).IEEE.

Nicholson,S.(2012).Strategiesformeaningfulgamification:Conceptsbehindtransformativeplayand

participatorymuseums.Paper presented atMeaningful Play.

Nicholson,S.(2015).Arecipeformeaningfulgamification.InT.Reiners&L.C.Wood(Eds.),Gamification in education and business(pp.1–20).Cham:Springer.

Oceja,J.,&Fernández,N.G.(2017).Classificationofgameexperiencestopromoteciviccompetenceinthe

contextofinformallearning.InEuropean Conference on Games Based Learning(pp.480-487).Academic

ConferencesInternationalLimited.

Opromolla,A.,Ingrosso,A.,Volpi,V.,Medaglia,C.M.,Palatucci,M.,&Pazzola,M.(2014).Gamificationina

smartcitycontext.InInternational Conference on Games and Learning Alliance(pp.73-82).Cham:Springer.

Paré,G.,Trudel,M.C.,Jaana,M.,&Kitsiou,S.(2015).Synthesizinginformationsystemsknowledge:Atypology

ofliteraturereviews.Information & Management,52(2),183–199.doi:10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008

Rigby,C.S.(2015).Gamificationandmotivation.InS.P.Walz&S.Deterding(Eds.),The gameful world:

Approaches, issues, applications(pp.113–138).Cambridge,MA:MITpress.

Ryan,R.M.,&Deci,E.L.(2000).Self-determinationtheoryandthefacilitationofintrinsicmotivation,social

development,andwell-being.The American Psychologist,55(1),68–78.doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

PMID:11392867

Sandoval-Almazan,R.,&Valle-Cruz,D.(2017).Openinnovation,livinglabsandpublicofficials:Thecaseof

MapatoninMexico.InProceedings of the 10th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance(pp.260-265).NewYork,NY:ACM.doi:10.1145/3047273.3047308

Schrier,K.(2016).Knowledge games: How playing games can solve problems, create insight, and make change.

Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.

Sein,M.,Henfridsson,O.,Purao,S.,Rossi,M.,&Lindgren,R.(2011).Actiondesignresearch.Management Information Systems Quarterly,35(1),37–56.doi:10.2307/23043488

Sørensen,B.,&Spoelstra,S.(2012).Playatwork:Continuation,interventionandusurpation.Organization,

19(1),81–97.doi:10.1177/1350508411407369

Statler,M.,Heracleous,L.,&Jacobs,C.D.(2011).Seriousplayasapracticeofparadox.The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,47(2),236–256.doi:10.1177/0021886311398453

Statler,M.,Roos,J.,&Victor,B.(2009).Ain’tmisbehavin’:Takingplayseriouslyinorganizations.Journal of Change Management,9(1),87–107.doi:10.1080/14697010902727252

Stenros,J.(2015).Playfulness, play, and games.Tampere:UniversityofTampere.

Stickdorn,M.,Lawrence,A.,Hormess,M.,&Schneider,J.(2018).This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world.Sebastopol,CA:O’Reilly.

Suits,B.(1978).The Grasshopper: Games, life and utopia.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.

Sutton-Smith,B.(1997).The ambiguity of play.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Thaler,R.H.,&Sunstein,C.R.(2009).Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness.

London:Penguin.

Thiel,S.K.(2015).Gamifiedparticipation:investigatingtheinfluenceofgameelementsincivicengagement

tools.InAdjunct Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers(pp.527-532).

NewYork,NY:ACM.

Thiel,S.K.(2016a).AReviewofintroducinggameelementstoe-participation.InE-DemocracyandOpen

Government(CeDEM)Conference(pp.3-9).IEEE.

(12)

J. Tuomas Harviainen (PhD, MBA) is a Professor of Information Studies and Interactive Media at the University of Tampere, Finland, and one of the editors of the journal Simulation & Gaming. His work has been published in venues such as Organization Studies, New Media & Society, Journal of Business Ethics, and the Journal of Documentation.

Lobna Hassan is an information systems researcher at Hanken school of Economics and the Gamification Group of the University of Tampere. Prior to that she received her Bachelor and master’s degree in Technology-Based Management, from the German University in Cairo, with high honours. Hassan’s research interests include gamification, virtual reality, motivational technology, social networking application and management of communal activities.

Thiel,S.K.(2016b).Reward-basedvs.socialgamification:Exploringeffectivenessofgamefulnessinpublic

participation.InProceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction(Article104).New

York,NY:ACM.

Turner,P.(2016).Amake-believenarrativeforHCI.InP.Turner&J.T.Harviainen(Eds.),Digital make-believe

(pp.11–26).Basel:Springer.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29553-4_2

VanderHeijden,H.(2004).Acceptanceofhedonicinformationsystems.Management Information Systems Quarterly,28(4),695–704.doi:10.2307/25148660

Venkatesh,V.,&Davis,F.D.(2000).Atheoreticalextensionofthetechnologyacceptancemodel:Four

longitudinalfieldstudies.Management Science,46(2),186–204.doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

Vesa,M.,denHond,F.,&Harviainen,J.T.(2018).Onthepossibilityofaparatelicinitiationoforganizational

wrongdoing.Journal of Business Ethics.doi:10.1007/s10551-018-3852-z

Vesa,M.,Hamari,J.,Harviainen,J.T.,&Warmelink,H.(2017).ComputerGamesandOrganizationStudies.

Organization Studies,38(2),273–284.doi:10.1177/0170840616663242

Vesa,M.,&Harviainen,J.T.(inpress).Gamification–Concepts,consequencesandcritiques.Journal of Management Inquiry.

Warmelink,H.(2014).Online gaming and playful organization.NewYork:Routledge.

Warmelink,H.,Koivisto,J.,Mayer,I.,Vesa,M.,&Hamari,J.(2018).Gamificationoftheworkfloor:A

literaturereviewofgamifyingproductionandlogisticsoperations.Paper presented at51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,Big Island, HI.doi:10.24251/HICSS.2018.139

Williamson,B.(2017).DecodingClassDojo:Psycho-policy,social-emotionallearningandpersuasiveeducational

technologies.Learning, Media and Technology,42(4),440–453.doi:10.1080/17439884.2017.1278020