DOI: 10.4018/IJIDE.2019070101
Copyright©2019,IGIGlobal.CopyingordistributinginprintorelectronicformswithoutwrittenpermissionofIGIGlobalisprohibited.
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).
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.
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,
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)
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)
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
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)
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.
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
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
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.
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