Gamifying Collaborative Decision Making

Mohammad Ali Moradian , Kelly Lyons , Maaz Nasir , Rock Leung

moradian@cs.toronto.edu kelly.lyons@utoronto.ca maaz.nasir@utoronto.ca SAP Canada

Computer Science UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

Introduction
Engaging people to participate fully in an online collaborative decision-making activity can be challenging. People are very busy, juggling competing demands for their time. Gamication has been used in a variety of environments to incent participation and increase participation (Thom, 2012). In this project, we investigate how gamication can be used to incent and motivate people to participate in and contribute to collaborative decision-making activities. Our approach is to add game dynamics to decision-making tools to see if game dynamics enhance peoples participation and experience in the decision making process. We developed two decision tools based on ThinkLets (Briggs, 2003) (brainstorming and fast focus) and integrated them into SAP StreamWork, a social media platform that supports enterprise-wide and inter-organizational group collaboration through common tools such as pro/con lists, ranking lists, SWOT tables, and polls (Kanaracus, 2010). We added game dynamics to each of the tools. For brainstorming, we added a Leaderboard, Achievements, and a Progress bar. For the fast focus tool which is designed to extract a clean list of key issues at a useful level of abstraction from the results of a brainstorming activity, we added Points, a Leaderboard, and Achievements. We designed an experiment to test the following hypotheses: H1: Users will be more satised with the outcome of the collaborative activity when game elements are used in the online collaboration. H2: Users will be more satised with the process of the collaborative activity when game elements are used in the online collaboration. H3: Users will contribute more and engage more in the collaborative activity when game elements are used.

?
Brain Storming Phase

Gamied BrainStorming Phase

(Screenshots from our prototype) Motivate users by creating constructive competition
Number of Brainstorming Ideas Generated Per Person

Results
7.1 5.68 4.26 2.84 1.42 0 Percentage of Users Generating 100% at least 5 Ideas in Brainstorming 75% 50%
Gamied Non Gamied 7.1 5.5 4.5 5.5 6 4.95

Guide users by setting goals

List of Ideas

Gamied Non Gamied

Groups of 3 Groups of 4

Overall

Guide users by providing real time feedback

77.8% 41.6%

75% 50%

75.8% 45%

25% 0%

Reshufe the lists and repeat until you get enough ideas in your nal list

Gamied Clarication and Reduction Phase

(Screenshots from our prototype) Encourage participation by giving points based on the user activity
Number of Suggestions Made Per Group in Clarication & Reduction Phase 8 6 4
Gamied Non Gamied

Groups of 3 Groups of 4
8 7.75

Overall

Clarication and Reduction Phase

Each user should Suggest at most one idea from their list
The idea can be a verbatim copy of an idea, a rephrasing of one of the ideas, or a combination of more than one of the ideas.

7.4

7.5

7.625

7.66

2 0 8 6 4 2 0 Groups of 3
392 5.3 4.25 4.8 3 5 3.8

Nil Group Discusses Each Suggestion

Add to the nal list if accepted by the group

Guide users by setting goals

Number of Suggestions Put in the Final List Per Group in Clarication & Reduction Phase
Gamied Non Gamied

Groups of 3

Groups of 4

Overall

Final list ...

Guide users by providing real time feedback

Groups of 4
391 283

Overall
391 245

Final List of Ideas

392 Average Time Spent on a Discussion, Per Discussion 294 (in Seconds) in Clarication & Reduction Phase 196 98
Gamied Non Gamied

228

Groups of 3 Groups of 4
1645

Overall

Evaluation
In two sections of a graduate level project management course, we asked groups of 3-5 people to engage in a project selection decision-making task using brainstorming followed by a clarication and reduction phase. Half of the groups (9) used non-gamied versions of the tools and half of the groups (9) used gamied versions of the tools. We compared the two sets of groups according to measures such as: amount of time spent in the decision making activity; number of ideas put forward; and number of participants who contribute. We invited participants to answer a survey to measure their satisfaction with the decision-making process and the outcomes.

Survey Results
Users were equally satised with the process and with the outcome. 8 users in the Gamied version commented that they liked the experience and the activity was great for them. Only one person in the Non Gamied version made the same comment.

References and Acknowledgements

References:
Kanaracus, C. SAPs Virtual War Room tool gets a name: StreamWork. http:// www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/192903/saps_virtual_war_room_ tool_gets_a_name_streamwork.html, May 2010. Thom, Jennifer, David Millen, and Joan DiMicco. Removing gamication from an enterprise SNS. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 2012. Briggs, Robert O., Gert-Jan De Vreede, and Jay F. Nunamaker. Collaboration engineering with ThinkLets to pursue sustained success with group support systems. Journal of Management Information Systems 19.4 (2003): 31-64.

1645 Average Length of Discussion, Per Discussion (in Characters) in 1316 Clarication & Reduction Phase 987
Gamied Non Gamied

1506

1557 1326 984

658 329 0

836

Groups of 3 Groups of 4
27.25

Overall
26.15

A note on nal participation

Gamied Version
29 Users consented to participate in study 5 Groups of 4 and 3 Groups of 3 23 users participated in the survey

Non Gamied Version

20 Users consented to participate in the study 2 Groups of 4 and 4 Groups of 3 17 users participated in the survey

Average Lines of Discussion, 27.25 Per Discussion in 21.8 Clarication & Reduction Phase 16.35
Gamied Non Gamied

24.25

Acknowledgments:

10.9 5.45 0

15.7 12.3

13.3

This research was funded by an NSERC Collaborative Research and Development Grant with SAP.

Groups of 3 Groups of 4

Overall