In partnership with Tech3Lab, we conducted a research on the impact of gamified interfaces on the engagement and performance of employees in a warehouse.

Objectives

Our goal was to to determine what effect the gamification of warehouse employee’s interface has on his/her engagement and performance.

  • Does gamification improve employee performance?
  • Does gamification improve employee engagement?
  • What type of gamification method (self-set or assigned goals) leads to better performance?
  • What type of gamification method (self-set or assigned goals) leads to higher engagement?

Presentation

Gamification is defined as the “use of game design elements in non-game contexts”. In other words, gamification employs the engaging nature of elements used in video games to create engagement in another context. Some of the common elements used in gamified interfaces are points, levels, goal-setting, feedback, badges and leaderboards.

Recently, workplace gamification has become more prevalent and has been proposed as solution to this lack of engagement (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011; Google Trends, 2012). Indeed, only 13% of employees worldwide consider themselves as engaged in their work (Mann &Harter, 2016). The use of gamification has been widespread across various domains and contexts. For example, within education/schools to increase learning outcomes (Garcia et al., 2018; Gooch, 2016), to within health to increase adherence to and enjoyment of rehabilitation exercises (Jacobs et al., 2013), to within a driving context to increase safety (Steinberger et al., 2017). However, there have been relatively few examples of attempting to integrate gamification in warehouse employees’ interface, a domain that has mainly focused on optimizing the warehousing tasks, as opposed to the human performing it (Small, 2010). The lack of emphasis on the human aspect offers a great opportunity for increasing employee engagement and performance.

The current study will focus on two of gamified elements: goal-setting and feedback. The experiment will also allow for the examination of the physiological mechanisms (Electrocardiography (ECG) and electrodermal activity (EDA) sensors and electroencephalography (EEG)) by which gamification affects performance.

Conclusion

The research demonstrated the following:

Gamification improved employee performance

Results have shown that gamification (of either kind) results in increased performance in terms of time taken to complete the task. No difference has been found in number of errors.

Gamification improved employee engagement

Results show that gamification (of either kind) results in more engagement, in both measured facets of perceived engagement (cognitive and emotional). Results show that gamification (of either kind) results in more physiological engagement. Affective intensity, measured by EDA, is an indicator of emotional engagement. Most participants also mentioned that they felt more motivated/engaged when the had a goal of any kind. It made the task less tedious and gave them a challenge. No participant preferred the condition without gamification.

Company set goals improve performance

Results show that assigned goals result in better performance, both in terms of time and errors.

Assigned goals improve engagement but may not be sustainable on the long term

Participants do not report any difference in emotional or cognitive engagement between both gamified conditions. The physiological data, however, tells a different story. Assigned goals generate more arousal and high Heart Rate and thus, more possibility emotional engagement. However, it is not possible to exclude that Heart Rate increases due to the fact that participants are performing the task faster. Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that this condition may not be sustainable over a day period as it could lead to fatigue and exhaustion. When looking at the interview data, it is hard to differentiate which condition was the most preferred. Condition preference seemed to result from personal taste. 9 of the 21 participants preferred the assigned goal condition. Some preferred this condition because they took the goal more seriously (because it came from a “company”) which made them more motivated to reach the goal. Others preferred this condition because they did not have to decide which goal to choose, the objective was clear and unambiguous. 12 of the 21 preferred the self-set goal conditions. Some mentioned that they preferred this condition because it made them feel more motivated because the goal seemed to come from themselves. Others preferred this condition because they could choose a goal based on how they are feeling that day.

It would be interesting to correlate those results to the type of gaming personalities of the participants.

This study also provided some insights on the usability of the wearable device’s interface that the participants used during the experimentation and how we could improve it.



This research was presented at NeuroIS Retreat 2018. The paper is available in the proceeding.