So in my last blog, I invited readers to share thoughts on just what the principles of a game are. In other words, what does a game need to include in order to be considered a game? What are the components that make up a game? I have some thoughts on the topic myself, but let me first explain how I got started thinking about this at all.

Two events really. First, at HR Tech this fall, the word “gamification” was used to describe what was being done with a few new vendor solutions that were being showcased. What caught my attention then wasn’t so much what was going on in the solutions themselves (though at least a couple of these “gamified” solutions were rather exciting), but rather what was going on with the people in the audience alongside me. At least a few of the people I spoke to afterwards had generally positive reactions like “looks great!” or “really fun!” or “really fun and educational too!” but it was what inevitably came next that got my attention, “I don’t think that would go over in our organization.”

So that was the first thing that got me thinking. How should I understand this reluctance to embrace games in the workplace? What is it about games or gamification that doesn’t seem to sit well with workplace decision makers?

…Let me just detour here for a moment before proceeding to my second event. As I mentioned in a previous blog, I looked up “game” and “gamification” in Wikipedia. While those entries don’t directly address my questions, I find it fascinating that the entry for “game” attempts to define a game by pointing out that “games are distinct from work.” Somewhere in my mind, I hear a deep voice declaring, “Well, we can’t exactly tell you what makes a game a game, but we can tell you this—games are not work.” Really? What we are to make of that, I’m not really sure. But I think there is definitely something lurking beneath the subconscious surface of that kind of definition. It seems so emphatic, so gut-level.

Okay. Back to the second event that brought me down this path. The second event was our annual awards program here at Brandon Hall Group. I was a judge in the category “Best Use of Games.” With just a handful of entries, it wasn’t our most popular category, but I was excited to find out what people were submitting nonetheless. (Subconsciously, I was probably secretly hoping to get to play some games while on the company clock.) Nope. No such luck. In fact, I was rather surprised to see what kinds of things were being submitted as games. I won’t disparage any of the entries, which were in fact, quite good and likely very effective tools for learning. I’m just not sure I personally would have entered some of them in a category described as “games.”

Simulations would be a more appropriate description for most of what I judged.

So I found myself asking once again, “What makes a game a game?” Because if we can answer that, then maybe we would be better equipped to overcome objections to gamification in the workplace. If we can tease the notion of a game apart, perhaps we could selectively choose just those components that would be palatable to our organizational performance stakeholders.

So here’s my definition: Games are structured, rule-based activities that challenge us to attempt to accomplish predefined goals or outcomes for the primary purpose of attaining a sense of accomplishment or enjoyment. If even one of those italicized elements is missing, I’m going to say we’re talking about something other than a game.

• No structure? Not a game.
• No challenge? Not a game.
• No goal? Not a game.
• No chance that we’ll feel a sense of accomplishment or enjoyment from participating? Not a game.

If you think I’ve got it wrong, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Scot Lake
Brandon Hall Group

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

SumTotal Systems hosted an impressive analyst event in Scottsdale, Arizona last week to showcase its growing portfolio of products. With the relatively recent acquisitions of Softscape, CyberShift, Accero, and GeoLearning, this was a great opportunity to hear from the company’s executive team about the company’s progress on merging the pieces into a cohesive portfolio of applications.

While I was definitely there to hear everything SumTotal had to say, I had three specific questions on my mind.

• First, I wanted to learn how SumTotal is bringing all these distinct platforms together to create a unified, seamless solution.

• And third, how would SumTotal respond to the random mutterings on the street that past customer satisfaction and customer service with SumTotal’s acquired and existing clients had been suffering? What should customers expect in the future?

CEO John Borgerding wasted no time answering the second question in his opening remarks when he promised to maintain and support every legacy system they had acquired. This has been an ongoing statement from SumTotal, but I wondered if there would be a change of direction as they have moved forward with their newly integrated human capital management platform. Borgerding must have anticipated this concern when he made it clear that no one would be forced to migrate to a new system. He even indicated that for a number of systems, there will be ongoing upgrades beyond just maintenance. What this will actually look like remains to be seen, but for the time being, it appears there’s little urgency for existing customers to look for a lifeline to another system.

As to my third question, Borgerding addressed this head on. He displayed a chart of customer satisfaction ratings from the beginning of 2010 (around the time he joined SumTotal as CEO), and he acknowledged the need for improvement over past scores. While satisfaction ratings have steadily improved during his tenure (from 85% in Q1 2010 to 97% in Q2 of 2011, he outlined the “more holistic” steps SumTotal’s new I.C.E. team (Improved Customer Experience team) is taking to continue to develop better client relationships in order to exceed customer expectations. These included adding over 200 new hires in services, support, R&D, and account management; ongoing development of support centers around the globe; and ongoing efforts to build a strong, social community for SumTotal’s customers.

The answer to my first question took most of the day as the executive leadership took a deep dive into their technology. Much of the discussion revolved around explaining how the Softscape master data management acquisition—SumTotal appears to be calling it Talent Hub for the time being—will provide a single database upon which acquired applications will reside and rely on as a single source for data records. The team demonstrated how the systems come together in a cross-system demonstration from a user perspective that did, indeed, appear seamless and efficient from where I sat. I have to say I was impressed, but until I have a chance to speak with more clients actually using the platform, I’ll reserve judgment.

Looking ahead, 2012 is going to be an important year for SumTotal. It seems clear to me that the company certainly has a strong leadership team and a clear roadmap for going forward, but the true test will be what happens when the bigger companies start using the system on a large scale. The direction shared at the summit gives me confidence that they are up to the task of bringing it all together, and I, for one, am rooting for them. Everyone stands to win if this comes together the way they believe it will.

Scot Lake

Brandon Hall Research Group

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

In my last blog, I lamented that the word “gamification” carries with it meaning, “baggage” really, that creates a difficult foundation upon which to build support for new development initiatives. Without even knowing anything about gamification, it’s easy to dismiss. It drags along with it images of games and play and fun – not productivity. Wikipedia doesn’t help matters either. After a quick Google search, I discovered that Wikipedia includes the term “funware” to describe the application of gaming principles to non-game activities. (Can we all just stack hands right now and agree not to promote that term?)

And yet, as a tool for increasing engagement, retention, and the transfer and application of learning, gamification holds promise. It may not solve all of our learning and development challenges, but there is definitely solid value here.

There must be. According to gaming expert Jane McGonigal, we play video-based games more than 3 billion hours a week. According to a study by Carnegie Mellon University, the average young person in the developed world will have spent more than 10,000 hours playing on-screen games by the age of 21. (For all practical purposes, that’s the same amount of time the average young person spends attending school up to high school graduation!). Surely, something about games and gaming has captured our hearts and minds. And therein lies the promise. What if we could harness that kind of dedication and engagement at work?

I propose that we start exploring the value of gamification by looking closely at what it is. There really isn’t a single, agreed upon definition, and yet we all seem to know what a game is. Don’t we? We would all probably agree that Monopoly is a game (it says so right on the box!), but what could be more different from a game of Monopoly than, say, a game of soccer? And what could be more different from soccer than the game World of Warcraft? Where do the Olympic games fit in? Is there a difference between a contest and a game? What makes a game, a game?

Finding areas of commonality between and among different kinds of games isn’t as easy as it may initially seem.

The good news is, we don’t have to agree upon a definition to be able apply it. If we can simply work with the idea that gamification is the application of gaming principles to non-game activities (yes, what Wikipedia said) then we’re on the right track to creating activities with the potential for greater engagement, skill development, learning, and, yes, enjoyment.

What does your list of “gaming principles” look like? Join the discussion, and we’ll pick it up again in my next blog.

Scot Lake
Brandon Hall Group

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

The 14th Annual HR Technology Conference & Expo wrapped up last week, and it was an outstanding event. Enormous kudos to Bill Kutik for bringing it all together once again.

From a training and development perspective, there was a ton of value. I had the good fortune this year of being able to attend sessions while my manager, colleague, and analyst extraordinaire, Stacey Harris, met non-stop with solution providers on and off the expo floor.

Here are some of my highlights:

First, I appreciated the stage-setting message in John Boudreau’s keynote address on evidence-based change. Maybe it’s just me, but I always feel a little tug at technology events. It’s like my purpose for being there is to learn firsthand the latest and greatest—so I can throw it all into my shopping cart and adopt it. Crazy, reckless, I know, but I needed Boudreau’s reminder, “Now, listen, Scot. You’re about to wander into a world of shiny, amazing, wonderful things. Don’t be impulsive. Take a couple deep breaths. Make good choices. Be scientific about your strategy.”

He’s right. As learning leaders, if we don’t think of ourselves as scientists exactly, we should at least strive to act like scientists and make decisions about change based on credible evidence.

When the session was over, I sprinted to the expo floor anyway.

Second, conversations around social media and social learning were pervasive throughout the sessions I attended. For years we’ve talked about creating learner-centered, learner-focused environments, but I think this may be the first time we’ve ever really—in a significant way—been able to make that a reality.

Social tools are driving the change, and I loved what emerged from the “Great Technology Debate” session between HR gurus Naomi Bloom and Jason Averbook. Paraphrased, it went something like this,

“In the past, technologies were designed and purchased to meet the needs of HR. Now, technologies exist for the workforce. That’s a game-changing difference.”

Conversation about social media continued at the Second Annual Social Media Panel session, and there were more than a few practical snippets for practitioners that were worth writing down. Here are a few:

• Schedule time for social media and stick to it. You’ve got to be using it effectively yourself before you can ever hope to implement in your organization.
• Focus on learning one or two tools at a time, and if your organization is new to social media, introduce no more than one or two tools at a time.
• Filter out the noise that accompanies your own use of social media tools by using one of the many available filters.

It seems clear to me that there are still a lot of folks who continue to be unsure of their footing in the social media universe, and that’s nothing to be embarrassed about. There’s still time to catch up. The tools are here, and they’re here to stay. It’s definitely time to get involved and bring the benefits to your organization.

Finally, there was one other thing at this year’s HR Tech that really left an impression on me (okay, there were many other things, but we’ll set those aside for future blogs).

Gamification.

I am absolutely convinced that this emerging trend holds a lot of promise for talent, and I think we’re only seeing the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how it can be applied. There were two impressive demos that I saw highlighted during the “Awesome New Technologies for HR” session, and I plan on seeing more at next year’s HR Tech, but for now I’ll just say this: the term “gamification” has to go.

Sitting in the sessions, you can almost feel the audience stiffen whenever the word is mentioned. The idea of workers playing games on company time? It just doesn’t seem to sit well for most people. I can just see a call for volunteers, “Anyone here want to introduce the idea that employees should be playing games while at work? Anyone? Anyone? Just raise your hand so we can see you.”

But here’s the thing—once you’ve see it applied well, you’re convinced. This can be a sound instructional method capable of delivering sophisticated understanding and improved performance.

Until next year, I’ll work on a more palatable term for what is going to prove to be a powerful learning force. “Play learning?” “Fun-ification?” No? Okay, I’m on it. Check in with me at next year’s event to see what I’ve come up with.

Scot Lake
Brandon Hall Research Group

{ Comments on this entry are closed }