Gamification vs. Gaming – the difference

This is another personal reflection that I’ve decided to undertake partly because I’ve noticed that I often use gaming and gamification almost interchangeably throughout my posts. I’ve also been questioned a couple of times about the difference between the two, and I thought I’ share some thoughts on the topic.

Gamification as a concept involves the use of gaming mechanics in situations that wouldn’t normally make use of such mechanics in an effort to increase engagement and loyalty. The term was coined by Nick Pelling (2003), a computer game writer, and has gained popularity since around2010 (2013), when technology had evolved sufficiently to allow gaming to cross the divide between being a niche pastime to a commonplace hobby. That’s the super skinny cliff notes version. You can find out more about the concept on Wikipedia (2013) and the Gamification Wiki (2013). It should be noted that the term is a heavily loaded one, and a simple google search will send you into a veritable warzone of divergent opinions and attitudes towards it.

For the record, I am not a real fan of the ‘textbook’ definition that I’ve given here. As has probably been evident in my other posts, I’m not particularly grounded in rules or quantitative data sets – I’m much more creative and interested in the qualitative aspects of gaming as a whole. I sometimes think of this part of gaming as the ‘spirit’ of gaming, with the rules acting as a point of reference for characters to relate it to their world. I have to say I’m not a fan of gaming being bastardized into a business strategy either – it feels like using a Porsche to do farmwork.

On the other hand, the broader concept of gaming is simply the overall concept of interactive entertainment for just that – entertainment. It doesn’t carry any pretensions about education or increased engagement, and as a concept exists largely independent of the stakeholders that produce gaming texts (at least, that’s my view of it). There may be financial considerations that companies in the games industry have in relation to their games, but the games themselves don’t carry any purpose other than to entertain. Incidental learning takes place as a result of increased engagement and the creation of ‘information pull’ on players, but aren’t explicit goals that they set out to achieve, as may be the case in gamification.

Again, as I’ve alluded to in previous posts, I think that the main difference between the pair is that gamification is geared towards an ulterior motive, and that it takes the rules and the ‘number side’ of gaming and holds these up as what are attractive about the concept, whereas gaming concentrates on having fun and brings more to the table than the simple sum of its’ parts. At the time of writing, I’m firmly convinced that the ‘more’ that gaming brings is the narrative and unquantifiable nature of experience as it’s lived.

I don’t necessarily think that gamification is a bad thing – it just fills a purpose. It’s not in the interest of a major shopping centre to simply entertain their customers with a rewards scheme, and there’s nothing wrong with them instituting such a scheme. I do think that gamification is very often poorly executed and pointless – as I’ve said before, I don’t think I know anyone who has spent more on their shopping than they otherwise would because they want to accumulate more points in the aforementioned example. I do wonder if there’s a ‘story-based’ gamification that deals primarily with narrative and the users journey and eschews rules, and how effective it would be if instituted.

So, there we go. Gamification is application of gaming mechanics for increased engagement, and gaming is play for no reason other than entertainment. I hope that irons out any confusion (and doesn’t make my previous posts more confusing).

References:

Conundra Ltd - Home Page. (n.d.). Retrieved October 30, 2013, from http://www.nanodome.com/conundra.co.uk/

Gamification. (2013, October 29). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamification&oldid=579238980

Gamification Wiki. (n.d.). Retrieved October 30, 2013, from http://gamification.org/

Google Trends. (n.d.). Retrieved October 30, 2013, from http://www.google.com/trends/explore

Recommendations for gamifying libraries

Now that I’ve checked out some of the literature on the topic of gameful libraries and done a basic analysis on the topic, I am going to dip into the fun bit of the project and posit some recommendations, based on the information I’ve explored. These will both be aimed at individual libraries who want to explore the concept of gamification, and at the wider situation concerning the information landscape that both libraries and games of all kinds exist in. These recommendations are intended more as a bit of general advice from an outsiders’ point of view – for want of a better term, from a CUP’s (Client/User/Players) point of view. I’m including them here because of the oft-mentioned reluctance of libraries to adopt gaming properly and in its’ own right.

Research research research

Given that the library is an information-based entity, this should be paramount to libraries looking to increase engagement through gamification. It would be remiss of such an entity to be assumptive about what users want and need out of any project that involves them. The applications of the concept of gamification are vastly diverse – even in regard to games themselves, gamification is only one aspect of them that libraries might find useful. I find Jane McGonigals’ term ‘becoming gameful’(2011) to be more inclusive of the variety of activities an organization might undertake in regard to games, and this also demonstrates that there is a great amount of potential here that libraries need to be made aware of.

Think creatively about your resources

This recommendation covers two aspects of gameful libraries – first is the cost mitigation that comes from utilizing what’s there already. We aren’t talking about building a gaming-based organization from the ground up here (though the library might become this in the future) – the organization is already established, and it operates in essentially the same industry as does gaming. There are synergies present that can be exploited with a fairly minimal effort of thought, and this would increase the appeal of the concept to libraries for whom outlay is a barrier to participation. It should be noted that according to Ahmed El-khuffash, most ‘pure gamification’ systems are free (p.25), further reducing the possibility of expending money on something that won’t work in the long run.

The second reason I’m recommending creative thinking is a fairly simple one – to put it bluntly, it will help librarians get a greater understanding of the potential and nature of gaming, apart from the regulated and quantified environment the library seems to reinforce. Another aspect of this environment that I’ve observed comes in the form of librarians acting as facilitators of information provision and not as users of information themselves – they seem more concerned with giving their CUPs venues and means to play games than actually doing it themselves. This is fine, as not every librarian is going to want to become a Dungeon Master (2008)or go for a high score on Halo (even though there’s a level called The Library in the original game) (2013) , but it will help librarians gain more of an understanding about the concept if they give their own imaginations a bit of a workout and allow themselves to play with the resources they caretake. This echoes what I’ve said in other posts about utilizing the vast knowledge base that the library has to its’ full extent – sometimes the uses for those resources might not always be evident on first inspection. One of the keys to gamifying properly is having the librarians on the same page as their CUPs – both literally and figuratively.

Don’t be afraid of making mistakes

This is another one of those ‘no-brainer’ points that I keep making, but yet again, it seems to be something that everyone forgets about. I’d even posit that this recommendation could be applied to companies who produce games as well – everyone seems so worried about putting a foot wrong that they fail to capitalize on opportunities and concepts for fear of being castigated by their audience. The analogy that keeps coming to mind is that of the older person who wants to play with the precocious preteen, but is more prepared to denigrate the youngsters’ computer as silly and pointless than actually learn how to do anything with it for fear of seeming ignorant or doing something wrong. The problem is that the youngster doesn’t care about whether anyone looks silly or not – they’re just happy that their elder is taking an interest in what they’re doing. It needs to be the same way with instituting a gamification project.

The concept is huge and diverse and still finding its’ feet in places other than the entertainment industry, thanks to technology – gaming companies themselves still make serious missteps in regards to what their audiences want. In that sector, a bad enough mistake can sink a company, but it isn’t necessarily so with libraries – it’s an excellent tool, but it’s not the lifeblood of the industry. In choosing to leverage the concept and doing it well, we open ourselves up to the possibility of increased engagement with a fairly low risk. I can’t see any libraries being closed down because of a failed gamification project any time soon.

The point here is that it seems better to make mistakes honestly and work to improve where the project falls down, instead of making timid mistakes and deflecting responsibility because we might get laughed at. The whole idea with gamification is that the consequences of in-game actions are removed to create a play space to explore ideas. This needs to be echoed in the implementation itself, because no project that is reliant on customer engagement and input will ever go 100% to plan.

Understand that gaming isn’t frivolous

This follows on from my last recommendation quite closely, and also applies more to the library industry as a whole rather than individual organizations (though it certainly applies to them as well). There seems to be quite a large disconnect between the concept of gaming and the idea that learning can take place in contexts other than formally learning about something. I learned to touch type in chatrooms, and a large part of my learning to read and write involved fiction and my own time. The internet abounds with examples of people learning and creating things in informal learning environments, and there’s not a classroom or library in sight.

Libraries are extremely well-grounded institutions, and it’s completely understandable that they would want to extend that grounding into a concept like gaming before they engaged with it fully. The problem, it seems, lies in the fact that evidence is already there to support the theory that there’s more to gaming than just killing time and escapism, but it’s been mired under the natural tendency towards rules and control that more formal organizations prefer. In those formal environments, the concept is still problematic and treated with suspicion, or not utilized to its’ full potential, whilst outside of them it is enjoying resounding success as technology increases its’ accessibility and appeal meteorically. I’m not trying to take over the gaming industry here, nor convert the library one to another outlet for gaming. I want libraries to get a cut of the action, and if we regarded gaming as a serious arena for both creative and constructive knowledge transactions, then that cut is all but granted.

Take yourselves less seriously

Hand in hand with taking games more seriously goes the idea that libraries need to take themselves less so. Games aren’t just for kids any more, but libraries have always been places for people from all walks of life to come and enhance their knowledge in myriad ways. It’s a place that caters to a basic human need to know more. Catering to that need has made the library something of a lynchpin in modern society, and throughout history, that role has gained a certain amount of solemnity and seriousness about it. As the information landscape changes to a more participatory culture, the old incarnation of libraries is being outmoded and there seems to be a degree of defensiveness about guarding that older role.

This isn’t to say that libraries are completely worthless and anti-progress in the modern age – in a number of fields the library has been a leading innovator and undergone rapid evolutions (such as the popularisation of online courses) (2013). From what I’ve seen, however, most of these evolutions have taken place on the libraries’ terms, grudgingly and only to preserve it’s place in the order of things. They should be taking place for the users, to extend their knowledge and allow them to do more – it’s always been them describing the libraries role anyway. I keep coming back to the analogy of the youngster sharing leisure time with the senior citizen – all of the concern about loss of dignity and status is on the part of the elder, established party, when the younger one only cares about how that elder can best provide service to them. The point I’m trying to make is in order to engage in meaningful play, you’ve got to be able to loosen up.

Play nice together

This recommendation is directed more towards the various parties at play here – not just the libraries. To them, I say that gamification is one that is fundamentally at odds with how structured and regulated your organizations are, and that you need to be prepared for a certain amount of upset to your established ecosystem to achieve the significant payoffs that it has in store for you.

The gaming industry also needs to be mindful of the conventions and potential present in libraries. They offer a huge amount of reference material, inspiration, and pre-assembled user base that hasn’t yet been utilized or satisfied, but they aren’t inert shells. They’re rich ecosystems that have withstood the test of time and are in a state of flux, which gaming can help provide a direction in. The mutual benefit is huge, but the relationship needs to be symbiotic instead of parasitic. With the gaming industry formally acknowledging the value of the library sector, that sort of relationship can become a reality.

Respect informal learning spaces

Finally, I would like to recommend another idea be consciously considered when undertaking gamification – that of informal learning spaces being left alone. Libraries function very well as both formal and informal learning spaces, as Marchionini and Maurer (1995) discuss. The library (in particular, the digital library) is also very well equipped to break down barriers between those two demarcations with the overall goal being to enhance knowledge transfer.

The consideration that informal learning spaces need to remain inviolate is relevant to the concept of gamification because the library is a formalized environment, whilst games are inherently informal. The need for the organization to control and quantify the effects of its’ knowledge might end up overriding that informality and moving away from the user-centred design that I’ve talked about in the past, resulting in gamification which ends up serving the organization more than the user. It’s easy to envision a library winding down the number of gaming events it holds and putting its efforts into a point based game involving how many books users check out because of a more direct benefit to the organization, for example.

The basic point is that the library can’t actively lead the user in an informal environment – the users guide themselves. Being informal environments that are still beholden to the rules of the library, it would be all too easy for the concept of gaming to become formalized enough to lose that freedom that makes it so appealing.

I realize that these recommendations are probably a lot more general than specific – they’d work for any project that any organization wanted to undertake. Some of these even felt a bit like I was writing life advice, they were so broad and theoretical, but here’s the point – gaming is a fairly broad concept in itself, and libraries are readily established organizations. It’s not even a particularly new concept that I’m proposing here, but it does seem to suffer from a bit of overanalysis in its’ current form. At this point in time, having only engaged with the theoretical and conceptual entities of gaming and libraries, this is my view of the issue – I hope that it’s not so simple as to be useless. I also hope that these recommendations help to provide a jumping off point for dealing with integration of gaming into libraries. I’m going to follow this post up with a reflection of what I’ve done so far, seeing as I’m coming to the end of the university based part of my education on this subject. Thanks for reading.

References: 

Dungeons and Dragons at the Library | GeekDad | Wired.com. (n.d.). GeekDad. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2008/09/dungeons-and-dr/

gamification_report.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.el-khuffash.com/gamification/gamification_report.pdf

GDC Vault - We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Badges: How to Re-invent Reality Without Gamification [SGS Gamification]. (n.d.). Retrieved October 30, 2013, from http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014576/We-Don-t-Need-No

Libraries Lead the Way: Open Courses, Open Educational Resources, and Open Policies. (n.d.). Community College Consortium for Open Educational Resources. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from http://oerconsortium.org/2013/09/19/libraries-lead-the-way-open-courses-open-educational-resources-and-open-policies/

The Library. (n.d.). Halo Nation. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/The_Library

Therolesofdigitallibrariesinteachingandlearning.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://cpe.njit.edu/dlnotes/CIS/CIS350/Therolesofdigitallibrariesinteachingandlearning.pdf

SWOT analysis chart and advocacy of gamification of libraries – the beginning of the end (of the beginning)!

This post will begin the development of my argument for advocating gaming and gamification in the library. I have spent the last few posts dissecting the concept and relating it both to the current wider information landscape and the organization of the library itself, and now that I’ve examined all of this, I think it’s time to reflect on the process overall. I’ll begin with a chart that sums up the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) that I’ve investigated:

 

Strengths and Opportunities

Taken together, the positive aspects of gamification in libraries represents an excellent tool that fits in well with the form and function of the library. It can be adapted in many ways to fit with the already existing resources of the organization, as well as employed at service points to increase engagement with the systems in the library themselves. Gaming itself also lends itself to be well integrated into the model of ‘library as community hub’ as it is a heavily interactive concept that allows spectatorship and has a low barrier to client participation once initial considerations are dealt with.

The overall benefit to the organization here is increased immersion in all aspects of the service, a service that offers excellent return on investment when applied properly, and a creative outlet for both staff and clients. Given the massive popularity of gaming and gamification in almost all aspects of world culture, the implementation of them almost seems a no-brainer, as far as benefits go to an institution whose main deliverable is information.

Weaknesses and Threats

As with many negative aspects of any project, the ones present here often spring from outside concerns exacerbating inherent flaws in the concept itself. Here, the immersive and subtly educational aspects of gamification are mainly at in the line of fire, which is interesting because they are also some of it’s greatest strengths. Though the idea of a flawed concept may sound like a very bad thing to bring into an advocacy statement, it should be said that no concept is completely foolproof; anything, applied in the wrong way, will result in a failure. The problem in regards lies in the earlier mentioned immersion and lack of overt educational value – it’s all too easy to get these things wrong in the implementation phase and not realize until it’s too late and the player decides that the game isn’t worth it; they’re over it and have to be coaxed back, with heightened expectations and blunted enjoyment. It’s not until the outcome is revealed that the effectiveness of the means can be judged, if that makes sense.

Talking about the dangers of gamification as a simple case of misunderstanding  might seem like a bit of a copout, but this reveals a bit more of the nature of gaming to those uninitiated – the medium relies on complex machinery behind the scenes to achieve what seems to be a fairly cosmetic and formulaic outcome. A seemingly complicated game might be governed by a few simple rules; a beautifully intuitive game might have an absolutely mind wrecking algorithm behind it, or rely on unquantifiable nuances to present an equally unquantifiable story. This goes back to immersion and respecting the player, as well as the nature of the game being informal and fun – true gamefulness comes not only from an understanding of concepts but an adaptability to the changing situation of the player. In turn, that adaptability is another thing that libraries are having to come to terms with, not only in relation to themselves in the new knowledge economy, but within themselves at the vanguard of that changing economy. The old paradigm is falling away, driven off by technology, and the new one is coming. Games are now more accessible than ever, and it’s because of this that I make my case that libraries should be getting on board with it.

Reflection

The idea that stories and games don’t exist in a vacuum can’t be ignored, and neither can the idea that libraries collect the information that those media are dependent on in vast amounts. The organizations themselves are in the enviable position of having access to thousands, if not millions of texts, and the collective resources to capitalize on them to present hungry audiences with an engaging, interesting, and fun way to consume them.  Given the sheer scope of the gaming industry alone, it’d be remiss of our information repositories to dismiss the concept as not worthy. It’d be tantamount to dismissing compact discs or any form of new media that came out after books.

I say let’s feed the audiences what they want, in a considered and sustainable way. It can only benefit everyone.

Opportunities and threats to the concept of gamification in libraries

In this post, I’m going to discuss some of the favourable conditions within the library environment at large that allow it to utilize gamification well, and some of the threats that the same environment has to the concept. This is in the interest of conducting a slightly modified SWOT analysis on the topic, using my earlier posts on ‘What works’ and ‘What doesn’t work’ as ‘Strength’ and ‘Weakness’ explorations respectively, and this post as an ‘Opportunities’ and ‘Threats’ exploration. With regard to this, the overall analysis takes place from the viewpoint of gaming (I kind of wish I could change this to be from the libraries’ standpoint, but this is how things have come together). Gamings’ internal strengths and weaknesses have already been expounded upon, and now I’m going to look into the external environment it will be implemented in (being the library) to see how the two would play together. I will be compiling an actual SWOT visual chart in the very near future to demonstrate this convoluted paragraph more easily, but for now I am preferring to wallow in my own verbosity.

Opportunities

There are a couple of major opportunities that gamification can find in the environment of the library. They have largely been discussed before, but for a more environmental discussion, I felt it prudent to go over them again here.

Similarity of Purpose and Form

As far as gaming is concerned, the library environment presents a large amount of opportunities for implementation. Gaming relies on information to build its’ systems upon, and people to play them; as a vital link between information and people, the library is uniquely suited to be a resource here. In this, the library not only provides opportunities to create games that stand on their own, but the systems inherent in the library also lend themselves to gamification, as they are user-centric and another point of interface between a form of narrative (the users journey with the library) and a set of rules (the regulations and system itself).

Built-In Audience

Libraries are, more often than not, well established organizations with diverse and often large user bases. Their place as an advisory organization places them well as an inclusive organization that often functions as much as a community hub as well as an entity in their own right, and this all equates to an audience for any project, gamed-based or not, that the library decides to proceed with. To take the example of the State Library of Queensland - according to its Annual Statistical Report (p.4 Table 2.), the library hosts over nine million patrons each month, has a junior membership ratio of 14% (out of just short of 10 million total), and counts 44% of the ‘total population’ as members. Granted, this particular example is one of the largest libraries in Australia, and other libraries often won’t have that sort of patronage, but this shows that libraries are nevertheless popular destinations. One of the main boons for a gamification based project in a library is that it’s likely to have an early adopter or two at the very least amongst its audience.

Presence and Diversity of Information

Of special note is something that I’ve already explored in my post on considerations for libraries – that being the idea of the library as a storehouse of narrative and stories, that can be used as inspiration and textual grounding for games of the users and staffs’ creation. Subjects are categorized and ostensibly fully annotated with metadata to facilitate searching – why not use gaming as a tool for making those subjects desirable to sift through as part of a larger story, legitimizing the effort put into metadata construction and aiding in the spread of knowledge? Gamification is a concept that can take in vast amounts of information and combine it in ways that make CUPs pursue and consume it. The sheer amount of information present in the library environment is a prime opportunity for gamification. Some of the information within the library might concern gamification itself. Could you gamify learning about gamification? It’s entirely possible.

Threats

In addition to the few and large opportunities that the library environment represents, however, there are also a number of threats to the concept of gaming that implementers should be mindful of. Though none are crippling to a project completely, they could be if not considered and accounted for during planning. They fall into two categories, and befit the nature of gaming as an established but expanding medium. The first of these is:

The Frivolity Problem

This is the main observation that I’ve gained from most of my readings on the subject, and has been something of a bugbear for me as I pursue this concept. The problem seems to lie in the changing landscape of information dissemination to a more participatory culture in which librarians are no longer the gatekeepers of esteemed storehouses of knowledge. They are now caretakers in a vast ecology of information, where patrons can come and go as they please, and take what they need to enrich their own private ecologies. Part of this change has been interactivity – where once, libraries imparted the knowledge as needed, now they need to do as much gathering as they do imparting, and patrons can submit their own input to the collective. As an interactive medium, gaming is something that libraries are still grappling with – beyond just functioning as a storehouse for gaming texts (including games themselves), the concept is flowing through the organization of the library itself, changing them, and after often centuries-long establishment of a certain order, it can be problematic.

Frivolity itself is also a large part of the problem here – play is often seen as pointless, and even only grudgingly given any time as a necessity. The idea that learning could take place within the process of play is a relatively new one, and one that seems to run counter to the serious nature of many libraries. Even when the concept is taken up, the stratified, metadata-saturated nature of the environment means that the frivolous part of gaming (the unquantifiable story elements) are stripped out and the ‘serious’ part is kept and run with. This helps to give the libraries a feeling of control over the concept, something that they’re used to from their ‘esteemed storehouses of knowledge’ period. Unfortunately, as we’ve explored in previous posts here, taking simple extrinsic motivation and applying it in the hope it works (i.e. increases engagement) is a recipe that only works over the short term, and may be one that fails outright as a technologically literate user base sees their gross manipulation for what it is. Basically, as a threat to the concept of gaming from the environment of the library, the attitude that games are frivolous and pointless will cause gamification efforts to not be taken seriously and fail before they’ve even started. It’s even conceivable that a cycle of failure could be set up as the concept is deemed to be a failure because of examples where the it wasn’t given its’ due. This might be all well and good if the concept turned out to be paper thin and actually pointless, but then I venture to ask – how is the gaming industry turning a multi-billion dollar profit?

Taking gaming seriously is something that has to happen in order for it to survive in a library environment. We now come to the second problem that the environment presents, however –

The Panacea Problem

In the same way that the newness of gaming presents a new paradigm for libraries to struggle with over the next few years, it also presents the concern that it will be seen as a cureall by organizations wanting something new to attract patrons and justify their existence. Gamification is something of a buzzword – it’s even at the point where I’m slightly cringing at using it as often as I do. It’s new and popular and it carries with it connotations of something fun and exciting, and something that ‘the kids’ will enjoy. Indeed, the term ‘Gamification’ seems to have found its’ widest use amongst those who have an idea of what gaming is, but don’t do it themselves. Put shortly, it is seen in these circles as a gimmick that will bring in numbers and provide a boost, or glaze over a broken system to give it the appearance of working because of an appeal to popularity. It’s this sort of ignorance of deeper issues that cause some implementations to jump the gun and execute poorly, or at the wrong time, or in the wrong place. This in turn can cause the project to fail, just as surely as if the same ignorance caused the organizations to fall to the earlier described frivolity problem.

There are likely to be other environmental aspects that fall into these two categories with regards to gamification, but what is covered here denotes some of the major ones. As I’ve said, I am operating under a tight schedule and my window of access is quite small – I neither work in a library nor in the field of game development (for the time being). I think for my next post, I will collate the matters I’ve discussed here and in other posts into a graphical representation of a SWOT analysis, with a commentary on the situation overall. From there I will round out the ‘academic grounding’ phase of this blog, and with it my university-based project for the term. Thanks for reading!

References:

ANNUAL STATISTICAL SURVEY - NSLA.public_library_stats_2011-12_0.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.nsla.org.au/sites/www.nsla.org.au/files/publications/NSLA.public_library_stats_2011-12_0.pdf

Considerations for libraries wanting to get involved with games

Apologies for the hiatus – my other studies and life got in the way for a bit. In this post, I’m going to explore some of the considerations that libraries undertaking gamification and gaming events might need to take into account. Because immersion is key to the gaming experience, a properly executed program or event is highly desirable. I have based the material discussed here chiefly on the American Library Associations’ Library Gaming Toolkit site (2007), which provides a wide variety of resources for libraries looking to crèche games into their organization. I am concentrating on the resources page here.

Time

One of the major concerns for any organization planning something new is the most valuable commodity of all. Not only is time needed to plan and advocate for any scheme needed, but implementation of said scheme or execution of an event also requires staff to take time to set up, test and even refine the concept within the organization. This may in turn put pressure on other areas of the library and its’ staff – the implementation of gamification and gaming events is meant to augment these other aspects, after all.

Of chief importance is the immersion factor in the process – in the case of actual events like a games day, time will need to be generously given to ensure that clients/users/players (CUPs?) have time to gain the immersion that is crucial to transforming gamification into an educational tool.

In the case of gamification (that is, the inclusion of game mechanics into other areas of the library system to augment engagement), less time may be needed to implement, but more time will be needed to review and refine systems and practices relating to the concept where it is augmented. Yet again, this seems like a fairly standard practice for any new ground an organization wishes to try to utilize, but bears mentioning here – partly for completeness of discussion, and partly because I have a sneaking suspicion that the perceived frivolity of gamification would mean time dedicated to it would be minimal at best.

Space

Though this falls under the category of physical assets/resources that the library has, I thought that space needed its’ own discussion here because not only is it the most physical of the requirements for a well-executed gaming event, but it also comes with a couple of unique considerations in itself. Not only is space required for events to take place in the real world, but there is also the consideration for space in a virtual sense, in the case of gamification – how involved does a system need to be to increase engagement with library systems? Do we need a whole server for the implementation of a vast, immersive system that turns the experience of using a library into a narrative? Or do we only need a spare bit of server space to display a leaderboard and keep track of a couple of achievements? Virtual space could indeed dictate the scope of a gamification project, and should be one of the first things considered when planning for such.

As far as physical space is concerned, there are two issues that I can see here – first is the relatively simple matter of how the physical space is set up for different events involving gaming. As a heavily social and collaborative medium, gaming has a fairly heavy space requirement to accommodate different users needs, as well as spectators and clients who are waiting to play the games on offer. A large room may do, or in the case of roleplaying games where players might prefer a bit of privacy for their game, a series of study rooms may have to be set aside for the day.

The second concern that I can see here is the potential for disruption to other services in the library, which must obviously be kept to a minimum. Because of gaming’s popularity amongst younger users, the potential for the venue to be playing host to large amounts of them becomes quite high, depending on the location of the library. This in turn may cause disruption to the ‘typical’ patrons of the library, for starters. The previously mentioned example of dedicating study rooms for private roleplaying game sessions may also prove to be problematic, if those study rooms are needed for that purpose. It is anticipated that a good mix of timing and forewarning would be needed to ensure that disruptions are kept to a minimum, and other library services aren’t displaced or rendered unusable for the duration of gaming events.

Staff

Hand in hand with the overt physical assets of the library to be considered go the social assets of it – the people who will provide service and content to those who engage with the games and gamified concepts the library presents. Again, there are a number of considerations here that need to be given their due if gamification is to be executed properly – mainly, the knowledge of the staff themselves.

In the case of gamification of an already existing system, it may only be sheer technical and design knowledge that is needed to execute a successful venture. Familiarity with already existing systems and a sound knowledge of the concepts I’ve touched on in previous posts may help leverage a gaming system into those existing systems and increase engagement. If this technical and design knowledge can’t be sourced within the library, outsourcing may be needed , which brings with it concerns about money and time as resources are stretched outside the organization itself. The payoff may be worth it, however outsourcing appears to be an inherently risky venture (please note I have no practical experience with the concept; this is conjecture from the popularity of ‘in house’ production and sourcing I have observed in other organizations).

In regards to gaming events, staff will require the customer service skills that they would probably exercise daily in a service role, as well as a sound technical knowledge of both game systems and rules. This may range from knowing which socket to plug an Xbox jack into on a monitor to an intimate knowledge of a certain (or multiple) editions rules for Dungeons and Dragons. This may be a curiously high barrier to implementation of an event – given the diversity of gaming media and its’ almost-ubiquitous-yet-niche appeal, staff may have a fairly complete knowledge of how to carry out required tasks throughout the event, or they may be able to ‘wing it’, or they might end up needing to tailor the event to their own knowledge base, depending on what that entails.

With regards to staff, I am also going to flag what has come up as a potential concern through my reading on the subject thus far now, and it may be something of an elephant in the room – the aging workforce present in libraries. This study (sorry for paywall), conducted by Rachel Franks (2012) provides a good example of the issue at hand. Over half the workforce in libraries in Australia is over 45 years of age, which is significantly higher than the amount of workers in that age group in the total workforce. This in itself may be fairly innocuous, but I do wonder if the resistance that I’ve discussed in other posts to the concept of gaming in libraries might be a result of this older age group having a perception of games as something silly that kids do between periods of ‘serious learning’. I can’t help but feel that at the very least, some older librarians may need to be bought up to speed as to the value and appeal of gamification as a concept before serious planning could take place. Older senior staff may need to be abbreviated of same before they give a green light to any event or undertaking. I’m not saying that the older element of the workforce is holding gamification back or that they are in some way undesirable here – just that the much higher percentage of the age group may present something that needs to be considered, given that part of gamings appeal is its technical sophistication and ‘newness’.

Money/Resources

There are also a large amount of other material concerns to be addressed in regard to gamification; I’ve grouped these all here and probably still won’t manage to cover all of them, but here are some of the principal ones:

Money concerns are paramount for any public organization, as they often don’t seem to get enough of it. Developing any software is a surprisingly expensive undertaking, and things like apps and computer games may be prohibitively expensive for smaller organizations to use with any effectiveness. Bluecloud solutions (Thomas, n.d.) gives a baseline development cost of $10,000 to $250,000 for a game app, so it’s easy to see why this might not be the best implementation of the concept for a library. It is possible however, to turn in an effective gamification project with a relatively small budget if the concept is pursued creatively. As examples in previous posts have demonstrated, engagement might be increased with something as simple as a gift voucher for a coffee for a reward.

In addition to the discussion of space mentioned above, various other assets may need to be taken stock of prior to execution of a gaming event or gamification project; power boards, seating, and specific consoles may all fall under this category. One of the major material considerations, however, may lie in the libraries already existing collection – gaming rulebooks, video games themselves, and other formats of games to be played. Basically, in keeping with the idea that games are sources of information or means of imparting information, this becomes a major concern as it may come to define scope and effectiveness of any undertaking the library might pursue. Does the library have a vast amount of video games on hand, but no consoles on which to play them? Does licensing allow such games to be played in a public venue? Have we got an extensive array of Dungeons and Dragons or World of Darkness rulebooks with which to hold an immersive, several-sessions-long game, or just enough to give CUPs (yes, I’m using it regularly now) a taste of the concept?

In keeping with the idea that part of the already-existing collection may be useful to the development of gamification in a library, I’d also like to pose the somewhat novel idea that perhaps the collection as a whole could be used to develop gamification concepts. This idea came up during my rumination about the nature of the concept of Story in my previous post – a library is literally a storehouse of stories. Why not use them and the power of their myriad narratives to power a game that engages CUPs? With an application of game design, it’s conceivable that stories could easily become interactive, and at any rate it seems to be a lot more attractive to do that than apply a bunch of rules and point scoring to something. It’s a bit of a basic concept, I realize, but I think it bears thinking about. The power of libraries lies in their wealth of knowledge. It’s something that shouldn’t be squandered.

That about covers the considerations that the Library Gaming Toolkit gives us. At the risk of going overboard on length, I’d just like to quickly add the following three considerations from my own observations:

Alignment with Mission/policies

In order to be a constructive addition to an organization, any project must align with the organizations’ remit of service to its’ clients. Yet again, because of the immersive nature of gaming, it would be all too easy to lose sight of what benefit it would provide to the organization when done properly. Gamifying a library would need to be clearly defined as to how it helps fulfill that organizations’ remit, if only to help define scope and appropriateness.

Audience

In keeping with my earlier post about ‘knowing when not to gamify’ and also ‘respecting the audience’, it would behoove a library interested in the concept to conduct some through research on its’ user base and the wider community and try to identify who would be interested in what – this could help in forming a basis for user-centered design in the undertaking.

Scope

Another major concern that probably slots into one of the previously mentioned categories, but I felt it was pertinent to make explicit mention of it, because it puts a nice cap on so many other considerations, defining in and in turn being defined by them. Money, space, time and resources all count towards this, and having a defined scope in and of itself may help expedite the process of design during planning.

That’s all I have for this very long post. Apologies if this was a bit long, but time is starting to grow a bit short on the project and I am starting to have to cram a bit. I hope this was an interesting read. My next post will deal with a look at the opportunities that gamification and gaming present to organizations that engage in them, as well as threats that they open up. I still have a couple of posts I’d like to cover before the university term ends, so I will probably be updating quite regularly over the next couple of days/weeks. Thanks for reading.

References:

Franks, R. (2012). Grey matter: The ageing librarian workforce, with a focus on public and academic libraries in Australia and the united states. Australasian Public Libraries and Information Services, 25(3), 104.

The Librarian’s Guide to Gaming :: An Online Toolkit :: A Brief History of Gaming in Libraries. (n.d.). Retrieved October 23, 2013, from http://librarygamingtoolkit.org/index.html

Thomas, C. (n.d.). How much does it cost to develop an app? iPhone App Marketing | Bluecloud Solutions | How To Make Money With Apps. Retrieved October 23, 2013, from http://www.bluecloudsolutions.com/blog/cost-develop-app/