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/
