Integrating Gamification: The Human-Centered Gamification Process
Alischa Thomas
1 a
, Frederik Bader
b
, J
¨
org Thomaschewski
2 c
and Maria Rauschenberger
2 d
1
Faculty of Economics, Duale Hochschule Baden-W
¨
urttemberg, Mosbach, Germany
2
Faculty of Technology, University of Applied Sciences, Emden/Leer, Germany
Keywords:
Gamification, User Research, User Experience, Human-Centered Design, Iterative Design.
Abstract:
The dynamically growing research area of gamification is loaded with a lack of consensus on definitions, a
variety of non-validated frameworks, and few practical insights. Hence, we conducted a literature review to
explore current best practices in applying gamification for integration in a practical use case. Instead, we found
a narrow focus on theoretical discussions. For a stronger representation of practical research, standards need
to be established for transferring gamification concepts to practical application. To fill this research gap, we
designed a process and tools for a practical, human-centered, and context-related gamification application. We
derived the process and tools from insights of our literature review as well as the realization of a gamification
use case on a German online comparison platform. In addition, we incorporated standards such as the Human-
Centered Design Process to maintain the established quality level of the field of user experience. In this paper,
we present the Human-Centered Gamification Process (HCGP) and provide tools as practical guidance to
lower the barrier for researchers and professionals to conduct theoretical and practical gamification projects.
1 INTRODUCTION
The field of gamification is characterized by vari-
ous theoretical perspectives and frameworks (Deter-
ding et al., 2011b; Deterding et al., 2011a; Nichol-
son, 2012; Deterding, 2015; Arnab and Clarke, 2017;
Morschheuser et al., 2018). To capture the current
state, we reviewed 47 publications n
all
. From these,
27 provide theoretical perspectives on gamification
(n
theory
), 27 assumptions and insights about practi-
cal application (n
practice
), and 24 cover methodologi-
cal approaches (n
method
). This tri-fold selective litera-
ture review shows an ongoing transformation process
from a theoretical focus (Hamari, 2013; Adamou and
Birks, 2013) to first practical methodological steps.
Only few of the publications with practical
approaches (n
practice
= 27) explain how they designed
the gamification, e.g., by naming selection criteria for
gamification components or surveying users about
their needs (Sailer et al., 2017; Rodrigues et al.,
2016). Hence, little is known about the practical
application process of gamification. This can be-
a
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6414-4877
b
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3371-9698
c
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6364-5808
d
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5722-576X
come a blocking factor for gamification projects, if
researchers and professionals do not have practical
experience to fall back on. They are left alone to
interpret the variety of perspectives on gamification
and their applications. Processes of related fields,
such as the Human-Centered Design Process (HCD)
(DIN Deutsches Institut f
¨
ur Normung e.V., 2020),
could be used to fulfill the need for guidance to some
extent. However, this process is rather generic and
does not practically guide users to apply gamification.
In this paper, we introduce the Human-Centered
Gamification Process (HCGP) and its tools (gamifi-
cation codebook & guidelines to integrate gamifica-
tion) to support researchers and professionals in trans-
ferring theoretical gamification concepts into practi-
cal application. We show how we designed the pro-
cess and tools in a practice-oriented three-stage de-
sign approach as human-centered and customizable
resources for different project contexts. Altogether,
we provide a guided way to integrate Gamification
rather than layering it on top of a system (Rauschen-
berger et al., 2019).
The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2,
we explain current methodologies and concepts to re-
search gamification. In Section 3, we show how we
designed the HCGP and its tools (gamification code-
430
Thomas, A., Bader, F., Thomaschewski, J. and Rauschenberger, M.
Integrating Gamification: The Human-Centered Gamification Process.
DOI: 10.5220/0010712500003058
In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies (WEBIST 2021), pages 430-435
ISBN: 978-989-758-536-4; ISSN: 2184-3252
Copyright
c
 2021 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

book & guidelines to integrate gamification) before
explaining each of them closer in Section 4. In Sec-
tion 5, we conclude with ways researchers and pro-
fessionals can benefit from our work and make sug-
gestions for future research.
2 BACKGROUND ON
METHODOLOGICAL
APPROACHES
Literature shows that methodologies in gamification
often concentrate on theoretical explorations, frame-
works, and literature reviews, but neglect practical ap-
proaches (Ritzhaupt et al., 2014; Keusch and Zhang,
2017; Rauschenberger et al., 2019). For a first un-
derstanding, we explored the current methodologi-
cal state from 24 publications (n
method
) of our liter-
ature review (n
all
= 47). We clustered these publica-
tions into analytical & indirect approaches (passive
methodology: 19/24) vs. experimental & practical ap-
proaches (active methodology: 5/24).
The 19 publications of the first cluster are or-
dered into five categories. The first category of lit-
erature review & theory-based covers the most pub-
lications (15/19), which, e.g., review concepts and
sample cases (Kankanhalli et al., 2012) or issues in
gamified surveys (Keusch and Zhang, 2017). The re-
maining four publications belong to the categories of
survey (Codish and Ravid, 2014), literature review &
semi-structured interview (O’Brien and Toms, 2008),
content analysis (Laschke and Marc, 2011), and con-
tent analysis & interview (Bj
¨
ork et al., 2003). The
five publications of the second cluster are ordered
into four categories: research games: gamified sur-
veys (Schacht et al., 2017), research games: fully-
fledged game (Adamou and Birks, 2013), experiment:
implementation of gamified features (Hamari, 2013),
and experiment: fully-fledged game (Rodrigues et al.,
2016; Sailer et al., 2017).
From our literature review n
all
, we found that gam-
ification has a strong theoretical fundament including
assumptions and concepts about practical application
(n
theory
= 27, n
practice
= 27). But it is weakly repre-
sented by practical methodology for empirical exam-
ination (n
method
= 24). Only 5 publications use ac-
tive methodology including experimental & practical
approaches. We found that many theoretical frame-
works exist but no standard has established yet for in-
tegrating gamification in practice. This results in a po-
tential barrier for researchers and professionals, since
they have to fall back on individual experience instead
of established processes. They must find a reason-
able way to apply theoretical gamification concepts
in practice on their own. In the next section, we show
how we designed a process and tools to facilitate the
conduction of practical gamification projects.
3 METHODOLOGY
In a three-stage design approach (see Fig. 1), we cre-
ated a process and two tools to provide practical guid-
ance in applying gamification concepts to a human-
centered and context-related application. First, we
designed the tools, called gamification codebook
& guidelines to integrate gamification. They pro-
vide gamification components, criteria, and lessons
learned from literature about human-centered gami-
fication application. Second, we applied the tools to
integrate gamification into a use case on a German
online comparison platform. Third, we merged the in-
sights into the Human-Centered Gamification Process
(see Fig. 2). The stages were conducted as follows.
In the first stage, we built the gamification code-
book from insights about practical gamification and
human-centered design (n
practice
). Then, we cre-
ated the guidelines to integrate gamification based on
lessons learned about methodologies (n
method
).
In the second stage, we used both tools in a use
case to uncover barriers of applying gamification step
by step. The company provided data as personas as
well as a customer journey map of the target sys-
tem that included dropout and satisfaction tracking.
From the data, we derived system requirements to fol-
low a human-centered and integrative approach (Carl-
shamre, 2001). For this, we defined needs and mo-
tivations of target system users. To cover the orga-
nizational perspective, we identified target areas of
the customer journey by a relatively high dropout rate
compared to other areas. With the gamification code-
book we identified components in three competitor
solutions to capture the status of gamification in the
related market environment. We took screenshots and
marked representative gamification examples to work
with them later. Then, we merged user needs and
motivations, target areas of the customer journey and
gamification examples from competitors into compre-
hensive system requirements.
Next, we customized the gamification codebook
by prioritizing its components according to their rel-
evance to our system requirements. For example,
points were highly prioritized because the target sys-
tem users tend to participate in bonus systems.
To prepare the practical application of the con-
cept, we oriented towards the walkthrough method.
For this, we rebuilt the target system as a prototype.
Integrating Gamification: The Human-Centered Gamification Process
431

Figure 1: Process of designing the Human-Centered Gamification Process.
Then, we derived the happy path (most direct way for
users to walk through the system) as a structured ta-
ble. Based on that, we were able to verify the applica-
bility of each component of the customized codebook
for the elements of the prototype and happy path. We
choose and merged the verified components with pro-
totype elements into a coherent design concept. Here,
the examples from competitor solutions, system re-
quirements and guidelines to integrate gamification
led us in designing a human-centered gamification
concept for the target system.
Our approach of designing tools and applying
them to a use case highlighted barriers for integrating
gamification. With the tools, many hurdles could be
overcome; e.g., one could analyze the market towards
gamification usage with the gamification codebook.
Another lesson learned from the use case is that the
available resources determine what methods are real-
izable for applying gamification.
In the third stage, we merged the insights from
our literature review (n
all
), tools and practical use case
into the Human-Centered Gamification Process. With
respect to established standards in the field of user
experience, the iterative characteristics of the HCD
process were incorporated. In the next section, we
present the HCGP and its tools in detail.
4 PROCESS AND TOOLS FOR
HUMAN-CENTERED
GAMIFICATION
In this section, the HCGP and its tools are explained
(see Fig. 2). We show how both add value to the gam-
ification field by guiding its users individually and
systematically towards a human-centered integration.
4.1 Human-Centered Gamification
Process
We designed the Human-Centered Gamification Pro-
cess and its tools to establish a way for researchers
and professionals to conduct theoretical and practical
research on gamification individually as well as in in-
teraction with each other (see Fig.2). The HCGP con-
sists of eight steps in two iterative cycles to be flex-
ibly adaptable for any kind of project context, goal
and available resources. The detailed conduction of
the steps can be followed from the use case in the
previous section. Alternatively, users can adapt the
conduction of the single steps to available resources,
individual experience and preferences.
As mentioned in the section before, the HCGP in-
corporates the iterative character of the established
HCD process. We split the four generic steps of
the HCD into eight concrete and actionable chunks
to provide realistic and practical guidance for users
to apply gamification. The tools of the gamification
codebook & guidelines to integrate gamification as-
sist users in applying the HCGP in practice. In ad-
dition to the main perspective of a human-centered
application in the HCD process, we encourage users
to interweave gamification with the system context
rather than layering it on top. This unique charac-
ter sets the HCGP apart from the HCD. We designed
it specifically to fulfill the research need for practical
guidance to apply gamification and overcome obsta-
cles in doing so.
Users initialize the HCGP with the starting issue
of low user engagement and/or satisfaction. In the
first cycle, Setup Gamification Concept, the gamifi-
cation codebook assists users in working out an indi-
vidualized concept that focuses on user needs and the
system context to address the starting issue (steps 1 -
5). The first cycle has a low iteration dynamic because
the evolved concept is rather stable in the long term. It
only needs to be rerun if attributes (user needs, orga-
nizational goals, market environment) change. Next,
users transfer the designed gamification concept to
the second cycle, Gamification Integration (step 6).
In the second cycle, the gamification codebook and
guidelines to integrate gamification support users in
following a human-centered and integrative prototyp-
ing and evaluation approach (steps 7 - 8). This second
cycle requires a high iteration dynamic to actively in-
tegrate user feedback into the designed gamification
solution. At any time within both cycles, users can
WEBIST 2021 - 17th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies
432

Figure 2: Human-Centered Gamification Process.
jump back to any step to start another iteration from
there. The process was applied successfully when the
evaluation outcome confirms an optimization of the
starting issue (e.g., a decrease in the dropout rate as
an indicator for increased user engagement). In the
next subsection, we explain the essential tool of the
gamification codebook for applying the HCGP.
4.2 Gamification Codebook
In the HCGP, the gamification codebook functions as
three things: a customizable modular system to de-
sign individual gamification, an analysis tool to eval-
uate the degree of gamification in a system, and a
checklist to evaluate and ensure a human-centered fo-
cus in gamification integration.
For the first function, the codebook is composed
of 58 gamification components, which we identified
from our literature review (n
practice
) and grouped into
11 themes. For example, we grouped story, theme,
framing, narrative and fantastic scenario in the theme
narratology. From the codebook, users can select
gamification themes and components (step 5) that are
in accordance with the defined system requirements
(step 4). The resulting customized codebook is the
basis for steps 6 - 8. To provide first orientation in
this selection process, we included a frequency distri-
bution. Each component was counted by its occur-
rence within the literature (n
practice
). This provides
users with an overview about the popularity of the
components relative to one another and within the lit-
erature. For the second function, the codebook can be
applied to analyze the status of gamification in com-
petitor solutions. For the third function, it serves as
a checklist for users to follow a human-centered inte-
gration of selected themes and components (steps 7 -
8). The checklist can also be applied to analyze exist-
ing systems (step 3).
With the gamification codebook
1
as a flexible
open source tool for analyzing and integrating gamifi-
cation, we add a high degree of practical applicability
to the HCGP. In the next subsection, we explain the
second tool.
4.3 Guidelines to Integrate
Gamification
To provide assistance in step 7, we worked out follow-
ing 11 guidelines from nine publications of our liter-
ature review. Users are guided to interweave gamifi-
cation within the existing system instead of layering
it on top (Rauschenberger et al., 2019). The guide-
lines lead to an increased focus on user needs and
raise awareness of the risks of applying gamification
(e.g., backfire effects such as game fatigue (Direkova,
2012)). They help users to avoid common pitfalls
when applying gamification, providing support in de-
signing a worthwhile user experience.
Take Heed of the User’s Motivation
• The motivational pattern must be received as
such by the user, otherwise there is no effect.
Therefore, to be motivational, gamification ele-
ments must show some presence, but must not
overwhelm or distract users (Lewis, 2014).
1
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22625.02403
Integrating Gamification: The Human-Centered Gamification Process
433

• Do not be a tyrant of choice, as “[. . . ] peo-
ple are most satisfied when choice increases
from zero to one” (Zichermann and Cunning-
ham, 2011). Therefore, do not overwhelm peo-
ple with too many gamification features and
choices.
• Create a worthwhile experience (Laschke and
Marc, 2011).
Take Heed of the Target System’s Requirements
• Integrate gamification instead of layering it on
top of your application to maintain a coherent
and meaningful digital product (Adamou and
Birks, 2013).
• Implement gamification as easy to use and
useful for a higher acceptance of new feature
(Davis, 1989). If features make the process
harder and/or are not useful, rethink their im-
plementation.
• Beware of orienting blindly towards other prac-
tical examples, as “[. . . ] many current gamifi-
cation attempts are only copycat applications”
(Burke, 2011).
• Consider the stage of the user journey when im-
plementing gamification. It is not only the main
context of the application that influences gami-
fication effects, but also the context of the cur-
rent step of the users. Users expect different
features and functions in each stage (Direkova,
2012).
Take Heed of Negative Effects
• Beware of game fatigue. Too much gamifica-
tion overburdens users and desensitizes them to
motivational effects (Direkova, 2012).
• Beware of undermining effects. Extrinsic mo-
tivators can undermine initial intrinsic motiva-
tors after time and weaken the motivation effect
(Reiss, 2004).
• Be aware that behavioral outcomes have not
yet been researched well. “There is a strong
possibility for gameful patterns to backfire, en-
couraging unexpected and undesired behavior”
(Lewis, 2014).
In the next section, we conclude with the value of
the presented process and tools for the field of gamifi-
cation and its users. We also reflect on our presented
work and make suggestions for further research.
5 CONCLUSION
In our research, we uncovered the current gap of
practical research approaches towards gamification.
We conclude from our selective literature review on
methodologies that there is no established standard
yet to transfer theoretical gamification concepts to
practical application. This can result in a barrier for
researchers and professionals to conduct practical re-
search on gamification as the quality of the integration
is based on individual experience. Thus it can happen
that users are left alone to interpret the variety of the-
oretical perspectives and their applications.
As first steps to address this research gap, we
designed the Human-Centered Gamification Process
and tools (gamification codebook & guidelines to
integrate gamification). We designed the process to
consist of two cycles. So, users can conduct theoret-
ical and practical research on gamification indepen-
dently or in interaction by combining the cycles. This
makes the process and tools flexibly usable for any
kind of project context, goal, and available resources.
Within the cycles, we incorporated characteristics of
the HCD process to maintain the established quality
level of user experience. The process and tools add
realistic value for its users to overcome obstacles
when applying gamification. Overall, with the
HCGP and its tools, we present an initial approach
to fulfill the research need to bridge the gap between
theoretical and practical research in order to integrate
human-centered and context-related gamification.
As next steps, we plan to evaluate our process and
tools with users of the gamification field using HCD
methods. Thereby, we can deliver a practically vali-
dated approach to fill the research gap for researchers
and professionals. We also plan to replace our litera-
ture review with a systematic literature review to add
more transparency to our argumentation. In the long
term, we aim to develop a standalone and interactive
digital product that makes the process and tools easily
accessible and usable. By doing so, we hope to fur-
ther lower the barrier for researchers and profession-
als to conduct theoretical and practical gamification
projects.
REFERENCES
Adamou, B. and Birks, D. D. (2013). ResearchGames
as a Methodology: The Impact of Online Re-
searchGames Upon Participant Engagement and Fu-
ture ResearchGame Participation. In Proceedings of
ASC (Association of Survey Computing) conference,
pages 1–12, Winchestor, UK.
Arnab, S. and Clarke, S. (2017). Towards a trans-
disciplinary methodology for a game-based interven-
tion development process. British Journal of Educa-
tional Technology, 48(2):279–312.
WEBIST 2021 - 17th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies
434

Bj
¨
ork, S., Lundgren, S., and Holopainen, J. (2003). Game
Design Pattern. In Level Up: Digital Games Research
Conference 2003, page 12, University of Utrecht, The
Netherlands. .
Burke, B. (2011). Maverick* Research: Motivation, Mo-
mentum and Meaning: How Gamification Can Inspire
Engagement.
Carlshamre, P. (2001). A usability perspective on require-
ments engineering : from methodology to product de-
velopment. Dissertation, Link
¨
opings University. Pub-
lisher: Link
¨
oping University Electronic Press.
Codish, D. and Ravid, G. (2014). Personality Based Gamifi-
cation: How Different Personalities Perceive Gamifi-
cation. In Proceedings of the European Conference on
Information Systems (ECIS), page 12, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease
of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technol-
ogy. MIS Quarterly, 13(3):319–340.
Deterding, S. (2015). The Lens of Intrinsic Skill Atoms: A
Method for Gameful Design. Human–Computer In-
teraction, 30(3-4):294–335.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., and Nacke, L.
(2011a). From game design elements to gameful-
ness: Defining ”gamification”. In Proceedings of the
15th International Academic MindTrek Conference:
Envisioning Future Media Environments, MindTrek
’11, page 9–15, New York, NY, USA. Association for
Computing Machinery.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., and Nacke, L.
(2011b). Gamification: Toward a Definition. In CHI
2011 gamification workshop proceedings, pages 1–4,
Vancouver, BC, Canada. Association for Computing
Machinery.
DIN Deutsches Institut f
¨
ur Normung e.V. (2020). DIN
EN ISO 9241-210:2020-03, Ergonomie der Mensch-
System-Interaktion - Teil 210: Menschzentrierte
Gestaltung interaktiver Systeme; Deutsche Fassung.
Technical report, Beuth Verlag GmbH.
Direkova, N. (2012). GSummit SF: Game On: 16 Design
Patterns for User Engagement.
Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming homo economicus into
homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification in
a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, 12(4):236–
245.
Kankanhalli, A., Taher, M., Cavusoglu, H., and Kim, S. H.
(2012). Gamification: A New Paradigm for Online
User Engagement. In Thirty Third International Con-
ference on Information Systems, page 10, Orlando.
Keusch, F. and Zhang, C. (2017). A Review of Issues in
Gamified Surveys. Social Science Computer Review,
35(2):147–166.
Laschke, M. and Marc, H. (2011). Mayor or patron? The
difference between a badge and a meaningful story. In
Proceedings of the CHI 2011 Workshop on Gamifica-
tion, pages 72–75, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Associa-
tion for Computing Machinery.
Lewis, C. (2014). Irresistible Apps: Motivational Design
Patterns for Apps, Games, and Web-based Communi-
ties. Apress, Berkeley, CA.
Morschheuser, B., Hassan, L., Werder, K., and Hamari, J.
(2018). How to design gamification? A method for
engineering gamified software. Information and Soft-
ware Technology, 95:219–237.
Nicholson, S. (2012). A User-Centered Theoreti-
cal Framework for Meaningful Gamification. In
Games+Learning+Society 8.0, page 7, Madison, WI.
Carnegie Mellon University.
O’Brien, H. L. and Toms, E. G. (2008). What is user en-
gagement? A conceptual framework for defining user
engagement with technology. Journal of the Ameri-
can Society for Information Science and Technology,
59(6):938–955.
Rauschenberger, M., Willems, A., Ternieden, M., and
Thomaschewski, J. (2019). Towards The Use Of
Gamification Frameworks In Learning Environments.
Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 30(2):147–
165.
Reiss, S. (2004). Multifaceted Nature of Intrinsic Motiva-
tion: The Theory of 16 Basic Desires. Review of Gen-
eral Psychology, 8(3):179–193.
Ritzhaupt, A., Poling, N., Frey, C., and Johnson, M. (2014).
A synthesis on digital games in education: What the
research literature says from 2000 to 2010. Journal of
Interactive Learning Research, 25(2):261–280.
Rodrigues, L. F., Oliveira, A., and Costa, C. J. (2016).
Does ease-of-use contributes to the perception of en-
joyment? A case of gamification in e-banking. Com-
puters in Human Behavior, 61:114–126.
Sailer, M., Hense, U., Mayr, S., and Madl, H. (2017). How
gamification motivates: An experimental study of the
effects of specific game design elements on psycho-
logical need satisfaction. Computers in Human Be-
havior, 69:371–380.
Schacht, S., Keusch, F., Bergmann, N., and Morana, S.
(2017). Web survey gamification - Increasing data
quality in web surveys by using game design ele-
ments. In 25th European Conference on Informa-
tion Systems (ECIS) 2017 : information systems for a
smart, substainable and inclusive world, pages 2907–
2917, Guimar
˜
aes, Portugal. Association for Informa-
tion Systems.
Zichermann, G. and Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification
by Design. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 1005 Gravenstein
Highway North, Sebastopol, CA, first edition.
Integrating Gamification: The Human-Centered Gamification Process
435