Application of a Gamification to Solve Problems of Software Process
Improvement in the Educational Context: A Case Study
Elziane Monteiro Soares
a
and Sandro Ronaldo Bezerra Oliveira
b
Graduate Program in Computer Science, Institute of Exact and Natural Sciences,
Federal University of Pará, Belém, Pará, Brazil
Keywords: Software Process Improvement, Gamification, Teaching and Learning, Problems and Difficulties.
Abstract: Specialized studies report that organizations face several problems and difficulties in conducting software
process improvement initiatives. Among the existing factors are issues related to the attitudes of individuals,
for example, resistance to change, lack of motivation, support and commitment of those involved in the initi-
atives. In this context, it is important that organizations adopt approaches and strategies to facilitate the im-
plementation of Software Process Improvement (SPI) initiatives. Thus, the use of gamification in the context
addressed can stimulate people's motivation and commitment to effectively join and participate in SPI initia-
tives. Gamification has been used to assist in the teaching-learning process, and can be applied in the educa-
tional area or in companies, to stimulate a learning and work climate through the motivation of the people
involved. Thus, the objective of this work is to analyze the results obtained in a Case Study from the applica-
tion of a dynamic with gamification elements in an SPI context.
1 INTRODUCTION
Although the adoption of standards and reference
models for process improvement has grown in recent
years, the number of organizations that adopt these
models is a small portion of the total population of
software organizations (Staples et al., 2007).
Software Process Improvement (SPI) is seen as the
fundamental approach to improving software
products in software development organizations
(Shih and Huang, 2010), being used to improve
software quality and reliability, employee and
customer satisfaction and return on investment,
among other factors (Gibson et al., 2006; Travassos
and Kalinowski, 2009).
Studies carried out in this context report problems
and difficulties that organizations face to implement
SPI based on process models and standards. (Baddoo
and Hall, 2002; Niazi et al., 2005).
In this sense, it is important that organizations
adopt approaches and strategies to facilitate the
implementation of SPI initiatives, since the lack of
adequate treatment and consequently the occurrence
of problems is something that leads to the failure
a
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3408-8640
b
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8929-5145
experienced in the improvement initiatives.
According to Cook (2012), many companies have
used game strategies to motivate and engage the
employee, not only in productivity and fun, which
inevitably improves the work environment, but also
to encourage innovation and development of their
tasks.
Thus, the use of gamification elements can
contribute to the definition of mechanisms to
stimulate people's motivation and commitment to join
and effectively participate in SPI initiatives.
Gamification corresponds to the use of game
mechanisms with the aim of solving practical
problems or awakening the engagement of a specific
audience and, above all, speeding up learning or
training processes, making tedious or repetitive tasks
more pleasant (Vianna et al., 2014). Thus, the
objective of this work is to analyze the results
obtained in a Case Study from the application of a
dynamic with gamification elements in an SPI
context.
For Chou (2016), the game elements are factors
capable of driving the participant's behavior
differently, where some strategies stimulate from
506
Soares, E. and Oliveira, S.
Application of a Gamification to Solve Problems of Software Process Improvement in the Educational Context: A Case Study.
DOI: 10.5220/0011062300003182
In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2022) - Volume 2, pages 506-514
ISBN: 978-989-758-562-3; ISSN: 2184-5026
Copyright
c
2022 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
inspiration and training and others from obsession
and manipulation. These elements are organized into
the eight Core Drivers of the Octalysis Framework.
Core Drives represent basic and fundamental factors
in games that provide the motivation to perform a
variety of activities and discussions.
In (Soares and Oliveira, 2020b), a correlation of
the gamification elements proposed in the Octalysis
Framework (Chou, 2016) to the SPI problems was
performed, where for each problem one or more
elements were identified with the justifications for
applying the elements to minimize or treat SPI
problems.
The SPI problems were obtained in (Soares and
Oliveira, 2020a) from the research carried out from
two perspectives: analyzes carried out in the literature
and another from the analysis of results obtained with
the application of a survey. In total, twenty problems
were identified.
The literature review allowed us to identify
problems and difficulties existing in the literature that
occur during the implementation of SPI, in the result
of this review eight recurring problems were
evidenced, as follows: a) Change of culture in the
organization, b) Lack of knowledge of software
engineering, c) Lack of understanding of the
responsibilities of those involved, d) Lack of support
tools, e) Lack of / little commitment from top
management, f) Little support from employees, g)
Rotation of the personnel involved and h) Lack of /
little qualified human resources.
In the application of the survey, it was possible to
obtain information on the impact (occurrence) that the
problems detected in the review caused, in the
perception of the participants, according to their
experience in SPI, and also contributed to the
obtaining of new existing problems as reported by the
respondents.
In total, twelve new recurring problems were
identified, as follows: a) Lack of government
incentives, b) Focus on certification instead of
focusing on improvement, c) Reduction in consulting
hours as a way to reduce costs, d) Lack of knowledge
of the importance of models by the market, e)
Different interpretations in relation to the models, f)
Lack of / few projects to validate an improvement
program, g) Lack of consistent project portfolio
planning, h) Lack of consistent planning by the top
management of the organization, i) Bureaucracy in
improvement programs, j) Lack of flexibility in the
models, k) Lack of / little knowledge of the models
by employees, l) Continuity of team engagement in
the defined process.
From the relationship of the gamification
elements to the problems, isolated solutions were
elaborated using the elements to deal with each
specific problem (Soares and Oliveira, 2021a). The
defined solutions made it possible to define a
dynamic that integrates all the gamified elements,
with the necessary procedures, methods and
materials, in relation to the problems (Soares and
Oliveira, 2021b).
Therefore, in this work, the results obtained from
the application of the dynamics are analyzed, to the
problems or difficulties of SPI, in a case study, in
order to verify if the use of the dynamics promoted
the learning, engagement and organizational
development necessary to reach the results of the
improvement.
In addition to this introductory section, this paper
is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the
research methodology, Section 3 presents the case
study report, and Section 4 presents the conclusions
and future works.
2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The methodology chosen for this work consists of a
Case Study. Yin (2015) states that the case study is
the verification of a phenomenon based on
experience, comprising a method of data collection
and analysis, where the data used are obtained
through documents, surveys, interviews, which, when
analyzed, show evidence and results obtained.
The choice of the case study was based on the
studies and definition of Gressler (2003), which
reinforces that the case study is often used in
exploratory research in new areas or to describe a
process or effects of an intervention, or to explain a
complex phenomenon. The study consolidated the
analysis of the use of gamification elements to
address improvement problems in the context of the
SPIDER (Software Process Improvement:
DEvelopment and Research) Laboratory in Brazil.
As for the approach, this research is characterized
as qualitative, since the analyzed data are not
numerical and aim to produce information instead of
quantifying its results (Gerhardt and Silveira, 2009).
In this type of research, the concern is to obtain
information from the point of view of individuals and
the interpretation of the environment in which they
work, which is the research environment.
With regard to the objectives, this research is
configured as exploratory and descriptive, because,
according to Marconi and Lakatos (2003), the
combination of exploratory and descriptive studies
Application of a Gamification to Solve Problems of Software Process Improvement in the Educational Context: A Case Study
507
aims to present, in its entirety, a certain event, so that
the information gathering is carried out with flexible
procedures and involves empirical and theoretical
analyses.
3 CASE STUDY REPORT
In this section, the results obtained from the
application of SPI dynamics in a case study in the
SPIDER Laboratory are presented.
3.1 Planning
To carry out the dynamics of SPI, the Laboratory
belonging to the SPIDER group, institutionalized
since 2009 at the Institute of Exact and Natural
Sciences of UFPA (Federal University of Pará) was
selected.
The group is made up of professors / researchers
from UFPA (Federal University of Pará), UFPE
(Federal University of Pernambuco), UFLA (Federal
University of Lavras) and UNIFAP (Federal
University of Amapá), master's and doctoral students
/ researchers from the PPGCC (Computer Science
Graduate Program) and FACOMP (Computer
Science College) graduation from UFPA, who work
in the Software Engineering (ES) and Education
research line, where 7 collaborators from this group
participated in the dynamic postgraduate training.
This number of employees underpins the group as a
small profile, which, according to Rouiller (2017), is
commonly represented when they have 2 to 25
employees and represent enterprises that are
normally, but not restricted to, in the early stages of
the business, demanding urgency for its own survival.
The team acts as a source of creation and
development of projects focused on software,
presenting viable alternatives in relation to software
tools to help the implementation of models (MPS.BR
– Brazilian Software Process Improvement, CMMI –
Capability Maturity Model Integration, MOSE
Model Guiding for Business Success, among others)
in organizations.
Although the group has existed for more than 10
years, it is possible to identify several problems that
occur on a daily basis, among them we can highlight
the following: a) Wear with customers due to the
absence of clear agreements in relation to the goods
and services that are provided, b) Loss of customers,
c) Difficulties in understanding the market (or
segment) in which it operates, d) Lack of clarity
regarding the goods and services that are provided by
the business unit (both internally and in relation to the
market and/or demander), e) Customers dissatisfied
due to lack of compliance (or lack of clarity) of
agreements, f) Lack of awareness of which goods and
/ or products should no longer be in the business unit's
portfolio, g) Lack of communication with the target
audience, h) Inefficient marketing, i) Lack of
knowledge of the availability of service at the
business unit, j) Lack of preparedness to handle
incidents that occur, including failure to handle
recurring incidents. The resolution of these problems
is supported by the implementation of the Customer
and Market dimension belonging to the MOSE®
(Model Guiding for Business Success) Competence.
The MOSE is composed of five competence
dimensions, Society and Sustainability, Human
Talent, Quality, Customer and Market and
Innovation, however the problems experienced in the
SPIDER Laboratory have support for resolution in the
Customer and Market competence dimension (CM),
since the dimension addresses issues related to the
structuring of the enterprise to be able to satisfactorily
serve its internal or external customers, the constant
analysis of the market (and / or environment) and the
impact of the goods and services generated in it
(Rouiller, 2017).
In this context, the initial need to deal with the
problems described above is highlighted, since they
are recurrent in the routine of the team in the
Laboratory, and the treatment of these problems is
something that MOSE itself points out as substantial
for a company that is starting or already has a few
years of experience in the market.
Given the above, this work aims to implement the
CM competence dimension in the SPIDER
Laboratory, considering the expected results in the 4
competence objectives of a small business unit. The
implementation of the CM dimension aims to provide
SPIDER with a range of improvements in its process,
in relation to the quality of the goods and / or services
provided, with the treatment or reduction of the
problems that occur.
As for the period of application of the dynamics,
it occurred in the interval between 06/24/2021 to
07/29/2021, on Thursdays, from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. The
meetings took place remotely by the Google Meet
tool and with the necessary adaptations to the remote
context, due to the restrictions imposed by the
COVID-19 pandemic, with the application of social
isolation measures.
The dynamics was conducted with the voluntary
participation of students / researchers who work in the
SPIDER Laboratory, considered as a small business
unit. Table 1 contains descriptions of the participants'
profile, as well as the code that will be used to
CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
508
designate each one of them during the presentation of
the results. There was also one participant, in addition
to the seven who accepted to participate, with the
attribution of a Judge, who observed dynamics,
checking if the others involved were carrying out the
activities, the Judge also filled in the score table
according to the evaluative items of the missions.
Table 1: Description of the participants’ profile.
Code Training Professional
Activity
Time of
Experience
in ES
H1 Maste
r
Technician 2 years
H2 Doctorate Technician 4 years
H3 Master Researcher 1 year e 6
months
H4 Doctorate Professor 10 years
H5 Doctorate Researche
r
4 years
H6 Doctorate Systems
Analyst
4 years
H7 Maste
r
Researche
r
5 years
3.2 Execution
First, there was an analysis in the context of the
SPIDER Laboratory in order to verify and delimit the
scope and problems experienced in the environment.
In this one, problems were observed that are
addressed in the Customer and Market dimension of
the MOSE improvement model for small
organizations, according to the justifications exposed
in Section 4.1.
Subsequently, the invitation was sent to the
participants, containing the information and the
purpose of the work. Upon acceptance, there was an
initial collection of the participant's profile, with
information on training, current professional activity
and time of experience in software engineering,
presented in Section 4.1.
Therefore, meetings were scheduled with the
group, using Google Calendar (a tool used to manage
the dates and times of the meetings necessary to carry
out the missions during the Gamification journey),
every Thursday, at 3 p.m. to 6 p.m., from 06/24/2021
to 07/29/2021, totaling six meetings, which were held
via Google Meet (tool selected to carry out the
necessary meetings to carry out the proposed
missions in the gamification scenario). It is important
to highlight that the number of meetings were
directed towards the implementation of a MOSE
competence dimension, related to Customer and
Market.
As for the materials needed to perform the
procedures of each mission, they were made available
as materials or as activities to participants in Google
Classroom (a tool used to centralize and manage
materials, deliverable during the dynamics). It is
noteworthy that the dynamics were initially built for
the context of face-to-face application, so they needed
to be adapted for remote use with the use of tools that
met the new reality for this first application, due to
the restrictions imposed on organizations in the face
of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Then, on 06/24/2021, the execution 1 of the
dynamic took place, in which the procedures
belonging to Mission 1 were applied. In it, the
procedures regarding internal exposure were adapted
for synchronous presentations on Google Meet, and
in materials available on Google Classroom
regarding: (i) the benefits and advantages of having a
SPI model adopted in the organization, (ii)
information related to institutional knowledge, (iii)
the organization's strategic objectives in relation to
the improvement model, and (iv) about the rules and
guidelines of the game to those involved.
The information exposed to those involved was
intended to raise awareness of the importance of
adopting the model, generate commitment in the
procedures necessary to achieve the expected results
for the improvement, as well as obtain suggestions for
digital marketing strategies to reach the external
public, and also opinions on what will be developed.
These suggestions were collected as an activity in
Google Classroom, using the Contribution Card.
In the execution of Mission 1, the participants had
to develop the activities created in Google Classroom
to assign a hero profile to another employee
(Personalization Card) and provide information
regarding their degree of previous experience (Hero
Experience Web Form). All these activities were
assigned a score and a stipulated time for delivery
before the execution of the next mission.
At the end, the room created to manage the
dynamics of SPI (Google Classroom) was consulted
to verify the deliveries made in Mission 1 by the
participants, there was also the collection of
information related to the presence and suggestion
noted by the Judge, which contributed to the
completion of the scores in the performance
worksheet (Google Worksheet, a tool used to make
available to those involved the scores obtained in the
actions carried out in the missions), the results
obtained in Mission 1 are presented to those involved
in Mission 5.
According to the map of secret processes, at the
end of each mission it is necessary to carry out
Mission 5, so on 07/01/2021 Mission 5 initially took
place with the presentation of the performance
information obtained by the heroes in Mission 1,
Application of a Gamification to Solve Problems of Software Process Improvement in the Educational Context: A Case Study
509
collected in the Performance Worksheet, and then
feedback was obtained from those involved regarding
the dynamics of actions established in Mission 1,
considering the ARCS Model (Attention, Relevance,
Confidence, Satisfaction) by Keller (2000) since the
four categories present in the model represent the
necessary conditions for a person to be motivated,
that is, each one represents an aspect of motivation.
Subsequently, the execution of Mission 2 took
place, initially passing on the instructions of the
procedures that would occur in this mission, and later
they were presented synchronously in Google Meet,
and in materials available in Google Classroom: (i)
the summarized experience data of those involved
obtained in the Web Form, (ii) the learning path they
will follow on the training mission, (iii) the Hero
Profile of each participant resulting from the
Personalization Card. Still in this first moment, the
suggestions proposed by those involved in the
Contribution Card were read, and these suggestions
were analyzed and selected together with those
involved in a brainstorm.
Later, still in Mission 2, the presentation of the
expected results of the implementation of the MOSE
improvement model took place, and there was also a
time dedicated to providing guidance to remove
doubts. After the presentation of the MOSE, those
involved were asked to previously define activities in
the Trello tool, in the form of a ticket, of possible
activities that, according to the knowledge obtained
from the presentation, would make it possible to
achieve the objectives expected by the model for the
Customer and Market dimension, as well as how to
point a possible priority to the ticket (High, Medium
or Low). It is noteworthy that this mission was not
fully developed on this second day of execution, as
the full definition of activities took place only with
the completion of the training provided to those
involved in Mission 3.
On the third day of execution (07/082021),
Mission 3 began, initially passing on the instructions
for the procedures that would occur in this mission.
Then there was the presentation of the Learning Path
with the guidelines of the context that would be dealt
with in the training. The training was then conducted
by the SPIDER Laboratory Coordinator, who has
extensive experience in the topics covered in the
training related to the practices of the CM dimension,
processes and tools.
Laboratory employees who participated in the
training were assigned a score on the Performance
Worksheet. Another way established for those
involved to score in this mission was the feedback at
the end of the training actions in the Beacon. It is
important to mention that the flag was adapted in the
remote structure to be performed in the Padlet tool (a
tool used to obtain feedback from those involved
from actions developed in the SPI dynamics).
With the completion of the training mission, it
was possible to complete the remaining steps to
complete Mission 2, so the participants finished
defining the activities in Trello, identifying in each
ticket created the CM objective that was being met,
that is, if it belonged to the 4 competence objectives,
and later, together they defined the priorities for each
activity. In the end, each employee had to include
himself in some ticket(s) to develop it in the next
mission, thus assuming responsibility for that
activity. In this mission, both the creation stage and
the definition of the priorities of the activities were
ways of providing points to those involved in the
performance spreadsheet.
The knowledge acquired in the training can be
monitored at the time of creating the activities in the
tool, as it was possible to verify the application of
what was passed in the training, in this case in theory
for practical application. This training progress was
evaluated on the Power Level Meter (a work product
that has the ability to measure the power level of each
hero according to actions taken in the mission).
With the completion of the Mission, it was
possible to prepare the material to develop Mission 5.
Thus, on 07/15/2021, Mission 5 was initially carried
out with the provision of the performance obtained by
the heroes in Mission 2 and in Mission 3 with the
presentation of information collected in the
Performance Worksheet (Google Worksheet).
Next, Mission 4 began, and the instructions for
the procedures that would take place in the mission
were initially presented. In this mission, those
involved developed tickets with the activities that
were agreed in Mission 2, and during the
development of the tickets they had access to the
special operations that were part of this mission,
described in (Soares and Oliveira, 2021b). This
mission required more time to develop because there
was a change in the time that was planned from just
one to two days, 07/15/2021 and 07/22/2021.
In Mission 4, participants used the Infinity
Gauntlet (glove-shaped work product) to collect the
Infinity Gems, according to the rules and deliveries of
the activities present in Trello, in the remote context
the gloves were made available to those involved in a
web page created in the Google Sites tool without any
jewelry, and when deliveries were made, the jewelry
was inserted into the gloves on the site. Employees
who experienced difficulties in any activity were able
to request help during meetings held on Google Meet
CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
510
via text chat (Chat), voice or video, or in the
Classroom under “Announce something to the class”.
To the participants who helped, there was the delivery
of jewelry to compose the Glove, but the delivery was
conditioned to the feedback of the help carried out in
the Flag (work product used by the heroes to evaluate
the actions that are carried out in their training and
help, that is, it allows for a feedback of actions taken)
in the Padlet tool, as only with positive feedback
would the jewel be granted to the employee who
provided the help. The employees who validated the
completed tickets were also provided with jewelry.
Regarding the recognition of the activities
performed, an activity was created in Google
Classroom for those involved to assign another
employee the Recognition Card for their performance
in the activities. The activities developed in this
mission were stipulated a time for delivery before the
execution of the next mission.
The last day of execution (07/29/2021) was
initially dedicated to the stages of recognition and
performance rewards to those involved in the
dynamics belonging to Mission 4. The recognition
cards were made available to those involved on a web
page in the Google sites tool and the rewards arranged
on App-Sorteos.com (it is a free online application to
make random draws in an easy and fun way). The
rewards occurred according to the performance
obtained by the heroes in Mission 4 with the
presentation of the information collected in the
Performance Worksheet (Google Worksheet)
exposed in Mission 5.
Finally, Mission 6 was carried SWOT analysis
out to obtain a clear and objective view of what are
the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and
Threats, in relation to the strategies established in the
SPI dynamics to those involved in the organizational
context.
3.3 Evaluation
In the applied dynamics, there were two moments
directed to the evaluation, which happened when
Missions 5 and 6 were executed. It is noteworthy that
mission 5 occurs in the dynamics in a transversal way,
being applicable throughout the Journey at the end of
missions 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mission 6 occurs when the
others have already been carried out, as it aims to
evaluate the dynamics as one all.
Therefore, in Mission 5 the 'Satisfaction Report -
ARCS Model' was used, with questions aimed at
evaluating the dynamics by those involved,
considering the motivational strategies proposed in
the ARCS model (Attention, Relevance, Confidence,
Satisfaction) by Keller (2000) since these four
categories represent the conditions necessary for a
person to be motivated, that is, each one represents an
aspect of motivation. A brief description of the
categories evaluated in the context of the study is
presented below:
Attention: aims to verify the interest,
stimulation and curiosity in the dynamics,
Relevance: aims to investigate whether the
dynamic used is relevant / important for the
Hero,
Confidence: this category aims to investigate
whether the methodology applied stimulated the
participants' self-confidence in relation to the
positive result of its application,
Satisfaction: used in order to verify the
participant's subjective feeling associated with
the sense of accomplishment of something, for
example, completing tasks, developing and
testing skills, achieving goals, among others.
It is noteworthy that the collection of opinions
from those involved regarding the dynamics of
established actions was carried out in a
Brainstorming, where the researcher used the report
as a script to guide the questions to the team.
In Mission 6 a qualitative analysis was carried in
a Brainstorming on Gamification in general in a
SWOT analysis (Strengths-Weakness-Opportunities-
Threats). For Silva et al. (2011), this analysis is
extremely important in the organization, because
through this tool employees have a clear and
objective view of their strengths and weaknesses in
the internal and external environment of the
company. In this study, the SWOT matrix was used
to understand the main factors that affect the results
regarding the application of dynamics.
It is noteworthy that the questions asked to those
involved did not occur in a mandatory way, that is,
the participants could or could not report the
experiences lived in the dynamics. This release
occurred during the moments dedicated to evaluation,
and was perceived as a negative point, as some did
not provide feedback. It is important to note that a
nomenclature was assigned to those involved (H1,
H2…, according to Table 2) in the dynamics, in order
to guarantee the anonymity of the responses.
Thus, in the existing evaluation in Mission 5,
considering the Attention category of ARCS, the
participants reported that the strategies adopted
aroused attention to remain motivated in learning and
performing the necessary activities. In this sense,
participant H4 highlighted that: “I found the theme
used in the scenario of heroes very interesting,
because it is something that many know and follow,
Application of a Gamification to Solve Problems of Software Process Improvement in the Educational Context: A Case Study
511
being something that helps to hold attention and
motivation in those involved.”
As for the Relevance category of the ARCS
model, the participants reported that the strategies
adopted in relation to guidelines and information
passed on are relevant / important for those involved
and carried out the implementation of the
improvements expected by the model. In this sense,
participant H7 highlighted that: “Everything that has
been presented so far proved to be relevant regarding
the strategies that are being adopted in the
construction of the process, to achieve the expected
results with the improvement of the process.”
Regarding the Confidence category of the ARCS
model, the participants reported that the strategies
adopted stimulated self-confidence, because with the
participation and performance of the activities, they
could feel confident that they were learning and
applying the acquired knowledge necessary to achieve
improvement. In this sense, participant H5 highlighted
that: “I believe that the organization of the dynamics
was essential to help with motivation, as it made it
possible for the participants to believe that they are
capable of developing the proposed activities,
advancing and controlling their own success in the
demands.”
As for the Satisfaction category of the ARCS
model, the participants reported that the strategies
adopted in relation to the activities developed and
feedback from these activities generated a satisfaction
of accomplishment when completing the necessary
demands, where the context of development and
deliveries ends up being a driving factor of
satisfaction, to influence participants to achieve their
pre-defined goals when carrying out an activity. In
this sense, participant H3 highlighted that: “The
strategies present in the dynamics help maintain
concentration and encourage the development and
deliveries necessary to implement the improvement.
Therefore, I am pleased to carry out the dynamics
that are being proposed, and especially to obtain
feedback on the activities performed.”
As for the results obtained in Mission 6, in the
SWOT analysis based on the feedback from the
participants, some aspects were highlighted:
Strengths:
- The applied dynamics allowed those involved to
choose the activities they wanted to develop,
appropriate to their profile or knowledge, it was a
very good strategy, and should be maintained,
- The moments of training and orientation were
very advantageous, as it contributed to the knowledge
needed to implement the model improvements and
understanding of the tools that would be used,
- The narrative in which the implementation in the
context of heroes was developed instilled motivation
and engagement in the participants,
- The dynamics aroused a lot of interaction and
teamwork, there were moments of contributions to
what was developed, everyone participated a lot and
this was provided due to the way in which the
dynamics was structured and applied.
Opportunities:
- Take advantage of the strategy initially applied
in the dynamics in which there is a hero role
attribution among the participants, and perform a new
hero role attribution at the end of the application in
order to compare if there were changes in their acting
and performance in the dynamics considering the
perspective of the team,
- Use evolutionary avatars in the dynamics,
because as the employee develops activities and
performs well, he manages to increase his avatar,
which can generate more motivation and engagement
in his performance in the approach,
- The presentations made initially in the dynamic
had a lot of information, which prolonged the transfer
of information, thinking of a strategy to minimize the
presentation time and the initial transfer of
information.
Weaknesses:
- Extensive content can make learning tiring and
end up affecting the motivation of those involved,
- The rules of the activities must be clearer so that
the practical part can be carried out, therefore, it is
important to establish the rules in the initial
presentations of the missions that will be developed.
Threats:
- The organizational context where the dynamics
are applied can be a threat, as there may be
organizational scenarios in which there is not the
same commitment to implement the improvement,
that is, there may be resistance from people,
- Freedom to choose and develop tasks can be a
threat, as not all employees have the same motivation
and commitment to participate and develop activities.
3.4 Discussion
In the results obtained in the evaluation, it was
possible to verify that the strategies of use of the
gamified elements present in the dynamics of SPI
instigated the interest of those involved in effectively
participating in the implementation of improvement.
This was noticeable in the feedback from the
participants who highlighted the motivation and
engagement provided by the established strategies,
CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
512
resulting in the acquired knowledge, which enabled
greater productivity and interaction between them.
In general, it was found that gamification
transformed the work environment, generating
greater engagement, quality and efficiency. In
addition, it brought a lighter environment, making
learning and activities more dynamic and attractive.
However, it was also pointed out the need for
adjustments and improvements in some strategies to
improve the participants' perception and
performance, which contribute to achieving the
expected results in the context of SPI.
Therefore, it is concluded that gamification is an
effective instrument to promote the engagement
necessary to achieve the intended results of the
improvement, since those involved were able to
perform the activities to obtain the desired result,
motivated and aware of the importance and benefits
that the implementation of SPI promotes to the
organization.
However, the context of the application must be
analyzed, so that it is in line with the environment in
which it will be implemented and with the profile of
people who will be the target audience. Such
consonance is important for the successful
application of dynamics.
4 CONCLUSION
This study presented a report on the use of dynamics
with gamification elements in an SPI context related
to the treatment of problems or difficulties
experienced in improvement initiatives, in order to
verify if the use of dynamics promotes the
organizational learning, engagement and
development needs to achieve the expected results.
From the analysis of the results obtained from the
application, it was possible to list suggestions for
improvements and positive points of those involved
in the case study. The collected recommendations can
help in later applications of the dynamics.
A limitation of this work is related to the forms
of acceptance and participation of those involved in
the dynamics, since the motivation and engagement
expected by the strategies can generate different
feelings in each participant, some may feel more
stimulated to work in the context of SPI with elements
of gamification, while others may have a lower
stimulus to act in their activities or even not.
As future work, we intend to replicate the case
study in a small organization in order to compare the
results obtained in the applications. And then apply
and analyze the results in medium or large
organizations to validate the effectiveness of the
dynamics in a scenario with more participants.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Coordination for
the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel
(CAPES) in Brazil for the financial support for
granting an institutional PhD scholarship.
REFERENCES
Baddoo, N., Hall, T. (2002). Motivators of Software Pro-
cess Improvement: an analysis of practitioners’ views.
The Journal of Systems and Software, 62, 2.
Chou, Y. (2016). Actionable Gamification - Beyond Points,
Badges, and Leaderboards. Octalysis Media.
Cook, W. (2012). Five Reasons Why You Can’t Ignore
GAMIFICATION. MWorld, v. 11, n.3, p. 42-44,
Fall2012. ISSN 15402991.
Gerhardt, T., Silveira, D. (2009). Research Methods -
handout. Rio Grande Do Sul: Universidade Federal do
Rio Grande do Sul. p. 120.
Gibson, D. L., Goldenson, D. R., Kost, K. (2006). Perfor-
mance Results of CMMI-Based Process Improvement.
CMU/SEI-2006-TR-004, Software Engineering Insti-
tute, Carnegie Mellon.
Gressler, L. A. (2003). Introduction to research. São Paulo,
Edições Loyola, p. 295.
Keller, J. M. (2000). How to integrate learner motivation
planning into lesson planning: The ARCS model ap-
proach. VII Semanario, Santiago, Cuba, February.
Marconi, M. A., Lakatos, E. M. (2003). Fundamentals of
Scientific Methodology. São Paulo: Atlas, p. 310.
Niazi, M., Wilson, D., Zowghi, D. (2005). A maturity
model for the implementation of software process im-
provement: An empirical study. Journal of Systems and
Software, v. 74, n. 2 SPEC ISS, pp. 155-172.
Rouiller, A. C. (2017). MOSE®: Competency Base. Recife:
Pé Livre, Brazil.
Shih, C. C., Huang, S. J. (2010). Exploring the relationship
between organizational culture and software process
improvement deployment. Information &
Management, vol. 47, pp. 271-281.
Silva, A. A., Silva, N. S., Barbosa, V. A., Henrique, M. R.,
Baptista, J. A. (2011). The Use of the SWOT Matrix as
a Strategic Tool - a Case Study in a Language School in
São Paulo. In: Simpósio de excelência em janeiro, Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil.
Soares, E. M., Oliveira, S. R. B. (2020a). An Analysis of
Problems in the Implementation of Software Process
Improvement: a Literature Review and Survey. In: 17th
CONTECSI, Brazil.
Soares, E. M., Oliveira, S. R. B. (2020b). A Solution Pro-
posal for Software Process Improvement Problems
Application of a Gamification to Solve Problems of Software Process Improvement in the Educational Context: A Case Study
513
from the Use of Gamification. In: 17th CONTECSI,
Brazil.
Soares, E. M., Oliveira, S. R. B. (2021a). Problem in SPI:
An Analysis of Gamification Elements for a Proposed
Resolution. In: 16th ICSOFT, Brazil.
Soares, E. M., Oliveira, S. R. B. (2021b). Application of
Gamification Elements to Solve Problems of Software
Process Improvement in the Context of Teaching and
Learning. In: XX SBGames, Brazil.
Staples, M., Niazi, M., Jeffery, R., Abrahams, A., Byatt, P.,
Murphy, R. (2007). An exploratory study of why organ-
izations do not adopt CMMI. Journal of Systems and
Software, v. 80, n. 6, pp. 883-895.
Travassos, G. H., Kalinowski, M. (2009). iMPS 2009: char-
acterization and performance variation of organiza-
tions that adopted the MPS model. SOFTEX,
Campinas, SP.
Vianna, Y., Vianna, M., Medina, B., Tanaka, S. (2014).
Gamification, Inc.: How to reinvent companies from
games? MJV Press: Rio de Janeiro.
Yin. R. K. (2005). Case study: planning and methods. 3 ed.
Porto Alegre: Bookman.
CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
514